Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Area Dev. Corp. v. Free State Plaza
Citations: 254 A.2d 355; 254 Md. 269; 1969 Md. LEXIS 869Docket: [No. 315, September Term, 1968.]
Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland; June 25, 1969; Maryland; State Supreme Court
In the case of Area Development Corporation (ADC) v. Free State Plaza, Inc., the Maryland Court of Appeals addressed a dispute arising from ADC's lease agreement with the City of Bowie regarding a water supply and sewage system. ADC, created by Levitt and Sons for this purpose, had an agreement with Bowie that prohibited Bowie from extending the system without ADC's consent, specifically for areas outside the original city boundaries prior to the annexation of the Belair development. In 1967, Free State Plaza acquired a subleasehold for a parcel in Bowie and sought to connect to ADC's system for its shopping center. ADC refused unless Free State covered all related costs, leading Free State to file suit for a summary judgment to declare Article 9C of the lease void as against public policy. The trial court agreed, ruling that Article 9C was illegal and not binding on Bowie. Following the trial court's decision, ADC appealed, but by May 1969, Free State indicated it would not file a brief or argue the case as it had reached a settlement with ADC regarding the connection. Bowie, initially neutral, later supported the trial court's ruling that Article 9C was invalid. Ultimately, the Court found the controversy moot due to the settlement and dismissed ADC's appeal. In Lloyd v. Board of Supervisors of Election of Baltimore County, 206 Md. 36, 43, the court emphasized that deviation from the general practice of not adjudicating moot cases is only warranted when there is a compelling need to establish a rule of future conduct on matters of significant public concern. Such a situation arises if the public interest is likely to be adversely affected by inaction, if the issue is expected to recur frequently, and if previous barriers to timely decisions are likely to persist. In the current case, none of the conditions justifying a ruling on a moot issue were present. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, vacated the lower judgment, and remanded the case for dismissal by the Circuit Court as moot, with costs assigned to the City of Bowie.