33 A.3d 480
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2011Background
- Dorchester County owned a 30-foot wide strip across the Ochses’ property in fee simple since 1919 via a 1919 deed to the county.
- The Henrys purchased a 4.791 acre parcel in 1987 and subdivided it in 1998, creating a larger parcel and a subdivision that affected access.
- The 1998 subdivision plat created a 4.791 acre parcel and showed a driveway crossing, which the Ochses later claimed affected title.
- The 2001 deed to the Ochses stated the property was subject to “rights of others to use a driveway” for ingress/egress, which the Ochses interpreted as an encumbrance; the title company suggested it referred to utilities.
- The circuit court initially held that Dorchester County owned the 30-foot strip, and after trial, awarded attorney’s fees to the Henrys; mediation later transferred the strip to the Ochses and Dorchester County was dismissed.
- The Maryland appellate court reversed, determined the contract did not merge due to mutual mistake or misrepresentation, vacated the attorney’s fees award, and remanded for consideration consistent with the opinion; title issues were resolved through mediation with the Ochses obtaining the 30-foot strip.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Merger and contract vs. deed effects | Ochses contend merger was avoided by mutual mistake or fraud. | Henrys argue merger barred contract claims. | Contract did not merge due to mutual mistake/fraud; suit on contract permitted. |
| Breach of special covenants | Ochses claim Henrys breached covenants against encumbrances and of title. | Henrys unaware of 1919 deed; no encumbrance breach. | Henrys did not breach covenants against encumbrances or special warranty. |
| Fraudulent inducement/misrepresentation | Henrys made misrepresentations to induce purchase. | No material misrepresentation proven; Henrys acted in good faith. | No fraudulent inducement or misrepresentation proven. |
Key Cases Cited
- Magraw v. Dillow, 341 Md. 492 (Md. 1996) (encumbrance concept and covenants against encumbrances explained)
- Marathon Builders, Inc. v. Polinger, 263 Md. 410 (Md. 1971) (special covenant against encumbrances and title protections)
- Dillow v. Magraw, 102 Md.App. 343 (Md. Ct. Appl. 1994) (covenant against encumbrances extends to third-party interests)
- Marcus v. Bathon, 72 Md.App. 475 (Md. Ct. App. 1987) (descriptions of land: more or less; covenants not breached by minor acreage variance)
- Piper v. Jenkins, 207 Md. 308 (Md. 1955) (vendor boundaries and reliance; discovery rule considerations)
- Dorsey v. Beads, 288 Md. 161 (Md. 1980) (general merger rule; deed usually merges prior negotiations; fraud/mistake exceptions)
- Barrie v. Abate, 209 Md. 578 (Md. 1956) (presumption of merger upon deed execution; exceptions for fraud/mistake)