Breeding v. Koste
Decision Date | 22 May 2015 |
Docket Number | No. 66, Sept. Term, 2014.,66, Sept. Term, 2014. |
Parties | Ottis E. BREEDING, Jr., et al. v. Christian Nicholas KOSTE. |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Anne C. Ogletree (Denton, MD), on brief, for petitioners.
Christopher F. Drummond (Centreville, MD), on brief, for respondent.
Argued before BARBERA, C.J., HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, GREENE, ADKINS, McDONALD and WATTS, JJ.
To establish a prescriptive easement,1 a claimant must show adverse, exclusive, and uninterrupted use of another's real property for twenty years. See Banks v. Pusey, 393 Md. 688, 699, 904 A.2d 448, 454 (2006). Where an easement is claimed on land that is unimproved or otherwise in a general state of nature, there is a legal presumption that the claimant's use is by the owner's permission. See Clickner v. Magothy River Ass'n Inc., 424 Md. 253, 281, 35 A.3d 464, 482 (2012). This presumption, first referenced by this Court in 1865, has been termed the “woodlands exception,” and, to date, has been applied only in cases involving easements. Id. at 281–82, 35 A.3d at 482 (citation omitted).
Here, we decide: (I) whether the “woodlands exception” applies to adverse possession; and, if so, (II) whether the “woodlands exception” applies under the circumstances of this case.
We hold that: (I) the “woodlands exception” applies to adverse possession where the land at issue is unimproved or otherwise in a general state of nature; and (II) the “woodlands exception” does not apply under this case's circumstances because the land at issue is neither unimproved nor otherwise in a general state of nature.
Due to the claim's nature, a detailed recitation of the case's procedural and land transfer history is necessary.
On September 13, 2010, Christian Nicholas Koste (“Koste”), Respondent, filed in the Circuit Court for Caroline County (“the circuit court”) a “ Complaint for Title by Adverse Possession and Bill to Quiet Title” against adjoining landowners, Ottis Breeding, Jr., James “Rick” Breeding, and Terry Breeding (together, “the Breedings”), Petitioners, concerning the ownership of a piece of land known as the Landing on Watts Creek (“the Landing”). The Landing is a triangular parcel of land, more than 10,000 square feet in area, that abuts the southern side of a small body of water known as Watts Creek. The Landing is located between the northeast corner of Koste's property (“the Koste property”) and the northwest corner of the Breedings' property (“the Breeding property”). The Koste property and the Breeding property are adjoining tracts of land that are bound to the north by Watts Creek. The Koste property is mostly wooded; and Koste resides in a home that overlooks the Landing. The Breeding property is used for surface mining.2
On October 22, 2010, the Breedings filed an answer to the complaint. On November 22, 2010, the Breedings filed a “Counter Complaint to Quiet Title and for Relief from Trespass,” alleging that they held title to the Landing and that Koste's use of the Landing constituted trespass.3
Beginning on May 14, 2012, the circuit court conducted a five-day bench trial, which included the circuit court's viewing the Landing.4 On November 19, 2012, the circuit court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order, ruling that Koste had established a claim to the Landing by adverse possession.
As to the Koste property, the circuit court made the following findings of fact, which we summarize. In December 1944, Koste's grandparents purchased the Koste property, which consisted of 125 acres of land, and moved into a home on the western end of the Koste property. Shortly afterward, however, Koste's grandparents built a new home in the middle of the Koste property, close to Watts Creek. By 1950, Koste's grandparents had moved into the new home. In 1962, Koste's grandparents sold approximately thirteen acres of land, including the land that contained their old home. From 1975 to 1985, from age five to fifteen, Koste lived with his grandparents at the Koste property. From 1985 to 1988, Koste regularly visited his grandparents at the Koste property; and after graduating from high school in 1988, Koste continued to visit, though not as frequently. In Koste's grandfather's last will and testament, executed in February 1989, Koste's grandfather provided for conveyance of his interest in approximately forty acres of the Koste property to Koste and another grandson. In 1999, Koste's grandfather died. In 2004, a portion of the Koste property was conveyed to Koste. On October 15, 2004, Koste applied for a building permit to construct a home. On October 14, 2008, Koste received an occupancy permit for his newly constructed home.
As to the Breeding property, the circuit court made the following findings of fact, which we summarize. When Koste's grandparents purchased the Koste property in 1944, Beatrice Butler owned the Breeding property. In June 1946, Butler conveyed the Breeding property to Elizabeth MacDonald, who, several months later, conveyed the Breeding property to Leander and Madeline Jeffrey. In 1952, the Jeffreys conveyed the Breeding property to Madeline and Charles Birch. In 1953, the Birches conveyed the Breeding property to Chauncey and Marion Downes. In 1971, the Downeses conveyed the Breeding property to Mathias and Regina Mueller, who created a gravel pit on the Breeding property. On March 10, 1987, the Muellers conveyed the Breeding property to the Breedings and their father as joint tenants; the Breedings and their father continued the use of the Breeding property as a gravel pit. The Breedings' father died, and, by deed dated December 28, 2006, title to the Breeding property changed from the Breedings' holding the Breeding property as joint tenants to the Breedings' holding the Breeding property as tenants in common.
In the Memorandum Opinion and Order, the circuit court also made the following detailed findings of fact concerning the Landing:5
(Record references omitted). In its analysis, the circuit court set forth additional findings of fact concerning the Landing, as well as conclusions of law, including the following:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bontempo ex rel. Quotient, Inc. v. Lare
...Md. 392, 409, 942 A.2d 736 (2008). The appellate court considers questions of law without deference, or de novo. See Breeding v. Koste, 443 Md. 15, 27, 115 A.3d 106 (2015). A trial court's decision whether to award particular forms of equitable relief based on its fact findings and the appl......
-
Montgomery Cnty. v. Maloney
...would in any other bench trial." McLaughlin v. Gill Simpson Electric , 206 Md. App. 242, 253, 47 A.3d 1074 (2012).3 In Breeding v. Koste , 443 Md. 15, 115 A.3d 106 (2015), the Court of Appeals elaborated on the standard of appellate review applied, pursuant to Md. Rule 8-131(c), to bench tr......
-
Wilkinson v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners of St. Mary's Cnty.
...464 (citing Thomas , 63 Md. at 351-52 ), which "share[s] substantially the same elements" as adverse possession. Breeding v. Koste , 443 Md. 15, 34-36, 115 A.3d 106 (2015) (relying on adverse possession law in cases involving prescriptive easements). The existence of a public road "may be e......
-
Montgomery Cnty. v. Bhatt
...Factual findings will be reviewed for clear error, but questions of law "require our non-deferential review." Breeding v. Koste, 443 Md. 15, 27, 115 A.3d 106, 113 (2015). Here, we are asked to consider the Circuit Court's interpretation of the 1890 Deed and its conclusion that the County in......