- r :-

iN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND

*
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
101 Monroe Street *
*
Rockville, Maryland 20850
*
*
Plaintiff

v. *
Civil Action No. LI LN (p31 ‘j
*
DAVID BECKWITT
*
9642 Burke Lake Road, Apt. 215
Burke, Virginia 22015
*
*
and

1)ANIEL BECKWITT
5212 Danbury Road
*
* 9 EC E IVE D
*
Bethesda, Maryland 20814
MAR 232018
*
Defendants C’erk of the Circuit Court
Montgomery County, Md.

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Montgomery County, Maryland, by and through its undersigned attorneys, sues

Defendants, L)avid Bcckwitt and I)aniel Bcckwiff (collectively, the “Defendants”), and as

grounds therefore, states, claims, and alleges as follows:

TIlE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff, Montgomery County, Maryland (the “County”), a political subdivision

of the State of Maryland, is a body corporate and politic with a charter form of government

established pursuant to the provisions of Article XI-A of the Constitution of Maryland.

2. Defendant David Beckwitt is the owner of a residential property located at 5212

Danbury Road, Bethesda, Maryland 20814 (the “Property”).

3. At all pertinent times, 1)cfendant Daniel Beckwitt was Defendant David

Heckwitt’s agent or the icrson in control of the Property or both.

 .1

FACTS COMMOr TO ALL COUNTS

4. In September 2017, Montgomery County emergency responders responded to a

fire at the Property. Emergency responders entered the Property to extinguish the fire, rescue

any occupants, and conduct an investigation into the causes of the fire.

5. After entering the Property, emergency responders encountered a deceased victim

of the fire, hoarding conditions, and hazardous materials in, on, and about the Property. In

addition, emergency responders discovered a network of unsupported- and unauthorized-tunnels,-—

excavations, and cavities under the residential building on the Property.

6. Defendant Daniel Beckwiff, individually or by and through other persons, at his

direction or under his control or both:

(a) created the hoarding conditions on the Property and in the tunnels,

excavations, and cavities under the residential building;

(b) stored and made use of hazardous materials on the Property and in the tunnels,

excavations, and cavities under the residential building; and

(c) created the tunnels, excavations, and cavities under the residential building on

the Property.

7. Due to the severe conditions on the Property, the Department of Housing and

Community Affairs (“DHCA”) conducted an investigation and determined that the residential

structure on the Property was unfit for human habitation and a public nuisance, among others.

An Emergency field Notice, which condemned the residential building and prohibited it from

being occupied, was posted on the Property on October 2, 2017, and DHCA issued two (2)

orders, one dated October 4, 2017 and the other dated October 23, 2017 (the “DFICA Orders”).

8. The DHCA Orders condemned the residential building on the Property and
 L F. _1

ordered the repair or removal of the condemned residential structure by December 8, 2017. The

orders were served upon Defendants David Beckwiti and Daniel Beckwitt (collectively, the

“l)efcndants”) by posting on the Property on October 4, 2017 and October 23, 2017,

respectively.

9. Dcfbndants did not respond to the DHCA Orders and did not contact the manager

of DHCA’s Division of Housing and Code Hnforccmcnt as directed.

10. During its fire investigation, the Montgomery County Fireand RcscueService—

determined that the network of unsupported and unauthorized tunnels, excavations, and cavities

were unsafe confmed spaces, fenced the Property and secured the entry to the tunnels.

11. By order dated December 6, 2017, the Department of Permitting Services

(“DPS”) deemed the Property, including the residential building and its unsupported and

unauthorized tunnels, excavations, and cavities, to be unsafe, and required Defendants to

undertake corrective actions pursuant to) an order that was posted on the Property andsent to

Defendants by certifled mail (the “I)P$ Order”).

12. l)clèndants did not immediately nott1’ the DPS Director of their acceptance of the

tenns of the DPS Order. Instead, Defendant David Beckwitt appealed the DPS Order to the

Montgomery County Board of Appeals (the “Beckwitt Appeal”), and alleged that DPS erred in

its determination to order corrective action on the Property.

13. [n the Beckwitt Appeal, Defendant David Beckwitt acknowledged many of the

facts contained in 1)PS Order. Defendant David BeckwiU later withdrew his appeal.

