38 A.3d 534
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2012Background
- Beard & Bone sought an easement by necessity over Cantwell and Purnell properties to access a public road; trial court found unity of title in 1918 and awarded a 12-foot easement burdening both parcels.
- Deeds conveying the Purnell and Cantwell parcels were executed the same day (July 19, 1918) but recorded in sequence; no express reservation of an easement appeared in either deed.
- Harrisons retained Beard & Bone parcel and allegedly used two other parcels to access the land; witnesses testified Beard & Bone’s access route would require a 12–14 foot right of way.
- Current Purnell property owners acquired title in 2008 via the estate of Helen Purnell; Purnells argued the easement, if any, arose only over Cantwell due to recording order.
- Beard & Bone presented evidence that unity of title existed at severance, and that the easement was necessary for Beard & Bone to access its land; Purnells contested the severance timing and the location.
- Court considered whether the easement existed as an implied reservation or implied grant, whether it was apparent, and whether it was extinguished by adverse possession or barred by laches.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Purnell property has an easement by necessity. | Purnell: unity severed at conveyance; no easement over Purnell. | Beard & Bone: unity severed on 7/19/1918; easement across Purnell and Cantwell. | Easement by necessity exists; severance held on 7/19/1918 and burden shared. |
| Whether the easement by necessity was sufficiently apparent at severance. | Purnell: no apparent use at severance; easement not apparent. | Beard & Bone: appearance evidence not strictly required; policy favors full land use. | Apparentness not strictly required; easement could be implied despite lack of visible signs. |
| Whether the easement was extinguished by adverse possession or abandonment. | Purnell: 50-year occupancy and signs of no authority imply extinguishment. | Beard & Bone: no clear, unequivocal acts proving abandonment or adverse possession. | No extinguishment or adverse-possession bar; easement remains. |
| Whether laches bars Beard & Bone from asserting the easement. | Purnell: long delay prejudices, should bar claim. | Beard & Bone acted promptly after discovery of issue; no prejudice shown. | Laches not established; equitable claim sustained. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rau v. Collins, 167 Md. App. 176 (Md. 2006) (establishes three prerequisites for easement by necessity)
- Shpak v. Oletsky, 280 Md. 355 (Md. 1977) (necessity date tied to contract, strictness of implied reservations)
- Burns v. Gallagher, 62 Md. 462 (Md. 1884) (apparentness and strictness for implied reservations)
- Hancock v. Henderson, 236 Md. 98 (Md. 1964) (easement by necessity may pass with land even if not apparent at grant)
- Michael v. Needham, 39 Md. App. 271 (Md. 1978) (date of contract controls for creation of easement by necessity)
- Stair v. Miller, 52 Md. App. 108 (Md. 1982) (recordation order alone not determinative of severance timing)