Carey v. Kingsport Cmty. Ass'n

• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Opinion by Battaglia, J.
• Decision Date: 11 May 2021
• Docket Number: No. 1571,1571
• Citation: Carey v. Kingsport Cmty. Ass'n, No. 1571 (Md. App. May 11, 2021)
• Parties: ASHER B. CAREY III, et al. v. KINGSPORT COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION INC.

ASHER B. CAREY III, et al. v. KINGSPORT COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION INC.

No. 1571

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

September Term, 2019

May 11, 2021

Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County

Case No.: C-02-CV-18-003339

UNREPORTED

Gould, Zic, Battaglia, Lynne, A. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Opinion by Battaglia, 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.

In October of 2019 a declaratory judgment was entered in the present case, a driveway dispute between homeowners Asher and Cynthia Carey, Appellants and Cross-Appellees, and Kingsport Community Association Inc., Appellees and Cross-Appellants. The declaration provided:

This matter came before the Court on September 4, 2019 through September 6, 2019 for a merit hearing on Declaratory Relief and Injunctive Relief. For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion filed with this Order,¹ it is this 8th day of October 2019, by the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, hereby:

ORDERED, that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff Kingsport Community Association, Inc. ("Kingsport") and against Defendants Asher B. Carey, III and Cynthia M. Carey ("Defendants") as to all counts in the above captioned matter; and it is further,

ORDERED, that by declaration of this Court, Defendants do not have an exclusive right to the Driveway Easement provided through the Easement Termination and Agreement dated August 1, 2001 and recorded in the land records for Anne Arundel County, Maryland at Liber 10634, folio 358 ("Easement Agreement"). Kingsport may use the property subject to the Driveway Easement in a manner not inconsistent with its fee simple property rights or established law; and it is further,

ORDERED, Defendants are enjoined and restrained from interfering with Plaintiff or its residents' access or use of the Driveway Easement; and it is further,

ORDERED, that by declaration of this Court, Defendants' construction of a fence exceeded the rights provided to them in the Easement Agreement and interfered with Kingsport's rights as fee simple owner of the property; and it is further,

ORDERED, that Defendants shall remove at their expense the fence they built on Kingsport Property and/or the Driveway Easement on or before December 5, 2019.

The Careys challenge various aspects of the Order, raising five questions in their appeal:

(1) Whether it was error for the trial court to refuse to address the issue of ownership of the Driveway when the issue of ownership was not disputed by Kingsport and standing is an essential element to Kingsport's case as a matter of law?

(2) Whether it was error for the trial court to issue [a] declaratory judgment when the rights of the fee simple owner of the Driveway were at stake and the fee simple owner of the Driveway was not a party to the case?

(3) Whether the trial court erred when it failed to properly interpret the easement document as a matter of law?

(4) Whether the trial court erred when it failed to consider extrinsic evidence when purporting to render a decision related to the rights and duties of Kingsport and the Careys as a matter of law?

(5) Whether the trial court's order on declaratory relief must be reversed for failure to issue a separate declaration of rights of the parties as a matter of law?

Kingsport, raised six questions,² one of which constituted its cross-appeal:

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Appellee's oral motion for continuance after Appellants' presentation of evidence on the second day of trial contradicted Appellants' stipulation that Appellee owned Appellee's Property?

The Declaratory Judgment in the present case, although correctly articulating the rights and obligations of the Careys as the dominant tenants³ of the driveway easement, fails with respect to Kingsport's rights and obligations, because the record is lacking for the findings and conclusions that Kingsport has fee simple property rights, that Kingsport has rights as "fee simple owner of the property," or that the property is properly denoted as "Kingsport Property." As a result, we remand the case to the trial court to determine whether Kingsport is, in fact, the "servient" tenant, as the owner of the property underlying the driveway easement and as such, satisfies the standing requirement as well as the necessary party prescription.

In October of 2018, Kingsport filed suit against the Careys questioning whether the couple was correct in asserting, through their construction of a fence, that they were the only ones who could use a driveway to access their home, to the detriment of Kingsport itself and the Careys' neighbors in Kingsport; the complaint, in part, asserted:

1. The dispute subject to this complaint arose because the Defendants claimto have an exclusive right to use an easement over Kingsport real property ("Kingsport Property").

