USA Cartage Leasing, LLC v. Baer
55 A.3d 510
Md.2012Background
- Maryland recognizes general vs. specific easements; general easements lack precise location in the grant.
- The 1984 Glesner subdivision created Baer and Cartage parcels; an easement over Cartage was granted to Baer as a 25-foot right-of-way from the existing entrance, per the 1985 deed, though the deed did not describe a precise route.
- A 1984 plat shows an “Existing Entrance” near the parcel line but does not depict the easement.
- In 1995 Cartage acquired the Cartage parcel; Baer parcel later came to Baer in 2008; intervening deeds did not mention the easement.
- Baer filed suit in 2008 seeking declaratory judgment and seeking to establish the location of the right-of-way and to enjoin Cartage from interference; Cartage denied liability and sought to quiet title.
- The Circuit Court granted summary judgment noting a general easement; it later fixed Baer’s location proposal, and Cartage appealed; the Court of Special Appeals directed location under Restatement § 4.8.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of general easement despite lack of precise location | Baer: easement valid under recording statutes and general-easement doctrine | Cartage: requires precise location within deed | General easement valid; location to be determined under Restatement 4.8 |
| Proper method to locate a general easement not defined by deed | Baer supports Restatement §4.8 balancing approach | Cartage urges strict adherence to deed-descriptor rule | Court adopts Restatement §4.8 balancing approach to locate the easement |
| Sufficiency of servient estate description for recording statute | Baer argues servient estate described with reasonable certainty | Cartage argues lack of precise location invalidates grant | Servient estate adequately described; deed valid though location unfixed |
| Harmonizing Maryland law with general-easement location principles | Baer relies on Restatement §4.8 and case law on necessity-easements | Cartage cautions against broad Restatement-based location | Adopt Restatement §4.8 approach as compatible with Maryland law |
Key Cases Cited
- Rogers v. P-M Hunter’s Ridge, LLC, 407 Md. 712 (Md. 2009) (defines easement terms and dominant/servient concepts and addresses creation of easements)
- McDonough v. Roland Park Co., 189 Md. 659 (Md. 1948) (addressed location of reserved parcels and related access easements; relevance to location of general easements)
- Berry v. Derwart, 55 Md. 66 (Md. 1880) (early articulation that conveyances must identify subject with reasonable certainty)
- Carmody v. Brooks, 40 Md. 240 (Md. 1874) (stated need for conveyances to provide a means of locating the property)
- Neel v. Hughes, 10 G. & J. 7 (Md. 1838) (early rule about identifying conveyed land)
- Sibbel v. Fitch, 182 Md. 323 (Md. 1943) (location and establishment of easements by use; implications for general easements)
- Stansbury v. MDR Development, LLC, 390 Md. 476 (Md. 2006) (discusses easement of necessity and locating implied rights; relevance to locating general easements)