Trial opens in Prince George's County floodplain takings case

A Maryland trial begins today in a long-running dispute over whether Prince George's County’s 1989 floodplain designation effectively took three Brandywine lots without compensation. The case could test when the claim accrued, whether the County made a final decision and whether the property still had any viable use.

Why it matters: - Martin Berman says Prince George's County’s 1989 floodplain determination blocked development of three residential lots for more than 30 years. - The case asks whether a local land-use decision can amount to an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment. - The trial could also influence how courts treat old land-use claims, especially disputes over when a property owner knew or should have known about the injury.

What happened: - Trial begins today in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County in Martin Berman v. Prince George's County, Maryland. - Berman is suing under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows claims against state and local governments for constitutional violations. - Berman alleges that a County floodplain determination made in or around October 1989 kept three Brandywine lots from being developed for residential use. - The case concerns three lots in the Gwynn Park Subdivision in Brandywine, Maryland. - Berman filed the lawsuit on April 2, 2025.

The details: - Berman bought the three lots on September 11, 1989, with plans to build single-family homes. - Court filings say the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map in effect at the time listed the property as Zone C, meaning minimal flood risk outside the 100-year and 500-year floodplains. - Court filings also say the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission approved a water and sewer mainline extension in December 1988. - Berman alleges a County official later told him the lots were in a 100-year floodplain, assigned a flood elevation of 232 feet and said residential development could not proceed. - Berman’s filings say the official would not accept an independent floodplain study. - Those filings also say Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission suspended work on the approved water and sewer extensions after the County determination. - Berman alleges he later had to terminate a contract to sell one lot for $150,000 because of the floodplain ruling. - In his opposition to summary judgment, Berman cited County discovery responses served April 21, 2026, saying the County could not locate records showing the methodology, criteria or engineering analysis behind the determination. - The County also said it had not found records of communications with FEMA about any mismatch with the federal flood map or records showing the designation was formally rescinded, modified or superseded. - The County identified no economically viable use for the property, according to Berman’s opposition. - Berman’s opposition also cites Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission records saying the lots are not now, and have never been, designated within a 100-year floodplain or any other flood-related overlay zone. - Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxation records cited in the filing assess each lot at a total value of $400. - Berman says he first had reason to question the 1989 determination around January 2023, after observing nearby development and reviewing the permitting history of neighboring lots.

Between the lines: - The County has argued the claim accrued in October 1989 and is barred by Maryland’s three-year statute of limitations. - The County also argues there was no final governmental decision, Berman cannot meet the categorical takings test from Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council and Berman cannot satisfy the investment-backed expectations analysis from Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York. - Berman argues those issues, including when he knew or should have known of the claim and what use remained for the lots, should be decided by the jury. - The court previously denied the County’s motion for summary judgment in full, which allowed the case to reach trial. - Jordan D. Howlette, managing attorney of Justly Prudent, said Berman bought the lots to build homes and has been unable to do so for more than three decades because of an erroneous floodplain determination.

What's next: - The trial will determine whether the County’s 1989 action amounted to a compensable taking and whether Berman’s claims can survive the County’s defenses. - The case is Martin Berman v. Prince George's County, Maryland, Case No. C-16-CV-25-001783, in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland. - More information is available through Justly Prudent's social media.