Ocean City denied new decision in Dumser's site battle

The Court of Special Appeals denied Ocean City's motion to reconsider the court's decision in the Dumser's case, a decision that moves the case that moves the issue much closer to its conclusion. 

The court decided in December that the town had not shown sufficient evidence that demonstrated it owned the building on its boardwalk. After, Ocean City filed a motion asking the court to reconsider.

That motion was rejected Tuesday.

The building in question houses Dumser's Dairyland, an iconic ice cream shop known for its delicious frozen desserts. The debate over the rightful owners of the property started in 2016, following two 25-year contracts in which the Rapoport family and their heirs had permission from Ocean City to build a structure with a shop (now Dumser's) and an apartment on the land.

When the second contract ended, Ocean City Solicitor Guy Ayres told the heirs to vacate the property. Nathans Associates, however, took the case to court, arguing they owned the property now by adverse possession. 

More:6 benefits of a Delmarva Now digital subscription

Ocean City in return argued that the property sat within "a dedicated and accepted public easement prior to Mr. Rapoport’s acquisition of title via adverse possession."

Adverse possession is when someone occupies someone else’s property under some claim of ownership for a period of at least 20 years. Nathans Associates argued that the town had abandoned its interest in the property and, in doing so, abandoned its legal ownership.

The decision marks what is effectively the second consecutive loss for the town. 

Ocean City Town Councilman Mark Paddack slammed the town after it announced its decision to take the case to the state’s highest court earlier in January.

"To continue and attempt to crush a business that generates revenue and fosters memories for hundreds of families makes no sense to me," Paddack wrote.

Rick Meehan, the mayor of Ocean City, argued that the case was not against Dumser’s but rather specifically over the land it sits on. He said that the arguments from Nathans Associates were “deceptions.”

"If you own property in Ocean City and are paying taxes, then this ‘rent’ belongs to you...not the heirs of Mr. Rapoport," Meehan wrote in a Facebook post on Jan. 22. "While they have done a good job making it look like the Town of Ocean City are the bad guys, they are the ones who continue to profit off of land that is owned by the public. But yet, somehow, the Town of Ocean City is the ‘greedy’ one."

Mona Strauss, a member of Nathans Associates, referred to the post as “character assassination”  on Jan. 23 and said it was “more than inaccurate.”

A comment attached to the case in the state’s judicial case search notes that the mayor and city council of Ocean City are required to pay the court costs.

This story will be updated.

Reach reporter Hayley Harding via email at hharding@delmarvanow.com or on Twitter @Hayley__Harding.