Holder v. Young

• Docket Number: 1145-2022,1457-2022
• Decision Date: 26 May 2023
• Parties: JUSTIN HOLDER & UNCLE EDDIES BROKEDOWN PALACE, LLC v. JEFFREY YOUNG
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

1

JUSTIN HOLDER & UNCLE EDDIES BROKEDOWN PALACE, LLC v. JEFFREY YOUNG

Nos. 1145-2022, 1457-2022

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland^[**]

May 26, 2023

Circuit Court for Washington County Case No C-21-CV-20-000371

Shaw Kehoe, Battaglia, Lynne A. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

OPINION ^[*]

Battaglia, J.

In September of 2020, Jeffrey Young, Appellee, filed a Complaint against Justin Holder, Deena Holder, and all other interested but unknown parties, to quiet title to a piece of land in Keedysville, Maryland that he owned and to enjoin the Holders from trespassing on the property. Uncle Eddies Brokedown Palace, LLC^[1] ("Uncle Eddie") responded to the Complaint as an interested party. After a bench trial in the Circuit Court for Washington County, the trial judge entered a declaratory judgment in favor of Mr. Young, finding that he was the owner of the property by deed as well as by adverse possession, that Mr. Holder did not own any part of the property, and that the Holders and Uncle Eddie did not have an easement over the land; he then enjoined them from entering onto Mr. Young's property.

Justin Holder and Uncle Eddie, Appellants,^[2] appealed, presenting us with a plethora of questions, which we have renumbered and summarized:^[3] 1. Whether the trial court erred by denying Mr. Holder's jury demand?

2. Whether the trial court erred by declining to dismiss the case for failure to join necessary parties?

3. Whether the trial court erred by declining to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim for declaratory judgment?

4. Whether the trial court erred by dismissing Mr. Holder's Anti-SLAPP motion?

5. Whether the trial court erred by dismissing Mr. Holder's Bill Quia Timet?

6. Whether the trial court erred by determining that the existence and opening of public roads was a legislative function?

7. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by setting time limits for each side to present its case at trial?

8. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by granting a non-party witness a protective order and denying Mr. Holder's motion to compel?

9. Whether the trial court erred by including Parcel 1 in its Ruling?

10. Whether the trial court erred by finding Mr. Young held record title to Parcel 3?

11. Whether the trial court erred by determining that Mr. Holder's quitclaim deeds were void?

12. Whether there was sufficient evidence to support a judgment for adverse possession in Mr. Young's favor?

13. Whether the trial court erred by finding the "wagon road" easement defective?

14. Whether the defendants or their predecessors in title or the public acquired an easement by prescription or a public road by prescription over Mr. Young's property?

15. Whether the trial court erred by finding the "wagon road" easement terminated?

Procedural History

In September of 2020, Jeffrey Young filed a "Complaint and Petition to Quiet Title and for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief" against Justin Holder, Deena Holder, and all other interested but unidentified parties. Notices of the Complaint were published in a newspaper of general circulation in Washington County, for three consecutive weeks, pursuant to Section 14-615 of the Real Property Article, Maryland Code (1974, 2015 Repl. Vol., 2019 Supp.)^[4] and Maryland Rule 2-122.^[5] The notices requested that "any person who has or claims an interest" in the property described by Mr. Young's Complaint, "shall file an answer." Justin and Deena Holder, thereafter, filed their Answers to Mr. Young's Complaint, and in "respon[se] to the published notice," Uncle Eddie also filed an Answer.

In his Complaint, Mr. Young sought to quiet title by deed and/or by adverse possession, real property located at 13 Dogstreet Road in Keedysville, Maryland, known as Parcels 2 and 3, as shown on Plat 2499:

3. The real property in question is located in Washington County, Maryland, and is more particularly shown and described as Parcels 2 and 3 on the Plat entitled "Property Line Survey for Harry Wickline" dated June 15, 1988, and recorded among the Plat Records for Washington County, Maryland, at Plat Record 2499.

* * *

8. There exists an actual controversy of a justiciable issue between Plaintiff and Defendants within the jurisdiction of the Court involving the rights of the parties and ownership of the Parcels.

9. That by virtue of Deeds dated January 3, 1988, August 16, 1993, and May 28, 2017, and recorded respectively in Liber 885, Folio 110, Liber 1108, Folio 790, and Liber 5512, Folio 226 among the Land Records of Washington County, Maryland, Plaintiff claims title as sole owner of the Parcels described on the Plat and Deeds, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, labeled Exhibits A, B, C, D. 10. The Land Records, Tax Records and Tax Maps of Washington County, Maryland, reflect that title to the Parcels is held by Jeffrey L. Young.

