279 A.3d 1052
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2022Background
- A 1945 deed (the "Brady deed") conveyed land between designated "right of way" lines (including the disputed 0.196-acre shoreline strip in Scotland Beach) to the State "forever in fee simple."
- The disputed strip bisects Wilkinson’s property; Bay Front Drive was platted (Plats 1918/1919) to run through the subdivision; the road was paved north to about Station Marker 14 but the southern portion (including the disputed strip) was never fully constructed because of shoreline erosion.
- In 1988 the State conveyed "all right, title and interest" in the right-of-way shown on the plats (including the Brady-parceled land) to St. Mary’s County by a recorded road-conveyance deed.
- Wilkinson sought administrative closure of the unconstructed portion; the County adopted an ordinance in 2017 closing part of Bay Front Drive and placing an "End of County Maintenance" sign near Station Marker 14.
- Circuit court held the County owns the disputed strip in fee simple and that no public road exists south of Station Marker 14; it granted summary judgment for the County and denied Wilkinson’s motion. The Aikens intervened asserting access rights and raised quiet-title and tort claims.
- On appeal the court affirmed fee-simple ownership (Brady deed conveyed fee simple absolute), reversed the no-public-road finding (holding there was a completed dedication/acceptance), vacated and remanded portions of the judgment involving the Aikens’ claims, and affirmed dismissal of the Aikens’ quiet-title and County tort claims for failure to satisfy statutory notice/joinder requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Brady deed is ambiguous and whether extrinsic evidence should be considered | Wilkinson: deed is ambiguous; intended only to grant an easement; extrinsic evidence should be considered | County: deed is plain; grants fee simple to State; no extrinsic evidence needed | Court: deed unambiguous; conveyed fee simple absolute; no extrinsic evidence required (affirmed) |
| Whether the Brady deed granted an easement (or a fee subject to reversion) rather than fee simple absolute | Wilkinson: deed’s highway-purpose language creates a self-terminating easement or fee simple determinable | County: purpose language does not debase the fee; no reversionary clause; fee simple absolute conveyed | Court: purpose language does not create a determinable fee or easement; fee simple absolute conveyed (affirmed) |
| Whether a public road existed south of Station Marker 14 (creation by dedication or other means) | Aikens: plats, deeds, and State/County acts show offer and acceptance (dedication) of Bay Front Drive including southern portion | County/Wilkinson: no acceptance; unpaved gravel/private use; County maintenance ends at Marker 14 | Court: dedication was completed—State accepted via the 1945 deed and County by the 1988 conveyance and later handling; error to find no public road south of Marker 14 (reversed in part) |
| Whether the Aikens’ quiet-title and interference-with-easement claims survive summary judgment (joinder/notice issues) | Aikens: entitled to quiet title vs. Wilkinson and tort relief vs. County; County had notice of obstructions | County/Wilkinson: Aikens failed to join necessary parties and did not plead or give LGTCA notice; governmental immunity applies | Court: quiet-title dismissal affirmed for failure to join/notice; interference claim vs. County dismissed for LGTCA notice failure; some Aikens claims remanded given dedication finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Gilchrist v. Chester, 307 Md. 422 (1986) (if deed language is plain and unambiguous, courts may not use extrinsic evidence to vary it)
- Gunby v. Olde Severna Park Improvement Ass'n, Inc., 402 Md. 317 (2007) (basic contract principles govern deed construction)
- Gregg Neck Yacht Club, Inc. v. County Comm'rs of Kent County, 137 Md. App. 732 (2001) (common-law dedication requires offer and acceptance; acceptance may be by deed/record or acts in pais)
- Thomas v. Ford, 63 Md. 346 (1885) (three methods to establish a public road: public authority, dedication, or long public use/prescription-analog)
- Boucher v. Boyer, 301 Md. 679 (1984) (definition of easement and treatment of plats and rights-of-way in conveyances)
- City of Annapolis v. Waterman, 357 Md. 484 (2000) (recorded subdivision plat can create a presumption of intent to dedicate; acceptance is required unless statute provides otherwise)
- Gordon v. City of Baltimore, 258 Md. 682 (1970) (mere statement of purpose in a conveyance does not automatically create a determinable fee or reversionary interest)