Lindsay v. Annapolis Roads Property Owners Ass'n
64 A.3d 916
Md.2013Background
- ARPOA and six residents sued Lindsay Trust and Lindsay for declaratory relief regarding Strip ownership and Samorajcyzks’ easement over the Strip.
- The Strip is a ten-foot-wide parcel serving as a driveway to Lots 18–21 and to be accessed from Carrollton Road, adjacent to Lake Ogleton.
- The 1928 Plat created Annapolis Roads and depicted the Strip; subsequent deeds and mergers affected title to the Strip.
- Horton’s 1962 deed reserved an express ingress/egress easement for Lot 18 over the 1962 Extension and possibly the Strip.
- Samorajcyzks acquired Lot 18 (and portions of Lots 15–17) and merged several parcels in 2007 under a Lot Merger Agreement, asserting an easement over the Strip.
- The Circuit Court held Lindsay Trust owned the Strip in fee simple and an implied easement by plat over the Strip existed for Lot 18; the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the easement but reversed on the fee simple title, remanding for declaratory judgment not inconsistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an implied easement by reference to a plat may be created without express plat reference | Samorajcyzks rely on plat reference to create implied easement. | Lindsay contends explicit plat reference is required. | Implied easement by plat reference may be created even without express plat terms. |
| Whether implied easement by plat exists when plat lacks explicit easement words | Plat depicts a right of way supporting an easement. | Absence of explicit language defeats easement creation. | Plat depiction can create an implied easement even if no explicit words appear. |
| Whether an easement appurtenant to unimproved Lot 18 may be used by owners of merged lots | Easement should benefit Lot 18 despite mergers. | Merger extinguishes easements tied to Lot 18 beyond its boundaries. | Easement remains attached to Lot 18 and may benefit merged parcels as permitted by law. |
| Which conveyance controls as the basis for the easement—1928 deed or 1931 deed | 1928 deed (Mohler) is the relevant reference, creating easement. | 1931 deed governs for Lots 18–21 after reconveyance, extinguishing prior easement. | 1928 deed remains the relevant reference for Lot 18; 1931 deed governs other portions, but easement persists over the Strip. |
| Did the 2007 lot mergers extinguish the implied easement over the Strip | Merger should extinguish only that part uplifted by common ownership. | Merger could extinguish easement by unity of ownership. | Easement may continue for Lot 18; mergers do not extinguish it for the benefit of Lot 18. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boucher v. Boyer, 301 Md. 679 (Md. 1984) (implied easement by plat reference—presumption of inclusion in grant when plat referenced)
- Kobrine, LLC v. Metzger, 380 Md. 620 (Md. 2004) (plat reference creates easement when lots subdivided; implied easement principles apply)
- Koch v. Strathmeyer, 357 Md. 193 (Md. 1999) (plat references and easement inference alongside explicit plat mentions)
- Klein v. Dove, 205 Md. 285 (Md. 1954) (plat depiction can evidence easement despite lack of label or legend)
- Buckler v. Davis Sand & Gravel Corp., 221 Md. 532 (Md. 1960) (easement extinguishment rules when dominant/servient estates merge)
- Annapolis Roads Property Owners Assoc. v. Lindsay, 205 Md.App. 270 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2012) (precedent on implied easement by plat reference and vesting of fee simple title)