246 A.3d 1225
Md.2021Background
- Valley Mill Camp, Inc. leased campground land from Seneca Joint Venture; Bruce Uthus (Evelyn McEwan’s son) worked for Valley Mill for ~20 years and lived rent-free in an on-site apartment provided as an employment benefit.
- In May 2017 Valley Mill terminated Uthus’s employment and asked him to vacate the apartment; Uthus refused to leave.
- Valley Mill filed a trespass action in the Circuit Court (after having at one point filed and dismissed a wrongful detainer action in District Court during negotiations).
- The Circuit Court granted Valley Mill partial summary judgment on the trespass count and ordered Uthus to vacate; the Court of Special Appeals affirmed.
- Key legal questions: whether Uthus was a tenant or a licensee (affecting District Court exclusivity for landlord-tenant matters) and whether the wrongful detainer statute requires District Court exclusively or is permissive (i.e., whether a trespass action in circuit court is available).
- The Court of Appeals granted certiorari and affirmed: Uthus was a licensee (not a tenant); the wrongful detainer statute is permissive; a circuit court trespass action was proper and the elements of trespass were met.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Uthus) | Defendant's Argument (Valley Mill) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction: May a party in possession be sued in circuit court for common‑law trespass to recover possession, or is District Court exclusive? | District Court has exclusive jurisdiction over possession disputes (landlord‑tenant/wrongful detainer); circuit court lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction. | Wrongful detainer is one option, not exclusive; trespass in circuit court is a viable remedy. | Circuit court had jurisdiction; trespass action was proper. |
| Status of occupant: Was Uthus a tenant (entitling him to landlord‑tenant protections) or a licensee? | Uthus claimed an oral promise/partnership connection and long possession gave him tenancy rights. | No rent, no exclusive possession, occupant was an employee given permission to reside—thus a licensee. | Uthus was a licensee, not a tenant (no rent; no exclusive possession). |
| Scope of wrongful detainer statute: Is the wrongful detainer remedy mandatory (must be filed in District Court) or permissive? | The statute requires District Court; plaintiff should have pursued wrongful detainer there. | The statute uses "may" and is permissive; alternative remedies (including trespass in circuit court) remain available. | "May" is permissive; wrongful detainer is an option, not the exclusive remedy. |
| Elements of trespass: Did Valley Mill prove trespass despite Uthus’s physical occupation? | Uthus argued his continued physical possession negated trespass. | Valley Mill argued Uthus interfered with its possessory interest by remaining after termination and notice to vacate. | Trespass elements were satisfied: interference with Valley Mill’s possessory interest by physical, nonconsensual occupation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Delauter v. Shafer, 822 A.2d 423 (Md. 2003) (distinguishes license from lease; lack of rent and exclusive possession supports license).
- Curtis v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 50 A.3d 558 (Md. 2012) (tenant’s right of possession excludes landlord).
- Supervisor of Assessments of Anne Arundel Cty. v. Hartge Yacht Yard, Inc., 842 A.2d 732 (Md. 2004) (license is a revocable privilege; no estate or interest).
- Empire Properties, LLC v. Hardy, 873 A.2d 1187 (Md. 2005) (explains availability of alternative remedies and limits on using certain statutory procedures).
- Litz v. Maryland Dep’t of Env’t, 131 A.3d 923 (Md. 2016) (defines trespass as intrusion on possessory interest).
- Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Potomac Coal Co., 51 Md. 327 (Md. 1879) (early articulation that licenses are generally revocable).