* * *

3. The easement serves as a driveway from the public road to Defendants' house. Defendants allege they alone have exclusive right to use this easement that is on Kingsport Property. To that end, Defendants constructed a fence on the easement that restricts Kingsport access to its property.

4. Plaintiff is a homeowner association and a Maryland corporation with a principal office located at 400 Serendipity Drive, Millersville, Maryland, all located in Anne Arundel County, Maryland.

5. Defendants, Asher and Cynthia Carey, reside at 821 Childs Point Road, Annapolis, Maryland ("Defendants' Property"). Defendants' Property is located in Anne Arundel County, Maryland.

* * *

10. The current dispute arose because Defendants contend that Paragraph 5 (above) deeded an "exclusive" use to the Current Easement and that no one else is permitted to walk, bicycle or drive on the Current Easement, including Plaintiff, Kingsport, and the Kingsport residents who own the land over which the easement is located.

11. Defendants further contend paragraph 10 of the Easement Agreement that requires them to maintain and repair the Current Easement (and two other easements) is evidence of their alleged right to exclusive use their alleged right to exclude all others from the easement.

* * *

17. On or around July 8, 2014, Defendants acquired their Property.

18. Defendants are bound by the Easement Agreement terms.

19. Three years after acquiring their property, Defendants began to assert fee simple ownership rights over the Current Easement which was never authorized in the Easement Agreement.

20. On or around July 21, 2017, Defendants, through an attorney, notified Plaintiff that Kingsport residents are not permitted to use the Current Easement.

21. On or around February 15, 2018, Defendants chased Plaintiffs' landscaper off the Current Easement. The landscaper was using the Current Easement to landscape/maintain the Kingsport Property as required by the Conservation Easement that burdens Plaintiff's property.

22. On or around July 24, 2018 and without notice to Plaintiff, Defendants applied to the City of Annapolis to construct a fence within the Current Easement. The initial application for the fence stated that the Defendants were "Property Owner[s]" of the Current Easement, an unquestionably incorrect representation.

23. On August 21, 2018, the fence permit was issued. Notably, Planning and Zoning stated that it reviewed the fence application for Title 21 only and did not review for Title 17. Title 17 includes a Section for "Fence Permits." Planning and Zoning did not review the title of the real property to see if Defendants were in fact "Property Owners."

24. The same day, on August 21, 2018, Plaintiff became aware of the application for the fence permit.

25. On or around August 23, 2018, the fence was constructed.

a. The installed fence restricts access to a conservation easement granted to the City of Annapolis.

b. The installed fence restricts Plaintiff's ability to landscape/maintain Kingsport Property as it desires and as required by agreement with the City of Annapolis by virtue of a Deed of Conservation Easement.

c. The installed fence restricts Plaintiff's resident's ability to utilize the community pier as it has since residents moved into the homeowner association.

* * *

31. Plaintiff requests a declaration of rights related to Defendants' ability to construct a permanent fence on Kingsport Property (which includes the Current Easement).

* * *

35. The installation of the fence prevents Plaintiff's residents, agents and guests and emergency personnel from accessing Kingsport Property by motor vehicles and lawnmowers.

36. Defendants' actions constitute an unreasonable restraint on Plaintiff's use and enjoyment of Kingsport Property.

* * * Kingsport asked the Circuit Court for injunctive relief, as well as for a declaratory judgment, which would enable others in Kingsport and Kingsport itself to use the driveway easement, and also asked for reasonable attorneys' fees:

(a) That declares Defendants are not permitted to install any permanent structure on the Current Easement, including but not limited to the fence;

(b) That declares that the Current Easement is not "exclusive;"

(c) That declares residents of Kingsport may access the Current Easement for any reason;

(d) That prohibits Defendants from interfering with the Plaintiff's right to use the Current Easement;

(e) That awards reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses to Plaintiffs and enter judgment against Defendants in the amount of all such reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; and

(f) That grants such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

In their Answer, the Careys only admitted to the parties' addresses, that they had acquired their property in 2014, and that Kingsport was seeking a declaration of rights, but otherwise put the rest of the Complaint at issue. A three-day bench trial ensued in September of 2019.

At the beginning of trial, counsel...