USA Cartage Leasing, LLC v. Baer, 32 A.3d 88

Background

Baer and Cartage own adjacent parcels (Baer Parcel and Cartage Parcel) with a historic easement dispute over a 25-foot right-of-way from Governor Lane Boulevard to the Baer Parcel; the Glesners were predecessors in title to both parcels.
Baer asserted a legally valid express easement over Cartage’s land, though its location was not specified in the deed chain; Cartage denied validity and argued abandonment, estoppel, and adverse possession defenses.
Baer sued for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and damages; Cartage counterclaimed to quiet title and asserted defenses.
The circuit court granted Baer summary judgment on the easement’s validity and location, applied a balancing analysis to locate the easement, and held Cartage’s defenses unfounded, then remanded for a specific location.
Cartage sought Rule 2-602(b) certification of appeal; the court vacated and remanded on appeal, while Baer’s request sought a definitive location and injunction against Cartage’s interference.
Remand was ordered to determine a least-burdensome, reasonably convenient location consistent with the easement’s purpose and 25-foot width.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the declaratory judgment order is appealable.	Baer argues appeal permitted under Rule 2-602(b).	Cartage argues the order is interlocutory and not final.	Yes; appealable under Rule 2-602(b) as final for purposes of review.
Whether the easement description/location is legally valid.	Baer contends the general express easement can be located by later acts or balancing.	Cartage says lack of precise description violates RP 4-101 and cannot locate the easement.	The easement is valid; location may be determined by equitable balancing when not fixed by instrument or use.
Whether the circuit court erred in using the balancing analysis to locate the easement.	Baer contends balancing is proper where no fixed location exists.	Cartage argues balancing is inappropriate for express easements lacking location.	Balancing analysis appropriate; remand instruction to apply proper location method.
Whether Cartage’s abandonment, estoppel, and adverse possession defenses should have defeated the easement.	Baer argues defenses fail due to continued use and intent or tacking.	Cartage asserts long-term nonuse, reliance by servient owner, and adverse possession.	Summary judgment on abandonment and estoppel affirmed; adverse possession vacated due to factual questions; remand on locational procedure.
What procedure should govern on remand to locate the easement?	Baer seeks location consistent with existing record.	Cartage argues for minimal alteration of location.	On remand, use Third Restatement framework; servient owner proposes location first; court to decide if proposal aligns with easement attributes.

Key Cases Cited

Rogers v. P-M Hunter's Ridge, L.L.C., 407 Md. 712, 967 A.2d 807 (Md. 2009) (ambiguity in general easements may be resolved by subsequent conduct or declarations)
Weems v. County Comm'rs, 397 Md. 606, 919 A.2d 77 (Md. 2007) (location of implied easement by necessity may be guided by subsequent use)
Hancock v. Henderson, 236 Md. 98, 202 A.2d 599 (Md. 1964) (balancing approach to locate way of necessity; not fixed by deed alone)
Sibbel v. Fitch, 182 Md. 323, 34 A.2d 773 (Md. 1943) (location of general easement by subsequent acts may be fixed by usage)
Kelly v. Nagle, 150 Md. 125, 132 A.2d 587 (Md. 1926) (validity of general easement description when servient estate identified; minimal location detail acceptable)
Potomac Electric Power Co. v. Classic Community Corp., 382 Md. 581, 856 A.2d 660 (Md. 2004) (discussion on minimal descriptive requirements for easements and location)
Stansbury v. MDR Dev., L.L.C., 390 Md. 476, 889 A.2d 403 (Md. 2006) (balancing approach in locating easements by necessity)
Burroughs v. Milligan, 199 Md. 78, 85 A.2d 775 (Md. 1952) (early endorsement of equity-based location when undefined)