Montgomery County v. Soleimanzadeh
82 A. 3d 187, 436 Md. 377 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The constitutional right to have a jury determine just compensation in an eminent domain proceeding is an opportunity that can be forfeited through the landowner's failure to comply with procedural rules. Consequently, a court may grant summary judgment on the issue of just compensation if sanctions for discovery violations preclude the landowner from producing any evidence of value, thereby eliminating any genuine dispute of material fact.
Facts:
- In 2007, Montgomery County initiated a road improvement project requiring the taking of private property.
- The County took a portion of a property owned collectively by Khana and Joseph Soleimanzadeh and a portion of another property owned solely by Joseph Soleimanzadeh.
- The County took possession of the properties pursuant to an 'Advance Take Action' before compensation was determined.
- Following the taking, Montgomery County and the Soleimanzadehs were unable to agree on the amount of just compensation to be paid for the properties.
Procedural Posture:
- Montgomery County filed Complaints for Condemnation against the Soleimanzadehs in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County (a trial court).
- The County served written discovery requests, which the Soleimanzadehs failed to answer even after receiving an extension.
- The County filed a Motion to Compel and/or for Sanctions, which the Circuit Court granted, ordering the Soleimanzadehs to respond within ten days or be precluded from introducing any evidence supporting their claims for just compensation.
- The Soleimanzadehs did not comply with the order, triggering the sanctions.
- The County then filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of just compensation.
- The Circuit Court granted the County's motion, awarding the Soleimanzadehs compensation based on the County’s uncontested appraisal.
- The Soleimanzadehs, as appellants, appealed to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Special Appeals reversed, holding that summary judgment is unavailable on the issue of just compensation in condemnation proceedings.
- Montgomery County, as petitioner, successfully petitioned the Court of Appeals of Maryland (the state's highest court) for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Maryland Constitution's guarantee of a jury determination for just compensation in eminent domain proceedings preclude a trial court from granting summary judgment on that issue when the landowner is sanctioned for discovery violations and thus unable to produce evidence of the property's value?
Opinions:
Majority - Harrell, J.
No. The Maryland Constitution provides landowners with the opportunity to have a jury award just compensation, but this right is not absolute and is subject to the Maryland Rules of Civil Procedure. Where a landowner fails to comply with procedural rules, such as discovery, and is sanctioned in a way that prevents them from producing evidence to dispute the condemnor's valuation, no genuine issue of material fact remains for a jury to decide. In such cases, the right to a jury trial is foregone, and summary judgment is an appropriate mechanism for the court to determine just compensation as a matter of law based on the uncontroverted evidence presented by the condemnor.
Dissenting - McDonald, J.
Yes. The Maryland Constitution's provision that just compensation be 'awarded by a Jury' makes the jury the 'sole tribunal' for this determination, creating an exception to general civil procedure rules like summary judgment. Granting summary judgment allows a judge to determine compensation, which directly contravenes this specific constitutional guarantee. Even without their own affirmative evidence, the landowners retained the right to challenge the County's valuation through cross-examination of its expert, which could have been sufficient to create a factual issue for the jury to resolve.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that the constitutional right to a jury trial in eminent domain cases is not a shield against procedural obligations. It clarifies that this right, while fundamental, can be forfeited through a party's own litigation misconduct, such as failing to comply with discovery. The ruling aligns condemnation proceedings more closely with other civil actions by confirming the availability of summary judgment, even on the core issue of just compensation. Future litigants in eminent domain cases are now on notice that failure to participate properly in discovery can lead to the ultimate sanction of losing their day in court before a jury.
Unlock the full brief for Montgomery County v. Soleimanzadeh