Andersons v. Great Bay Solar, 221 A.3d 1050

Background:

William and Kevin Anderson own two farms in Somerset County; Dublin Road bisects both farms and Old Princess Anne Road abuts the Ben Barnes Farm.
Somerset County granted an easement to Great Bay Solar I, LLC (GBS) on June 29, 2015, authorizing GBS to install underground collection cables in certain county road rights‑of‑way; the Easement Agreement was recorded.
GBS began installing cables in April 2017; the Andersons received public notices in late March/early April 2017 and filed suit on July 5, 2017 seeking declaratory relief and injunctions to remove the cables as trespasses.
The circuit court (after a three‑day bench trial) held neither the Andersons nor the County proved fee simple ownership of the roadbeds, concluded the County had a "sufficient interest" to grant GBS rights, and barred the Andersons’ equitable relief under waiver/estoppel/laches.
The Court of Special Appeals reversed the fee‑ownership finding (finding the Andersons established fee simple title under the roads), affirmed that laches barred removal of installed cables, and remanded for factual findings/clarification about whether the County had a sufficient interest to grant GBS the right to install the collection systems and, if not, what remedies are available.

Issues:

Issue	Andersons' Argument	GBS/County's Argument	Held
Whether Andersons own the land under Dublin Road and Old Princess Anne Road in fee simple	Deeds/patent chain and RP §2‑114 presumption (title to center line passes with "binding" conveyances) show they hold fee simple subject to public easement	County/GBS argued gaps in chain, State/County actions (1947 purchase option/adverse possession) gave County fee title	Court of Special Appeals: Andersons met burden; remanded for declaratory judgment recognizing Andersons’ fee simple ownership under the specified road segments
Whether County had a "sufficient interest" to grant GBS rights to install industrial cables beneath the roads	County’s interest was only a public highway easement (right of passage) and cannot authorize third‑party, non‑incidental uses beneath the roadbed absent fee ownership	County/GBS: long maintenance of surface and subsurface and evolving public needs render the easement broad enough (or fee by adverse possession) to permit grant	Remanded: trial court failed to state basis; appellate court requires factual findings on nature/scope of County’s interest and whether proposed use fell within it
Whether equitable remedies (removal of installed cables) are barred by waiver/estoppel	Andersons: timely challenged when they learned details; did not intentionally relinquish rights	GBS/County: Andersons delayed and sat by while construction proceeded to near completion, causing prejudice	Held: laches applies — delay (Mar–Jul 2017) and prejudice (multi‑million dollar construction) barred injunctive removal; waiver/estoppel findings were not supported by trial court’s facts
Available remedy if County/GBS lacked authority to install cables	Andersons sought removal and restoration as trespass remedy	GBS sought nominal damages or declaration of right to remain; argued removal prejudicial	Court of Special Appeals: remanded for trial court to determine remedies if it finds GBS lacked authority; laches, however, bars equitable removal in this posture

Key Cases Cited

King v. North Chesapeake Beach Land & Imp. Co. of Calvert Cty., 143 Md. 693 (1923) (common‑law dedication generally conveys only an easement)
Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co. of Baltimore City v. Goldsborough, 125 Md. 666 (1915) (general rule: ordinary public highway grants only easement of passage; soil remains with adjacent owner)
Boucher v. Boyer, 301 Md. 679 (1984) (statutory presumption that a deed binding on a street passes title to the center line)
Wagner v. Doehring, 315 Md. 97 (1989) (scope of a right‑of‑way includes reasonable maintenance, improvement and repair to serve its purpose)
Chevy Chase Land Co. v. United States, 355 Md. 110 (1999) (evolving uses within an easement are permitted if consistent with original purpose; analyzes scope of easement uses)
Frederick Gas Co. v. Abrams, 264 Md. 135 (1972) (distinction between urban/suburban and rural highway easements for subterranean utility use)
West v. Maryland Gas Transmission Corp., 162 Md. 298 (1932) (owners in fee of bed of road may lay pipes and may convey that right)