Bacon v. Arey
40 A.3d 435
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2012Background
- Gregg Bacon appeals a circuit court decision striking his fourth amended complaint and dismissing tort and constitutional claims, as well as his ingress/egress easement claim, against multiple defendants including MHG Group, the Commission Group, Brown, Hill, Areys, and others.
- Bacon seeks an easement to Farm Road for ingress/egress to his Sandy Spring property; Farm Road allegedly connects Brooke Road to Gold Mine Road and passes through a Commission conservation easement.
- Plaintiff alleged Farm Road existed as an express easement by deed or as an easement by prescription/necessity, with alleged actions by defendants isolating his land.
- Court remanded in 2009 for a declaratory determination of party rights and to adjudicate all claims; on remand, the circuit court struck the fourth amended complaint and, via nunc pro tunc orders, dismissed Counts III–IX as time-barred and entered declaratory judgment.
- On appeal, this Court affirmed, holding the express easement claim failed and the implied easement by necessity claim failed; the statute of limitations barred tort/constitutional claims; and discovery and duty-of-care issues were properly resolved in light of the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether declaratory judgment properly denied Bacon’s easement claim. | Bacon argues Farm Road constitutes an express easement. | Defendants argue no express easement existed and implied easement by necessity was not properly pleaded. | Yes; declaratory judgment correct; no express easement proven. |
| Whether the tort/constitutional claims were time-barred by statute of limitations. | Discovery rule tolling or fraudulent concealment extended accrual. | Notice at purchase and plat records triggered accrual; 3-year/1-year limits apply. | Yes; claims barred by statute of limitations on remand. |
| Whether the circuit court abused its discretion striking the second and fourth amended complaints. | Amendments liberal pleadings should be allowed to cure defects. | Second amended violated Rule 2-303; remand order did not authorize a fourth amendment. | Yes for fourth amended; no abuse in striking second amended given remand scope. |
| Whether discovery should have proceeded before ruling on dismissal. | Appellant needed discovery before final disposition. | Legal questions resolved first; discovery not necessary to resolve those issues. | No abuse; court properly controlled discovery given complex legal questions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kobrine v. Metzger, 380 Md. 620 (2004) (express easement by grant/reservation must meet recording statutes; writing identified by recording statute suffices)
- Sharp v. Downey, 197 Md.App. 123 (2010) (explains basic principles of easements and creation by express or implied methods)
- Stansbury v. MDR Dev., L.L.C., 390 Md. 476 (2006) (sets out three prerequisites for implied easement by necessity (unity, severance, necessity))
- Condry v. Laurie, 184 Md. 317 (1945) (emphasizes strictness of implied easements and limits on extinguishing via alternate routes)
- Johnson v. Robinson, 26 Md.App. 568 (1975) (notice-based approach to implied easement by necessity)
- Boucher v. Boyer, 301 Md. 679 (1984) (plat-reference theory; implied easement by plat reference; jealous construction of easements)
- Poffenberger v. Risser, 290 Md. 631 (1981) (discovery rule activation when circumstances put prudent person on inquiry)
- Bright v. Lake Linganore Ass’n, Inc., 104 Md.App. 394 (1995) (chain-of-title notice and accrual principles applied to title-related claims)
- Geisz v. Greater Baltimore Med. Ctr., 313 Md. 301 (1988) (fraud/ concealment issues toll limitations; jury questions possible)