11. Since the execution and recording of the aforesaid Deed dated January 3, 1988, and recorded at Liber 885, Folio 110, Plaintiff has been in actual, exclusive, open, visible, notorious, continuous, peaceable, hostile, and adverse possession of the property shown as Parcels 2 and 3 on the aforesaid Plat Folio 2499.

12. From the date of said Deed forward, Plaintiff has paid the taxes in connection with the aforesaid property and has utilized and maintained the property as his own.

13. Plaintiff's actual, exclusive, open, notorious and adverse possession of the property has been for a continuous period of more than thirty-two (32) years, through actual possession and under color of title.

14. Prior to the execution and recording of the aforementioned Deeds to Plaintiff, Plaintiff's predecessors in title had also been in actual, exclusive, open, visible, notorious, continuous, peaceable, hostile, and adverse possession of the herein described property.

Mr. Young sought a declaration that he was the sole owner of Parcels 2 and 3 and that no other person had any rights or interests in such property. In addition, Mr. Young sought to enjoin the Holders from entering Parcels 2 and 3, as he alleged that Mr. Holder had entered the property on multiple occasions without permission:

17. Over the last several months, Defendant Justin Holder has attempted to enter the aforesaid property to construct roadway over said property, thereby damaging and destroying mature trees and underbrush. Although his efforts have been thwarted by Plaintiff and Plaintiff's neighbors, his efforts have caused repeated altercations and confrontations, with both Plaintiff and the property owners abutting Plaintiff's property.

18.After Plaintiff denied Defendant Justin Holder access to Plaintiff's land, Defendant Justin Holder offered to purchase an easement over Plaintiff's land for Five Thousand and 00/100 ($5,000.00) Dollars. When that offer was rejected, Defendant Justin Holder embarked upon prolonged campaign of harassment, bringing or attempting to bring others including surveyors, heavy equipment, electricians, and well drillers upon Plaintiff's land, some of whom reported to Plaintiff that Defendant Justin Holder claimed to them to have purchased the property from a "developer".

19. Defendant Justin Holder's actions in trespassing upon Plaintiff's land have caused damage to Plaintiff's property and severe emotional aggravation to Plaintiff and Plaintiff's family.

Although he named only Justin and Deena Holder, Mr. Young alleged that he also had made "reasonable and good faith efforts to locate" any interested but unknown parties:

20. There is no person or party, of record or in fact, having or claiming to have any hostile, right, or interest in or to said property. Plaintiff has made reasonable and good faith efforts to locate any such party by conducting thorough examination of all pertinent land, and estate and tax records for Washington County, Maryland, and has as well interrogated the owners of adjoining properties in order to uncover such claims and none have been uncovered.

Accordingly, Mr. Young requested the following relief: l. That this Honorable Court decree that the Plaintiff is the owner in fee simple of the property shown as Parcels 2 and 3 on Plat 2499 referenced in the Complaint;

2. That the Court decree that the Defendants have no estate, right, title, or interest in said property or any part thereof; and

3. That Defendants be forever barred from asserting any right, title, or estate of any nature in or to said property adverse to this Plaintiff; and

4. That Defendants be enjoined from entering upon Plaintiff's said property; and 5. That the title to the aforementioned property be quieted and any cloud removed thereon; and

6. That an Order be passed pursuant to the Maryland Rules of Procedure 2122 providing that service of process upon the unknown Defendants be accomplished as follows:

a. By posting notice of the proceedings by the Sheriff on the properties and on the Court House Door or bulletin board or in the immediate vicinity thereof; and

b. By publishing that same notice in newspaper of general circulation in Washington County, Maryland in three (3) successive weeks.

On October 26, 2020, the Holders and Uncle Eddie^[6] filed their Answers. In Mr. Holder's Answer, he claimed record ownership of Parcels 2 and 3, and he asserted various defenses:

1. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

2. Plaintiff's claims are barred by the Statute of Limitations.

3. Plaintiff's claims are barred by Laches.

4. Plaintiff's claims are barred by Estoppel.

5. Plaintiff's claims are barred by the doctrine of Waiver.

6. Plaintiff's claims are barred by the failure to join parties under Md. Rule 2-211.

7. Plaintiff's claims are barred by the lack of necessary parties.

8. Plaintiff's claims

...