Clickner v. Magothy River Ass'n
35 A.3d 464
| Md. | 2012Background
- Appellants own Dobbins Island, a seven-acre shoreline parcel; public use of a sandy beach on the island’s northern crescent has occurred for decades.
- In 2006, Appellants erected a 1,200-foot fence along the beach above mean high water, supported by pilings and cable.
- Appellees sued to establish a public easement and to remove the fence; the circuit court granted the easement by prescription and ordered fence removal.
- The trial court applied a general presumption of adverse use, placing the burden on Clickners to prove the use was not permissive.
- The Maryland Court of Appeals reversed, holding the beach is unimproved and in a general state of nature, so public use is presumed permissive and no prescriptive easement existed, vacating the fence-removal order.
- Judgment reversed and remanded to enter judgment for Appellants consistent with this opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the public has a prescriptive easement to use the beach. | Appellees; prescriptive use existed for 20 years. | Appellants; use was permissive and not adverse. | No prescriptive easement; presumption of permissive use applies. |
| Whether the circuit court properly ordered removal of the fence. | Circuit Court correctly removed obstructive fence. | Fence location approved administratively; removal not proper. | Reversed; no prescriptive easement, fence-removal order improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cox v. Forrest, 60 Md. 74 (1883) (adversity required for prescriptive easements; use without license presumes adverse unless proven otherwise)
- Banks v. Pusey, 393 Md. 688 (2006) (burden on owner to prove permissive use if presumption of adversity applies; public use often presumptively permissive)
- Ocean City v. Dept. Nat. Res., 274 Md. 1 (1975) (extends public prescriptive rights to dry sand littoral property; declines need for inland/ocean distinction)
- Day v. Allender, 22 Md. 511 (1865) (woodlands exception; permissive use presumption on unenclosed land)
- Wilson v. Waters, 192 Md. 221 (1949) (unenclosed/unimproved land often presumed permissive use; depends on state of land)
- Cropper v. Dept. of Nat. Res., 274 Md. 25 (1975) (beach use in general state of nature; not necessarily adverse without evidence of duration and occupation)