Bollech v. Charles County, Maryland
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
69 Fed. Appx. 178 (2003)
- Written by Tanya Munson, JD
Facts
John Bollech, Kenneth Haapala, Daniel Meisinger, and Dennis Winson (the trustees) (plaintiffs) owned land, known as Potomac Cliffs, as trustees. The trustees planned to develop residential units, and in 1989, they entered into a development agreement with Charles County (the county) (defendant) and Clifton Potomac Associated Ltd. Partnerships I-X (Clifton). Clifton owned land called Newburg Station. The purpose of the development agreement was to assure the timely and orderly provision of water and sanitary sewer facilities to support the proposed residential development on Potomac Cliffs and Newburg Station land. Under the development agreement, the trustees and Clifton were allowed to develop residential units in prescribed stages if they also constructed adequate public sewer and water facilities by a specified date in 1994. The trustees did not develop Potomac Cliffs or ensure the development of the sewer and water facilities. In 1999, the trustees submitted an application for a preliminary plan for development to the county. Amendments to the local zoning regulation prevented the county from approving the application, so the county refused to accept the trustees’ application. The trustees claimed that the development agreement enabled them to develop the residential units on their land regardless of changes in county land-use regulations. In response, the county claimed that it was no longer obligated under the development agreement to approve development applications from the trustees for building permits. The trustees brought suit in district court against the county for impairment of the obligation of contract in violation of the Contracts Clause and breach of contract. The trustees and the county moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the county’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the development agreement no longer imposed an obligation on the county because the trustees did not ensure the provision of adequate water and sewer facilities within the period required by the development agreement. The trustees appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.