14. DPS issued a supplemental order to Defendants dated January 10, 2018 (the “first

Supplemental DPS Order”), and scheduled a meeting on January 18, 2018, to discuss the timely

implementation of 1)PX ‘s orders.

3
 15. Defendants did not immediately notifr the DP$ Director of theft acceptance of

the tcn’ns of the first Supplemental DPS Order.

16. After receiving additional information about the Property, it became clear to DPS

that the tunneling, excavations, and cavities were more extensive than originally understood.

Rather than extending up to the public right-of-way and abutting property lines, the tunneling,

excavations, and cavities go into the public right-of-way, namely Danbury Road, and likely go

beyond at least one property line. DPS issued-another supplemental order to-Defendants--dated———— ——

March 9, 2018 (the “Second Supplemental DP$ Order”).

17. 1)efendants did not immediately notify the DPS Director of their acceptance of the

terms of the Second Supplemental DPS Order.

1 8. Defendants have failed to comply with the terms of the DP$ Orders.

CAUSES OF ACTION

Count One: Injunction

(Action to Abate a Common Law Public Nuisance)

19. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 18 are fully adopted and

incorporated herein as if fully stated.

20. Defendants are not permitted to maintain a building or site or both that is unsafe,

unsanitary or deficient in adequate exitway facilities, or which constitutes a fire hazard, or is

otherwise dangerous to human life or the public welfare, or which by reason of illegal or

improper use, occupancy, or maintenance is deemed unsafe.

21. Danbury Road is a public right of way that is held in trust by the County for

public use.

22. l)efcndants are not permitted to encroach upon a public right of way without a

4
 :1 J

Permit or franchise.

23. Defendants do not have a permit or franchise to encroach upon the public right of

way of Danbury Road.

24. The Defendants’ occupation and encroachment upon the public right of way of

Danbury Road constitutes an appropriation of the public right of way for a private use, and is in

derogation of the rights that are common to many, and therefore, is aper se public nuisance that

may be abated bya mandatory injunction. *

25. Defendants are not permitted to maintain conditions on the Property that interfere

with the efficiency and use of at;y fire protection equipment, obstruct fire escape and access to

passagcways, exitways, doors or windows and interfere with the eess of occupants or the

operations of the fire department in case of fire. further, Defendants are not permitted to

maintain that present hazardous conditions arising from defective, inadequate or improperly used

or installed electrical wiring, equipment and/or appliances, hazardous conditions arising from

defective or improperly installed equipment for handling or using combustible, flammable,

explosive or otherwise hazardous materials, dangerous or unlawful amounts of combustible,

flammable, explosive or otherwise hazardous materials, reduced effectiveness of any fire wall,

fire separation wall, fire partition or any opening protective assembly provided therein, and

hazardous conditions arising from defective or improperly installed or maintained fire protection

systems, internal communications systems or fire ventilation systems.

26. Defendants arc not permitted to maintain conditions on the Property that affect

neighboring properties or the health or safety of the occupants or the public.

27. The fire, including the conditions that resulted from the emergency response

necessary to combat the fire, coupled with the hoarding conditions and hazardous materials in,

5
 -
-:::1

on, and about the Property, and the network of unsupported and unauthorized tunnels,

excavations, and cavities under the residential building and on and off the Property, are

dangerous and hazardous to human life and the public welfare. The dangerous and hazardous

conditions require proper restoration and remediation.

28. Prior to bringing this action, Defendants were ordered to remediate all dangerous

and hazardous conditions and restore the Property to a safe, buildable site. Among others,

l)cfcndants were also ordered to delineate the atbrementioned network-ofunsupportedand— -

unauthorized tunnels, excavations, and cavities, test for hazardous materials within the tunnels,

excavations, and cavities, and properly remove and dispose of any hazardous materials or

conditions. Defendants did not immediately notify the DPS Director of their acceptance of the

terms of the DPS Order, the First Supplemental i)PS Order, or the Second Supplemental DPS

Order and they have not complied with the tenns of the DPS Orders.

Count ‘Fivo: Injtiiiction

(Violation of § 8-10 of thc Montgomery County Code)

29. The allegations contained in Paragraphs I through 28 are fully adopted and

incorporated herein as if thily stated.

