5501 Pulaski, LLC v. CBK Realty, Inc.
| Decision Date | 14 August 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 724,724 |
| Parties | 5501 PULASKI, LLC v. CBK REALTY, INC., et al. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Circuit Court for Baltimore City
Case No. 24-C-17004469
UNREPORTED
Meredith, Graeff, Battaglia, Lynn A. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
Opinion by Graeff, J.
*This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.
CBK Realty, Inc. ("CBK"), one of the appellees, is the owner of a parcel of land located at 5401 Pulaski Highway in Baltimore ("Lot A"). 5501 Pulaski, LLC ("Pulaski LLC"), appellant, is the owner of an adjacent parcel of land located at 5501 Pulaski Highway ("Lot B"). The lots initially were owned by one entity, but in 1955, Lot B was sold. The prior owners of Lot B used an easement through Lot A to access the nearby highway. Although CBK, who acquired Lot A in 2013, initially allowed Pulaski LLC to use Lot A to access the highway, it began to impede Pulaski LLC's access in April or May 2017.
On August 31, 2017, Pulaski LLC filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City against CBK and Chong Kim, one of the owners of CBK, seeking, among other things, a temporary restraining order against CBK and a declaratory judgment that there was a valid and enforceable easement on Lot A. On April 5, 2018, CBK and Chong Kim ("appellees") filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Pulaski LLC did not have the right to use or enforce an easement. The following day, Pulaski LLC filed a motion for partial summary judgment, asserting that there was valid and enforceable easement. On May 11, 2018, following a hearing, the circuit court entered orders denying Pulaski LLC's motion for summary judgment and granting appellees' motion.
On appeal, Pulaski LLC raises the following two issues on appeal:
For the reasons set forth below, we shall affirm the judgment of the circuit court denying Pulaski LLC's motion for partial summary judgment, vacate the judgment granting appellees' motion for summary judgment, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
From 1949 to 1955, E.A. Kaestner Company ("E.A.") owned what is now Lot A and Lot B as a single, undivided parcel of land. E.A. subdivided the parcel, and on March 24, 1955, it conveyed Lot B by deed to Jesse and Mary Margaret Noland ("the Nolands").1 The Nolands operated a boat sales and service business on Lot B and maintained a good relationship with E.A. From 1955 to 1986, E.A. allowed the Nolands to travel across Lot A to reach Pulaski Highway.
On November 10, 1986, after the death of her husband, Mrs. Noland sold Lot B to Carroll L. Bond, Jr. ("Bond, Jr.") and Charles A. Born, (collectively, "Bond/Born"), as tenants in common. Three days later, on November 13, 1986, Bond/Born and E.A. executed a Declaration of Easement (the "1986 Declaration") that formalized the right of Bond/Born, as owners of Lot B, to "cross Lot 'A' as additional ingress and egress to and from Pulaski Highway."
The 1986 Declaration provided that the easement was for the "limited purpose of ingress and egress from Pulaski Highway to Lot B for vehicular traffic." It stated that E.A. could designate the precise route of the easement through Lot A, and it had the right to change the easement in its sole discretion. The easement was "binding upon [E.A], its successors or assigns and upon [Bond/Born], personally and individually and not their heirs and personal representatives."
Paragraph 6 of the 1986 Declaration described five events, the occurrence of any of which would "automatically terminate and . . . extinguish[] forever" the easement. These events included:
Paragraph 8 addressed the possibility of reverter. It stated that, after September 1, 2016, E.A.'s "right of entry or possibility of reverter, upon the occurrence of the events set forth in Paragraph 6" would "automatically terminat[e]," unless the easement was "renewed by an instrument duly recorded, acknowledged, and signed."
