Hearing Date Set for Belward, Hopkins

In response to Johns Hopkins University's move to dismiss a lawsuit from the heirs of Belward Farm, Montgomery County Court has set a date to hear both sides on Feb. 1.

The heirs of the property, located along the intersection of Darnestown and Muddy Branch Roads, are hoping to block the university from building a 4.7 million square foot “Science City” on the property, because they don’t believe the plan aligns with the university’s original 1989 agreement.

The heirs of the farm’s former owner filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on Jan. 3.

“Neither dismissal nor summary judgment is appropriate for resolution of this case at the pleading stage, and the JHU Motion should be denied,” the opposition stated.

Tim Newell, the nephew of former Belward owner Elizabeth Banks and lead plaintiff, said he believes Hopkins’ motion to dismiss has no merit and that he’s confident his own case does.

If a judge agrees, the hearing could be pushed back or the motion could be denied.

JHU stands by its motion to dismiss, university spokeswoman Robin Ferrier said.

“Johns Hopkins’ development of the Belward property has been and will be consistent with the requirements of the contract and deed,” Ferrier said. “The university maintains that the Plaintiffs’ claims and arguments are not supported by the agreed upon deed restrictions.”

This, Newell said, is part of Hopkins’ standard reply.

“They’re going to move forward regardless,” he said. “I think Elizabeth’s intent was really clear at the time of the contract and things have to be used in that context.”

Instead, Newell said, Hopkins’ newly hired attorneys are reading the contract and saying they know what was intended in 1989 more so than the Hopkins officials who were involved in the transaction.

Former JHU fundraising official John Dearden – who spearheaded the Belward Farm donation – stepped forward in support of the Belward heirs after the motion to dismiss was filed.

“I think that’s the crux of it right there,” Newell said. “It’s a new regime, and they’re interpreting things the way they want versus the way it was intended.

"And in speaking with [Dearden], who was the Hopkins official at the time who spearheaded this whole thing, he is 100 percent on our side in our view of how this was supposed to happen.”

JHU, however, expects to prevail on its motion, Ferrier said, adding the university received the opposition Jan. 5 and is currently reviewing it.

JHU will likely file a reply in support of its motion, she added.

“Indeed, (the) plaintiffs' complaint and their recent filing largely re-write the contract and add new restrictions beyond what the parties agreed in 1989,” Ferrier said. “Hopkins expects both sides to abide by the terms of the 1989 contract and not a 2011 re-write by the plaintiffs that adds new restrictions.”