George Underwood and Carl Breeden paid $6,000 to an individual who had purchased property at a tax sale and acquired the tax sale purchaser’s right to redeem approximately 17 acres of land in Hughesville, Maryland.  They foreclosed the equity of redemption and acquired the property by deed from Charles County, Maryland.

They were aware that the property contained a scrap tire pile with an estimated 720,000 tires.  Soon after acquiring the property, Underwood and Breeden received a letter from the Maryland Department of the Environment (“MDE”) advising them that, as owner, they were responsible for removing the improperly stored scrap tires, and that if they failed to remove the tires, the State would conduct the cleanup and they would be responsible for all costs associated with the cleanup.

Eventually, Underwood and Breeden granted MDE access to the property for the purpose of removing the scrap tires.  MDE hired Maryland Environmental Service to remove the scrap tires.  The cost of removal was $1,004,453. MDE sought reimbursement from the property owners, who refused to reimburse MDE.

MDE filed suit in the Circuit Court for Charles County seeking recovery of money expended to cleanup and remediate the scrap tire pile, pursuant to Environmental Article, Maryland Code, Environmental Article,  §9-276, which reads, in part, as follows:

“[all expenditures] shall be reimbursed to the Department for the State Used Tire Cleanup and Recycling Fund by the owner or operator of the site or any other person who caused the tires to be stored or disposed of at the site in violation of this subtitle.” (Emphasis added)

 Finding that there was no dispute of fact and that MDE was entitled to partial summary judgment on the issue of liability as a matter of law, the Circuit Court held that the statute imposed strict liability on Underwood and Breeden.  The Circuit Court rejected the argument that an “owner” could not be held responsible unless the owner had caused the tires to be stored or disposed of at the site. 

 Thereafter, a trial was held to determine the reimbursable costs.  The Circuit Court denied the owners’ request for a jury trial, and assessed damages against them in the amount of $1,015,299.72.

 Following an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals, the Court of Appeals of Maryland granted MDE’s petition for certiorari.

 The Court of Appeals held: (i) that by its plain and unambiguous language, §9-276 imposed strict liability on the property owners for the reimbursement of costs for the removal of the scrap tire pile regardless of the fact that they did not place or store the tires on the property, and (ii) that the owners were not entitled to assert equitable defenses.  Accordingly, the Circuit Court’s granting of the motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability was affirmed.  However, the Court of Appeals did agree with the owners that they were entitled to a jury trial on the issue of the amount of reimbursement.  The case was remanded to the Circuit Court for a jury trial on the amount of the damages.

 Maryland Dep’t of the Environment v. Underwood, et al., No. 48 September Term, 2001 (decided March 5, 2002)

[Return to Real Estate Update]