Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

JACKSON v. TOWN OF VIENNA, CCB-15-21. (2015)

Court: District Court, D. Maryland Number: infdco20150702b24 Visitors: 9
Filed: Jun. 30, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 30, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM CATHERINE C. BLAKE , District Judge . John Jackson, representing himself, sued the Town of Vienna and other government officials seeking injunctive relief, specifically to enjoin the defendants from adding his calendar year 2012 past due water bill to his tax bill for collection. The Town's water supply was connected to the Property in question (4853 Old Rt. 50) in 1999 after public discussion. Connection was required for health-related reasons. Emily Jackson, mother of John Jac
More

MEMORANDUM

John Jackson, representing himself, sued the Town of Vienna and other government officials seeking injunctive relief, specifically to enjoin the defendants from adding his calendar year 2012 past due water bill to his tax bill for collection. The Town's water supply was connected to the Property in question (4853 Old Rt. 50) in 1999 after public discussion. Connection was required for health-related reasons. Emily Jackson, mother of John Jackson and at that time the property owner, opposed the project, but the water connection was completed as required by May 25, 1999.

In 2002, Emily Jackson deeded the property to three of her children: Clarence Jackson, Jr., John Jackson, and Tina Thompson, reserving a life estate. Emily Jackson passed away in April 2011. Sometime thereafter John Jackson apparently began living at the home. In August 2013, the County issued a notice to the Property that $640 was payable for a past due water bill, and failure to pay might result in the property being sold at a tax sale. No tax sale process has yet been initiated. Mr. Jackson claims his due process rights have been violated because he was not advised when the water was connected that an unpaid bill could result in a tax lien.

The court has reviewed the defendants' motion for summary judgment in this case together with the plaintiff's opposition. Mr. Jackson concedes he did not own the property when the water was connected in 1999. Nor does he dispute that the bill is correct, or that no tax sale has occurred, so that no property loss has yet occurred. Further, he does not dispute that the tax sale process provides for a post-deprivation remedy. In summary, while the court is sympathetic to Mr. Jackson's disability, he has shown no basis for the injunctive relief he seeks.

This case will be dismissed by a separate Order which follows.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer