Peterson v. Springdale Land Co.
Decision Date | 19 September 2018 |
Docket Number | No. 0856,0856 |
Parties | MICHAEL F. PETERSON, ET UX. v. SPRINGDALE LAND COMPANY LLC, ET AL. |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Circuit Court for Carroll County
Case No. 06-C-14-66986
UNREPORTED
Nazarian, Reed, Krauser, Peter B. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
Opinion by Reed, 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.
Michael and Faith Peterson, the appellants, were found liable for breach of a 2006 Settlement and Mutual Release Agreement ("Settlement Agreement") which they entered into with appellees Springdale Land Company, LLC and Lovell Grass Fed Cattle Company, LLC ("the Lovells"), and Sharon Clinton ("Clinton") as the result of a water discharge dispute in 2005. On appeal, the appellants present four questions for our review, which we have re-phrased as follows:
For the following reasons, we answer these questions in the negative and affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
Appellees Springdale Land Company, LLC and Lovell Grass Fed Cattle Company, LLC are owned and managed by John and Virginia Lovell ("the Lovells"). The Lovells operate an organic cattle farm on a single plot of land ("Springdale Property") located offBark Hill Road in Union Bridge, Maryland. Appellants Michael and Faith Peterson ("the Petersons") own and occupy the real property across Bark Hill Road from the appellees. The appellants' property is immediately adjacent to the real property owned by Sharon Clinton ("Clinton"). Both the Peterson and Clinton properties are located uphill from the Springdale Property. Water naturally flows from the appellants' property onto Clinton's property, where it is then directed under and across Bark Hill Road toward the Springdale Property by means of a culvert built and maintained by Carroll County.
In 2005, the appellees filed a lawsuit in Carroll County alleging that the appellants and Clinton were actively discharging water through a buried pipe in the direction of the Springdale Property in such quantities that it was causing significant erosive damage to a 1,700 foot long grassed waterway1 on the Springdale Property.2 The source of the water flow at issue was water that was being directed out of the appellants' basement via sumppump, drain pipe, and extension pipe to the front of the appellants' property and eventually onto the appellees' property.
In November 2006, the Lovells, the Petersons, and Clinton entered into a Settlement Agreement whereby the appellants agreed to disconnect their drain pipe and pay damages, in conjunction with Clinton, to the appellees. Paragraph 4 and 5 of the agreement, the appellants promised and agreed not to pipe or direct water onto the appellees' property:
Following the settlement, the appellants removed the extension pipe connected to the sump pump system in their basement and redirected the water to the rear of their property to be drained into seepage pits. In turn, the appellees made repairs to the damaged grass waterway on the Springdale Property and installed a French drain throughout the length of the waterway to provide additional protection against erosion. The appellants maintain that the work they undertook in 2006 fully resolved the water issue that resulted in the prior litigation.
In April 2014, the appellees claimed they "discovered and personally observed water once again being discharged from Appellant's property at what appeared to be the same constant rate and quantity of discharge as in 2005 and from what looked to be the same buried pipe." The appellees noted that the water being discharged from the appellants' property was causing the same erosive damage as that which occurred eight years prior. After receiving no response from the appellants to their cease and desist letter,3 the appellees initiated the underlying litigation by filing a Complaint to Enforce Settlement Agreement against the appellants and Clinton on July 23, 2014.The Complaint also included claims of nuisance, trespass, and negligence. Along with the Complaint, the appellees filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction against the appellants and Clinton, enjoining both parties "from piping, channeling, and directing water onto the [appellees'] [p]roperty until a final determination has been made on the merits of [the appellees'] claims."4
The appellants acknowledged that water was discharged onto the appellees' property for a brief period of time between April 2014 and July 2014,5 but denied that the temporary event constituted a breach of the Settlement Agreement. The following excerpt from an email sent on August 13, 2014, by the appellants' counsel to appellees' counsel for settlement purposes elaborates:
The appellees did not dismiss their Complaint, but instead filed and were granted a Motion to Extend Temporary Restraining Order.
The appellees and appellants both designated engineers as expert witnesses to support their conflicting positions as to the source of the 2014 water issue and the extent of the damage that the water caused to the Springdale Property. The appellees designated Mr. John Klein, the same environmental engineer who testified in the 2006 litigation, while the appellants retained Mr. David Bastian, a civil engineer.6
It is undisputed that on October 13, 2014, Mr. Klein and Mr. Bastian conducted a site inspection. However, the appellants offer an account as to what this inspection entailed and where it occurred that is inconsistent with the record. The appellants claim that on October 13, 2014, the parties and their respective expert witnesses and attorneys inspected the real properties at issue in this appeal. However, the record indicates that the site inspection was only of the Peterson Property, not the Springdale Property, and that it was conducted solely by Mr. Klein and Mr. Bastian.
Next, the appellants allege that the primary purpose of the October 13 site inspection was for Mr. Bastian to "view, inspect, and document the areas of damage to [the Petersons'] neighbors' properties as alleged in the subject Complaint and Cross-Claim." However, Mr. Peterson stated in an affidavit signed September 23, 2014, that Mr. Peterson and/or hiscounsel invited the appellees to inspect the Peterson Property "to confirm that the water issue complained of ha[d] been resolved and ha[d] been resolved for some time."
Following Clinton's deposition on April 14, 2015, the appellants contend that the appellees' counsel "represented that the areas of alleged damage to [the Springdale Property] was significantly more extensive than the area inspected initially . . . ."...
To continue reading
Request your trial