Paragraph 9 expressed the intent that the easement granted be an interim easement. It stated:
On or before twelve (12) months following the recordation of [the 1986 Declaration] [E.A.] and [Bond/Born] shall execute and record . . . a Declaration of Easement and plat delineating the exact route and boundaries of the easement . . . . Said easement shall not be greater than fifteen (15) feet wide and the precise route of the easement shall be as determined by [E.A.] in its sole and absolute judgement and discretion. Said easement shall be in perpetuity and [Bond/Born] shall pay all costs and expenses incurred in the preparation of the Declaration of Easement including survey costs, plat preparation and recording fees.
On October 30, 1987, E.A. and Bond/Born executed and recorded another Declaration of Easement (the "1987 Declaration"). This easement agreement permitted Bond/Born "the right to cross Lot 'A' as additional access to Pulaski Highway as set forth in a Declaration of Easement dated November 13, 1986." In accordance with the 1986 Declaration, the declaration more particularly described the boundaries of the easement, designating a "15 foot wide strip running 160 feet parallel to the common boundary line between Lot A and Lot B."
Approximately six years later, on June 30, 1993, Bond/Born executed and recorded a quitclaim deed transferring Lot B to Bond, Jr., individually. On July 14, 2005, Bond, Jr. executed and recorded a deed transferring Lot B to Pulaski LLC, a pass-through LLC operated by the Carroll L. Bond, Jr. Trust (the "Trust") as the sole member.2
Lot B was used as a site for several businesses, including a gold business, a bail bonds office, a carpet store, and Carbond, Inc. d/b/a/ Bayside Vending ("Carbond"). Carbond, a vending machine business owned by Bond, Jr.'s son, Caroll L. Bond III ("Bond III") until 2008, was the "longest-standing" business.
On November 1, 2008, Bond Jr. and Bond III agreed to sell Carbond to August Papa. That day, the Trust entered into a Lease Agreement with Carbond, in which it agreed to lease Lot B to Carbond for a term of one year, "commencing on the 1st day of November 2008, with an option for one . . . additional one . . . year term at the expiration of the original lease term, for the minimum annual rent of [$24,000] payable monthly in advance in sums of [$2,000]." Beginning in January 2008, Carbond made monthly rental payments of $2,000 to Pulaski LLC.
On July 31, 2013, E.A. executed and recorded a deed transferring Lot A to CBK (the "CBK Deed"), which, by its terms, was "subject to" the 1987 Declaration. Chong Kim, appellee, and his wife, Shalley Kim, are the co-owners of CBK. When CBK first acquired Lot A, they allowed Pulaski LLC to use the easement. After April or May 2017, CBK and Mr. Kim began to block access to the easement.
Unable to access the easement, Pulaski LLC began to access Lot B using an access point in the "on ramp" onto Interstate 895. At his deposition, David Penner, representative for Pulaski LLC, testified this was not safe because there was no visibility of oncoming traffic and limited time to react to traffic accelerating up the on-ramp.
On June 6, 2017, Pulaski LLC's attorney made a written demand that CBK "immediately cease and desist" its obstruction of the easement. She stated that the easement was subject to the 1986 Declaration, explaining:
Paragraph 6 of Easement identifies five specific events which would automatically terminate the Easement: Paragraph 8, however, provides "[f]rom and after September 1, 2016, the Declarant's right of entry or possibility of reverter upon the occurrence of the events set forth in Paragraph 6 hereof shall be automatically terminated unless renewed by an instrument duly recorded, acknowledged, and signed by the Declarant." As no such instrument was recorded prior to September 1, 2016, the Easement has ripened into a perpetual easement that cannot be terminated without the consent of both parties. Accordingly, the Easement remains in full force and effect, and your obstruction of our client's access to 5501 Pulaski Highway violates the terms of the Easement.
Counsel for appellees wrote a response letter dated July 7, 2017, stating that appellees were "within their rights to restrict [Pulaski LLC's] access to 5401 Pulaski" because the easement had expired by its own terms. Counsel stated that, pursuant to Paragraph 6 of the Declaration of Easement, "at least four of the five" event/s conditions that triggered termination of the easement had occurred. These conditions included:
To continue reading
Request your trial