3060

VETOES

Senate Bill 680 amends Section 19(b)(2)(B) of Article
81 providing, in pertinent part, that:

"A lien shall arise in land which has been assessed on
the basis of agricultural use assessment ... on a date
which is the earlier of the date of finality when the
land is assessed on the basis of full value following a
prior assessment on the basis of agricultural use; or
the date on which the owner or other person having a
property interest in the land is issued a building
permit to commence or engage in the construction of
improvements for nonagricultural use ...; or the date
on which the owner or other person having a property
interest in the land records any plot. The lien shall
arise by operation of law...."

The Supreme Court has held that a fundamental
requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be
accorded finality is a hearing "at some time before a person
is finally deprived of his property interest." Wolf v.
McDonnel, 418 U.S. 539, 557-558 (1974). In Barry Properties

v. Fick Brothers, 277 Md. 15 (1976), the Maryland Court of

Appeals held portions of the Maryland mechanic's lien law
unconstitutional. Striking down that portion of the law
which created a lien from the time work was performed or
materials furnished, the Court ruled this amounted to a
deprivation of a significant property interest without
notice or a prior hearing and was, therefore,
unconstitutional.

Senate Bill 680 provides that a lien shall arise on the
earlier of three possible dates when the land use is
characterized as nonagricultural. These are: (1) the date
of finality when the land is assessed on the basis of full
value; (2) the date on which a building permit is issued, or
(3) the date on which any plat is recorded. Since the lien
arises on one of these dates "by operation of law" and the
bill fails to provide the owner with an opportunity to be
heard before the lien arises, we believe that the ruling in
Barry Properties compels the conclusion that this amounts to
an unconstitutional denial of due process of law.

In so concluding, we are mindful of Section 29(a) of
Article 81 which provides that before land is assessed the
person against whom the assessment is proposed shall be
given notice and an opportunity to present his side of the
case. It is arguable that this provision might save a lien
which would arise under House bill 680 as of the date of
finality when the land is assessed for full value.] It
would not, however, impact those instances under the bill
where a lien would arise on the date a building permit is
issued or a plat recorded as there is no new assessment and,
hence, no opportunity whatsoever to obtain a hearing before
the creation of the lien. Indeed, and most significantly.