To be valid, a Development Rights and Responsibilities Agreement (DRRA) is not required to confer an enhanced public benefit on a county. After a DRRA was approved and recorded, Cleanwater Linganore, Inc. and other individuals and entities (collectively, Cleanwater) filed a petition for judicial review, challenging the validity of the DRRA, arguing that the DRRA was void for lack of consideration because Petitioners had failed to prove any “enhanced public benefits” as consideration. The circuit court affirmed the Frederick County Board of County Commissioner’s approval of the DRRA. The court of special appeals reversed, concluding that the DRRA was void for lack of consideration because it lacked any enhanced public benefits to Frederick County. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the DRRA was not required to confer any enhanced public benefit to the County and was supported by sufficient consideration. View "Lillian C. Blentlinger, LLC v. Cleanwater Linganore, Inc." on Justia Law
The City of Baltimore contracted with Engineer to design upgrades to a wastewater treatment plant. Contractor successfully bid for work on the construction project. During construction, Contractor encountered leaking and other problems, resulting in delays and cost overruns. Contractor subsequently filed a complaint against Engineer, arguing that Engineer owed it a tort duty of care because Engineer knew that Contractor would rely on its designs in bidding and constructing the project. The circuit court granted Engineer’s motion to dismiss due to lack of privity between Contractor and Engineer. The court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the economic loss doctrine barred Contractor’s negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims; and (2) privity equivalent concepts of extra-contractual duty did not apply in Contractor’s case. View "Balfour Beatty Infrastructure, Inc. v. Rummel Klepper & Kahl, LLP" on Justia Law
Beka Industries, Inc. ("BEKA") sued the Board of Education of Worcester County ("County Board") alleging claims that arose from a written contract dispute between BEKA and the County Board when BEKA was dissatisfied with the methods and amounts of the County Board's payment for its work. The court considered several issues on appeal and held that a new trial was warranted where the County Board was precluded from presenting evidence on its recoupment claim and BEKA may have been awarded impermissible "delay damages" under the contract. The court also reversed the intermediate appellate court's holding that the County Board's governmental immunity was not waived unless and until BEKA proved that there was a funding mechanism to satisfy a judgment for money damages rendered against the County Board. Accordingly, court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case to the intermediate appellate court with direction to remand to the circuit court for a new trial.