30. The fire, including the conditions that resulted from the emergency response

necessary to combat the fire, coupled with the hoarding conditions and hazardous materials in,

on, and about the Property, and the network of unsupported and unauthorized tunnels,

excavations, and cavities under the residential building and on and off the Property, are

dangerous and hazardous to human life and the public welfare. The unsupported and

unauthorized tunnels, excavations, and cavities under the residential building and on and off the

Property are not eligible Ihr a County permit. The dangerous and hazardous conditions require

proper restoration and remediation.

6
 •d TLrJ

31. The conditions in, on, over, and under the Property constitute violations of

County law under § 8-10 of the Montgomery County Code. The Director of DPS deemed the

residential building and the site upon which it sits to be unsafe, posted the Property, served the

1)PS Order, the first Supplemental l)P$ Order and the Second Supplemental DPS Order upon

Defendants, and ordered Defendants to abate the dangerous and hazardous conditions in, on,

over, and under the Property.

32. Defendants did not immediately notify theDPS Director of their acceptance of-the— -

tenus of the DPS Order, the First Supplemental DPS Order, or the Second Supplemental DPS

Order.

33. Pursuant to § 1-20 of the County Code, the County may seek injunctive relief for

a violation of its laws.

Count Three: Injunction

(Violation of § 8-5 of the Montgomery County Code)

34. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 33 are fully adopted and

incorporated herein as if fully stated.

35. The conditions in, on, over, and under the Property violate County law under § 8-

5 of the Montgomery County Code in the following ways:

a. Defendants failed to maintain the residential building and the Property in a

safe and sanitary condition; and

b. Defendants Called to service all equipment, means of egress, devices and

safeguards in the residential building and maintain all equipment, means of

egress, devices and safeguards in good working order.

36. Pursuant to § 1-20 of the County Code, the County may seek injunctive relief for

a violation of its laws.

7
 I Lz:zZt :Lr

Count Four: Injunction

(Violation of § 22-16 of the Montgomery County Code)

37. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 36 are fully adopted and

incorporated herein as if frilly stated.

38. The conditions in, on, over, and under the Property violate County law under §
22-16 in the following ways:

c. Defendants stored hazardous materials on the Property and in the tunnels,

excavations, and cavities under the residential building;

d. Defendants maintained conditions on the Property that interfere with the

efficiency and use of any fire protection equipment, obstruct fire escape and

access to passageways, exitways, doors or windows and interfere with the

egress of occupants or the operations of the fire department in case of fire; and

e. Defendants have maintained hazardous conditions arising from defective,

inadequate or improperly used or installed electrical wiring, equipment and/or

appliances, hazardous conditions arising from defective or improperly

installed ecuipment for handling or using combustible, flammable, explosive

or otherwise hazardous materials, dangerous or unlawful amounts of,

combustible, flammable, explosive or otherwise hazardous materials, reduced

effectiveness of any fire wall, fire separation wall, fire partition or any

opening protective assembly provided therein, and hazardous conditions

arising from defective or improperly installed or maintained fire protection

systems, internal communications systems or fire ventilation systems.

39. J3y the I)lS Order, the First Supplemental DPS Order, and the Second

Supplemental DPS Order, the Director of l)PS found that the residential building and the site

8
 1Z] iZ

upon which it sits is dangerous and that hazardous conditions or materials exist. The Director

ordered that all such dangcrous conditions be removed or remedied and all hazardous conditions

or materials be removed and properly and safely disposed.

40. Defendants did not immediately notify the DPS Director of their acceptance of the

terms of the DP$ Order, the First Supplemental DPS Order, or the Second Supplemental DPS

Order and they have not complied with the DPS Orders.

41. Pursuant to § 1-20 of the County Code, the Countymayseck—injunodve-relief-for

a violation of its laws.

Count Five: Injunction

(Violation of 26-13, 26-14 and 26-15 of the Montgomery County Code)

42. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 41 are fully adopted and

incorporated herein as if frilly stated.

43. ‘the conditions in, on, over, and under the Property affect neighboring properties

or the health or safety of the occupants or the public.

44. DHCA determined that the residential structure on the Property was unfit for

human habitation and a public nuisance, among others, and issued two (2) orders, one dated

October 4, 2017 and the other dated October 23, 2017. The DHCA Orders condemned the

Property and ordered the repair or removal of the condemned residential structure by December

8,2017.

45. Defendants have not repaired or removed the condemned residential structure.

46. Pursuant to § 26-15 oithe County Code, because Defendants have not abated or
corrected the conditions in, on, over, and under the Property, the County may undertake any

action, including seeking injunctive relief to abate or correct the condition of the Property.

9
 ZZl ZiLJJ.l

Count Six: Injunction

(Violation of § 49-10 of the Montgomery County Code)

47. The allegations contained in Paragraphs I through 46 are fully adopted and

incorporated herein as if fully stated.

4$. Defendants’ encroachments upon the Right of Way constitute a violation of

County Jaw under § 49-10. Defendants are not permitted to either (1) place, maintain, use, or

exercise control over, any object or structure in the public right-of-way, or (2) allow any object

or structure owned by the person to occupy, obstruct, or encroach upon the public right-of-way,

or (3) perform any reconstruction or maintenance work, or (4) allow the erection or placement of

any structure, fence, post, rock, or other object in the public right-of-way.

49. The types of encroachments maintained by Defendants in the Right of Way are

not eligible for a County permit.

50. Pursuant to § 1-20 of the County Code, the County may seek injunctive relief for

a violation of its laws.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WFIBREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the Honorable Court enter judgment against

the Defendants and in favor of the County and render the following relief against the Defendants,

jointly and severally, as follows:

(A) Issue a permanent mandatory injunction that enjoins Defendants to immediately

remediate all dangerous and hazardous conditions and restore the Property to a safe,

buildable site; remove or remedy all dangerous conditions on the Property; remove

and properly and safely dispose of all hazardous conditions or materials on the

Property; and remove all encroachments that are associated with the Property from

the Right of Way or any property that abut the Property;

10
 I

(B) Issue a permanent mandatory injunction that enjoins Defendants to immediately

comply with the DHCA Orders;

(C) issue a permanent mandatory injunction that enjoins Defendants to immediately

comply with the DPS Orders;

(D) Enjoin the I)cfendant from further encroachments upon the Right of Way and any

property that abuts the Property;

(B) issue an Order that the County may file a verified statement-of all reasonable—and

necessary costs that it incurred as a result of any action taken to obtain a judgment

against Defendants to enforce Chapters 8, 22, and 26 of the Montgomery County

Code that may be enforced in the same manner as any other civil juduent, or collect

the judgment in the same maimer as the County collects real property taxes; and

(F) Render such other and further relief in favof of the County and against the Defendant

as the nature of this cause may require and as the Court deems just, reasonable, and

proper.

MARC P. HANSEN
COUNTY ATTORNEY

Charles L Frederick
Associate County Attorney
charles.frederick@montgomerycountymd.gov

Attorneys for Montgomery County, Maryland

101 Monroe Street, Third Floor
Rockville, Maryland 20850
(240) 777-6700
(240) 777-6705 facsimile

11
 Co
H> :3:z
C)
CJ
00
—0
3Z
3-
—3 0
>‘
C
H N
C
U
H >
U
U
H 9
U.
U
( IF NEW OR EXISTING CASE: RELIEF (Check All that Apply)
Abatement
Administrative Action
D Appointment of Receiver
0 Arbitration
C] Asset Determination
C] Attachrncnt b/f Judgment
0 Cease & Desist Order
(J Condemn Bldg
C] Contempt
O Court Costs/Fees
O Damages-Compensatory
0 Damages-Punitive
I
Earnings Withholding Judgment-Interest Return of Property
Enrollment OJudgrnent-$ummary Sale of Property
0 Expungement 0 Liability 0 Specific Performance
0 findings of Fact C] Oral Examination 0 Writ-Error Coram Nobis
0 foreclosure 1J Order C] Writ-Execution
Injunction 0 Ownership of Property Writ-Garnish Property
0 Judgment-Affidavit C] Partition of Property OWritGa.rnish Wages
0 Judgment-Attorney Fees C] Peace Order C] Writ-Habeas Corpus
0 Judginent-.Confcssed 0 Possession Writ-Mandamus
Judgment-Consent Writ-Possession
Production of Records
C] Judgment-Declaratory 0 Quarantine/Isolation Order
C] Judgment-Default D Reinstatement of Employment

ifyou indicated Liability above, mark one of the following, This information is an admission and
may not be used for any purpose other than Track Assignment.
OLiability is conceded, c3Liability is not conceded, but is not seriously in dispute. OLiability is seriously in dispute.

MONETARY DAMAGES (Do not include Attorney’s Fees, Interest, or Court Costs)

0 Under $10,000 C] $10,000 -$30,000 C] $30,000- $100,000 0 Over $100,000

0 Medical Bills $___________

C] Wage Loss $___________
C] Property Damages $__________

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION INFORMATION

Is this case appropriate for referral to an ADR process under Md. Rule 17-101? (Check all that apply)
A. Mediation OYcs No C. Settlement Conference OYes No
B. Arbitration OYes No D. Neutral Evaluation DYes No

SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
If a Spoken Language Interpreter is needed, check here and attach form CC-DC-041
0 If you require an accommodation for a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act, check
here and attach form CC-DC-049
ESTIMATED LENGT1I OF TRIAL
With the exception of Baltimore County and Baltimore City, please flit in the estimated LENGTH O1
TRIAL. (Case 4’itt he tracked accordingly?
0 1/2 day of thai or less 0 3 days of trial time
IC] 1 day of trial time 0 More than 3 days of trial time
‘J 2 days of thai time

BUSll”ESS AND TECHNOLOGY CASE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

For at!juri.cdictions. f Business and Technology track designation under lid. Rule 1 6-308 is requested
attach a duplicate copy of complaint and check one ofthe tracks below.

0 Expedited- Trial within 7 months of C] Standard Trial within 18 months of

-

Defendant’s response Defendant’s response

EMERGENCY RELIEF REQUESTED

CC-DCM-002 (Rev. 04/2017) Page 2 of 3

 i •-:-

COMPLEX SCIENCE AND/OR TECHNOLOGICAL CASE

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (ASTAR)

FOR PURPOSES OF POSSIBLE SPECIAL ASSIGNMENT TO ASTAR RESOURCES JUDGES under

Md. Rule 16-302, attach a duplicate copy of complaint and check whether assignment to an ASTAR Lr requested.

0 Expedited Trial within 7 months of

- 0 Standard Trial within 18 months of
-

Defendant’s response Defendant’s response

If YOU ARE FILING YOUR COMPLAINT IN HAL TIMORE CITY, OR BALTIMORE COUNTY,
PLEASE FILL OUT THE APPROPRIATE BOX BELOW.
CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY (CHECK ONLYE)

El Expedited Trial 60 to 120 days from notice. Non-jury matters.

El Civil-Short Trial 210 days from first answer.
El Civil-Standard Trial 360 days from first answer.
El Custom Scheduling order entcred by individual judge.
El Asbestos Special scheduling order.
El Lead Paint Fill in: Birth Date of youngest plaintiff
El Tax Sale foreclosures Special scheduling order.
El Mortgage Foreclosures No scheduling order.

CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE COUNTY

fl Expedited Attachment Before Judgment, Declaratory Judgment (Simple),

(Trial Date-90 days) Administrative Appeals, District Court Appeals and Jury Trial Prayers,
Guardianship, Injunction, Mandamus.

El Standard Condemnation, Confessed Judgments (Vacated), Contract. Employment

(Trial Date-240 days) Related Cases, fraud and Misrepresentation, International Tort, Motor Tort,
Other Personal Injury, Workers’ Compensation Cases.

El Extended Standard Asbestos, Lender Liability, Professional Malpractice, Serious Motor Tort or
(Trial Date-345 days) Personal Injury Cases (medical expenses and wage loss of$ 100,000, expert
and out-of-state witnesses (parties), and trial of five or more days), State
In solvency.

El Complex Class Actions, Designated Toxic Tort, Major Construction Contracts, Major
(Trial Date-450 days) Product Liabilities, Other Complex Cases.

March 23,2018
Date
Jyn 99 Street, Third Floo
J.
Signature of Counsel / Pa
Charles L. Frederick
Addrcss -

Printed Name
Rockvillc MD 20850
State Zip Code

CC-DCM-002 (Rev. 04/2017) Page 3 of3