Annapolis Roads Property Owners Ass'n v. Lindsay
205 Md. App. 270
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2012Background
- Conflicting ownership over a 10-foot Strip between Lots 18–21 in Annapolis Roads; circuit court granted summary judgments: ARPOA has no interest, Lindsay Trust holds all interest, with an easement for Lot 18 to Carrollton Road.
- 1927–1932 conveyances and plat records show ARC reserved beds of roadways but the Strip was not labeled a roadway on the 1928 Plat.
- ARC conveyed Lots 19–21 and, in 1928–1932, conveyed Lot 18 and its Strip without a clear, explicit reservation of the Strip; Equitable mortgage releases covered the Lots and Strip.
- The 2006 Solomons conveyed the Strip to the Lindsay Trust; appellants argued ARC reserved rights or easements in the Strip; respondents argued no such reservation existed.
- Appellants sought declaratory relief that ARPOA holds the Strip; the court found an easement in favor of Lot 18 and that Lindsay Trust holds the Strip free and clear except for the Lot 18 easement.
- The appellate court affirmed both declaratory judgments and rejected implied easement extinguishment by later conveyances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is ARPOA's interest in the Strip nonexistent? | Samorajczyks/Talbot: ARC reserved rights in the beds of roadways including the Strip. | Lindsay Trust: no express reservation; Strip not a roadway; centerline pass to grantee. | Yes; ARPOA holds no right, title, or interest in the Strip. |
| Does Lindsay Trust hold all rights to the Strip subject to an easement for Lot 18? | ARPOA predecessors retained easement; Lindsay Trust cannot own the whole Strip free of burden. | Lindsay Trust acquired all rights; easement remains for Lot 18 access. | Yes; Lindsay Trust holds all rights, subject to Lot 18 easement. |
| Did an easement appurtenant to Lot 18 exist over the Strip? | Plat reference and deeds imply an easement; implied by plat reference. | No express easement; plat reference alone insufficient without proper instrument. | Yes; an easement appurtenant to Lot 18 via plat reference and early conveyances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boucher v. Boyer, 301 Md. 679 (1984) (statutory presumption for center of street; express reservation required to rebut)
- Callahan v. Clemens, 184 Md. 520 (1945) (Art. 21 § 5-114 passes title to center of street absent express reservation)
- Bowie v. West Maryland Railway Terminal Co., 133 Md. 1 (1918) (presumption to convey center of street absent express retention)
- Darnestown Valley-WHM Ltd. P'ship v. McDonald's Corp., 102 Md.App. 577 (1994) (mortgage/redemise doctrine; mortgagor's ownership rights unless default)
- Calomiris v. Woods, 353 Md. 425 (1999) (contract interpretation applies to mortgage language)
- Olde Severna Park Improvement Ass'n v. Gunby, 402 Md. 317 (2007) (deed interpretation; ambiguity; four-corners rule)