Webb v. Nowak
72 A.3d 587
Md.2013Background
- Webbs and Nowaks dispute the western boundary of the Disputed Land, a 0.26-acre parcel in Sharpsburg, tied to Wolf deed boundary calls from 1928.
- Wolf deed describes a boundary along a fence; later surveys diverge on the fence location (Frederick/Existing Fence vs Zenith Survey).
- Nowaks’ 2007 Frederick Survey places the boundary along the Existing Fence about 300 feet west of a road stake; Zenith Survey for Webbs places it 77–140 feet further west.
- Trial court found the boundary along the Existing Fence (monument) and dismissed Webbs’ trespass claims; Court of Special Appeals affirmed; certiorari granted.
- Evidence included surveyor Frederick and associate Stotler, testimony about fence remnants, troughs, tree growth around a fence, and longevity of the fence.
- Key legal issue is whether boundary location is a fact-intensive boundary dispute or a matter of legal deed interpretation, and which standard of review applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicable standard of review for boundary disputes | Webbs contend deed interpretation is de novo as law; no deference to trial court. | Nowaks contend boundary location is fact-heavy; apply clear-error standard. | Boundary location is a question of fact; apply clear-error standard. |
| Whether the trial court’s boundary finding along the Existing Fence is clearly erroneous | Webbs argue Zenith Survey should control; boundary extends west of Existing Fence. | Nowaks argue Frederick/Stotler evidence supports Existing Fence as the monument. | No clear error; substantial evidence supports Existing Fence as boundary line. |
| Canons of deed interpretation compel reversal | Lost monument theory allows substitution for the Wolf deed fence with a different fence. | There was no lost monument; Existing Fence reconciles deed; no scrivener’s error to fix. | Monuments control if extant; no lost monument; prefer Existing Fence under deed interpretation. |
| Effect of possible mistake harmonization in the Wolf deed | If the third line is wrong, extend to create 340 feet to the private road. | Treats potential mistake as harmonizing the grant to fit surrounding evidence. | Court adopted harmonization to align with existing fence; not clearly erroneous. |
Key Cases Cited
- Union United Methodist Church, Inc. v. Burton, 404 Md. 542 (2008) (boundary location is a question of fact reviewed for clear error)
- Heat & Power Corp. v. Air Prods. & Chems., Inc., 320 Md. 584 (1990) (clearly erroneous standard does not apply to questions of law)
- Barchowsky v. Silver Farms, Inc., 105 Md.App. 228 (1995) (monuments vs. courses and distances in boundary interpretation)
- Parran v. Wilson, 160 Md. 604 (1931) (monument calls control when identifiable; otherwise course and distance prevail)
- Budd v. Brooke, 3 Gill 198 (1845) (monument calls prevail when extant and certain)
- Kelso v. Steiger, 75 Md. 376 (1892) (assists in boundary interpretation when assumptions reconcile mismatch)
- Franklin Coal Co. v. McMillan, 49 Md. 549 (1878) (monument calls recognized unless lost)
- White v. Pines Community Improvement Ass’n, Inc., 403 Md. 13 (2008) (contract/deed interpretation follows general contract principles)
- L.W. Wolfe Enterprises, Inc. v. Maryland Nat’l Golf, L.P., 165 Md.App. 339 (2005) (appellate review of boundary findings; deference to trial court on credibility)