Breeding v. Koste, 115 A.3d 106

Dispute over a triangular waterfront parcel called the "Landing" (~<0.241 acres) between Koste's and the Breedings' adjoining properties; Koste lived nearby and used the Landing for boating, hunting, and recreation.
Koste sued to quiet title by adverse possession; the circuit court (after a five-day bench trial and site view) found Koste established title by adverse possession; the Court of Special Appeals affirmed; the Breedings sought certiorari.
Evidence showed Koste's grandfather (from the 1940s onward) cleared access, built a road and a turnaround loop to the Landing, erected duck blinds and a storage box, maintained a dock, and posted "no trespassing" stakes along what he believed to be the boundary.
The Breedings argued the Landing was unimproved/wooded and that the "woodlands exception" (presuming permissive use on unimproved land) should apply; Koste argued the Landing had been substantially and continuously improved and used under claim of ownership.
The Court of Appeals considered (1) whether the woodlands exception—previously applied to prescriptive easements—also applies to adverse possession, and (2) whether it applied to the Landing given the factual record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Breeding)	Defendant's Argument (Koste)	Held
Whether the "woodlands exception" applies to adverse possession	It should—reasoning akin to prescriptive-easement law; unimproved land use is presumptively permissive	Agreed the doctrine can apply to adverse possession but contended it does not apply on these facts	Court: The woodlands exception can apply to adverse possession when land is unimproved or in a general state of nature
Whether the woodlands exception applies to the Landing	The Landing is unimproved, wooded, and used recreationally; presumption of permissive use applies, defeating adverse possession	The Landing was improved and maintained (road, loop, docks, blinds, signage) for decades, giving notice and evidencing hostile possession	Court: The exception does NOT apply; the Landing was improved and Koste proved the elements of adverse possession; judgment affirmed

Banks v. Pusey, 393 Md. 688 (Describes elements and burden-shifting for prescriptive easement)
Clickner v. Magothy River Ass'n Inc., 424 Md. 253 (Clarifies woodlands exception; unimproved land use is presumptively permissive)
White v. Pines Cmty. Improvement Ass'n, Inc., 403 Md. 13 (Defines adverse possession elements)
Hungerford v. Hungerford, 234 Md. 338 (Explains hostility element and permissive-to-adverse conversion)
Day v. Allender, 22 Md. 511 (First recognition of the woodlands exception in Maryland)
Wilson v. Waters, 192 Md. 221 (Discusses distinction between unenclosed woodland and improved lots for prescriptive claims)
Leekley v. Dewing, 217 Md. 54 (Applies woodlands exception where land was wild/unoccupied)
Forrester v. Kiler, 98 Md. App. 481 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. applying the woodlands exception to wooded, unenclosed land)