Court of Appeals of Maryland Clarifies Retroactivity in Real Property Appeal
On April 20, 2018, the Court of Appeals of Maryland handed down its opinion in Estate of Zimmerman v. Blatter, a lawsuit over six acres of farmland in Frederick County. The owner of that farmland, as far as anyone can tell, has been dead for more than 100 years and both of his neighbors want the property. The neighbors sued each other over the land, but forgot to sue the owner. While the parties were duking it out in the appellate courts, the legislature changed the procedure for cases where a property owner is long-gone. After four years of litigation and appeals, the Court of Appeals had to decide whether, when the case is sent back to the trial court, the trial court should use the old procedure or the new procedure.
As it turns out, the question of which procedure to apply in a pending action is a complicated one. It turns on two important factors: (a) whether the legislature clearly intended to apply the new procedure to pending actions and (b) whether the statute really is purely procedural. Basically, “ statutes are presumed to operate prospectively[, not retroactively,] unless a contrary intent appears” and “ a statute governing procedure or remedy will be applied to cases pending in court when the statute becomes effective.” The new laws governing property actions with long-dead owners were deemed “remedial” by the Court of Appeals, so they affect all pending litigation, including cases being appealed.
There are three important takeaways from Zimmerman. First, this litigation over six acres of land has lasted for four years, and will go on longer after the Court of Appeals opinion, in part because of mistakes made at the very beginning of the case. Real property litigation is arcane and complicated, and there are plenty of pitfalls for the unwary. Second, even though property law tends to be old and draconian, the legislature is active in this area, and the law can change year-to-year. Especially where legislation can affect pending cases, it can be important to keep an eye on Annapolis. Third, appeals can change on the fly. Mr. Zimmerman’s estate was forced to argue a different issue in the Court of Appeals than it did in the Court of Special Appeals. In a changing environment, even appellate lawyers must be adaptable.
Baltimore City residents may know that the years-old construction pit at the corner of Charles and Baltimore has become a monument to protracted litigation. The parcel at issue in Zimmerman is another such monument, one that may date back to 1857. Seeing it, though, will require more of a field trip.
Joe Dudek is an attorney licensed in Maryland and New York who focuses on civil and appellate litigation. More information is available here:
