IN THE CIRCUIT COURT

IN AND FOR SOMERSET COUNTY, MARYLAND

Case No. _________________
MARTA SHELTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF CRISFIELD,
Defendant.
___________________/
CIVIL COMPLAINT

1. Plaintiff resides in Accomack County, Virginia, at 8087 Jenkins Bridge Rd, Oak Hall VA 23416.

2. The fines and proposed action against which Plaintiff seeks relief concern the Plaintiff-owned

rental real estate located at 531 W. Main St, Crisfield MD 21817.

3. Defendant is a municipal corporation in Somerset County, located at 319 W. Main St, P.O. Box

270, Crisfield MD 21817.

4. This Honorable Court has jurisdiction.

5. Principles of Procedural Due Process as guaranteed by the 14 th Amendment were violated.

Defendant announced the planned “tax sale” of Plaintiff’s real estate set for June 2, 2011,

without giving the Plaintiff a chance to defend herself. A fine of $1,500 (6 counts of $250) was

imposed by Defendant’s Code Enforcement Department onto the Plaintiff on March 9 th, 2010 under

the description of “Rental Registration and Inspection Fee/ Failure to register rental units.” A citation

was not issued, only an invoice. The fine was immediately disputed verbally to City Inspector Noah

Bradshaw, and an appeal process was requested. Mr. Bradshaw advised verbally that Plaintiff should

request a hearing at the City Council meeting by stating such request and its purpose in a letter

addressed to the Council. Plaintiff sent such letter to the City Council on 03/27/2010. The City

Council never responded, nor granted a hearing. Noah Bradshaw City Inspector dated a letter on

08/23/2010 “in response to (Plaintiff’s) letter requesting abatement” stating that the “fine will not be

reduced any further.” This response did not indicate that the City Council or the Mayor had even
seen the Plaintiff’s document, rather seemed as the decision of the very official whose decision the

Plaintiff set out to appeal.

In the meantime all rental units have been re-inspected and re-registered. Still, on 2/07/2011 a

letter was sent by the Treasurer of the City of Crisfield notifying of a lien on the property due to the

unpaid fines plus interest totaling $1,621.35 and the proposed tax-sale of the property on June 2,

2011. Upon seeking Legal Council, Plaintiff was verbally advised that the proper appeal procedure

would have been through the City Board of Zoning. Based on this the plaintiff states that in essence

the City official has misinformed the Plaintiff and delayed the process to the point where an appeal is

no longer possible.

6. Equal Protection Issue: Laws and reliefs should apply to all, not just some. The Amnesty

offered by the Defendant was under-inclusive in that by being posted in only 2 local papers, it

benefited a small number of people fitting the purpose of regulation but excluded others similarly

situated. The notice given by the Defendant affected not residents but rental property owners, of

which “42%... live outside the city” (Bradshaw, 11/18, 2009 Crisfield Times). While there may be

“500… rental units” in Crisfield (Bradshaw, 11/18, 2009 Crisfield Times), according to a statement

made by Jim Ward from the Somerset County Assessment Office in Princess Anne, due to multi-unit

properties there are only about “70 income producing properties in Crisfield” (April 2010). The tri-

annual rental questionnaire from the Somerset County Assessment Office which targets “rental or

income-producing properties” states that the information provided “is available to officers of the

State, county or municipality in their official capacity.” The number of out-of-state owners is

sufficiently small (about half of 70) where it would not have represented an administrative burden to

the City to notify the affected parties in writing. Besides the tax bills, Defendant also had Plaintiff’s
address from this last inspection as well as prior occasions, and the water-bill for the 9-unit dwelling,

to send a notice to.

The limited notification by the Defendant created a discriminatory affect against any outsider

not only in the form of lack of notification for the issuance of fines which were not enforced before,

but also by not granting equal access to the amnesty period of 43 days enjoyed only by the local

readers. Out-of-state rental property owners, once identified, should have been offered the same

benefit of the 43-day grace period before the assessment of fines.

7. Vague application of Code makes its use unconstitutional. As the basis for their invoice,

the Code Enforcement Department quoted regulation 45-6-B (attached), stating that a rental unit

“cannot be rented to another tenant… without having been approved by the Inspector.” In fact the

Plaintiff has gone through an inspection for a new tenant in one of her units on 2/23/2010

(attached), a month prior the receipt of fine. Plaintiff was neither inaccessible nor hiding from Code

Enforcement. Plaintiff states that she registered other rental units in the same building with the

previous City Inspector. Plaintiff enjoys long term tenants, such as the tenant from Apt. 203, who

has lived in the building for 16 years. There is a mutual agreement for a freeze of his rental rates,

and he is living there indefinitely. Based on regulation 45-6-B this unit would not have to be re-

inspected, but Mr. Bradshaw issued a fine stating that he expects all units to be re-inspected

annually. This was not the case before, and is a re-interpretation of a law whose wording did not

change. Plaintiff further inquired from the Inspector regarding month-to-month or 6-month leases.

The answer was that those would have to be inspected according to term, but in reality they will be

inspected annually because of lack of resources. This goes to show that 45-6-B is being used

arbitrarily, therefor a fine based on it should be unconstitutional. If Defendant is planning to

enforce annual inspections, it should change the wording of the Code accordingly.
 WHEREFORE Plaintiff Marta (Ward) Shelton moves this Honorable Court to order the

Defendant, City of Crisfield, to abate the fines imposed on March 9 th, 2010 together with the interest

accrued since, and all other accounts including the water-bill portion of the notice being current,

ensure that no liens are attached to Plaintiff’s real estate described as 531 W. Main Street, Crisfield

MD. Plaintiff further moves that the Honorable Court order the City of Crisfield to cease any and all

action towards the proposed tax-sale of said real estate, and to grant such other and further relief as

circumstances may warrant.

UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY I affirm that the facts alleged in the foregoing are true

and correct according to my own personal knowledge.

________________________________

Marta Shelton, Petitioner

STATE OF

COUNTY OF

BEFORE ME personally appeared Marta Shelton who, being by me first duly sworn, executed the

foregoing in my presence and stated to me that the facts alleged therein are true and correct according

to his own personal knowledge.

_________________________________

Notary Public

My commission expires: