Emerald Hills Homeowners' Ass'n v. Peters

Court of Appeals of Maryland
130 A.3d 469, 446 Md. 155 (2016)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A recorded subdivision plat can create a valid express easement, even without formal words of conveyance like 'grant,' provided it complies with the Statute of Frauds by being a writing signed by the grantor and sufficiently describes the right-of-way by clearly identifying the dominant and servient estates and the nature of the interest conveyed.

Facts:

In 1969, William and Margaret Sheppard sold a 64-acre parcel to a corporation controlled by developer Victor Posner, but retained a smaller, landlocked parcel known as Parcel 765.
The 1969 deed reserved a non-exclusive right of way for Parcel 765 over a strip of Posner's land to access a public road.
In 2000, Posner developed his land into a residential community called 'Emerald Hills' and recorded a subdivision plat which he signed.
This plat included a note and specific markings designating a 'Triangular Parcel' as an 'ingress & egress easement for access to Parcel 765,' connecting it to a new public street, Streamview Court.
In 2001, Posner executed a 'Cross Easement Agreement' granting residents of Emerald Hills and an adjacent subdivision reciprocal use of common open spaces; the owners of Parcel 765 were not parties to this agreement.
In 2006, title to the 'Passive Open Space' areas, including the Triangular Parcel, was conveyed to the Emerald Hills Homeowners’ Association ('the Association') via a deed that explicitly referenced the 2000 plat.
In 2009, Mr. and Mrs. Peters purchased Parcel 765 and began construction of a driveway on the Triangular Parcel to access Streamview Court.

Procedural Posture:

The Emerald Hills Homeowners’ Association filed suit against Mr. and Mrs. Peters in the Circuit Court for Harford County (a trial court), seeking an injunction and a declaratory judgment.
Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
The Circuit Court granted the Association's motion for summary judgment, declaring that no easement existed over the Triangular Parcel for the benefit of Parcel 765.
The Peters, as appellants, appealed the decision to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland (an intermediate appellate court).
The Court of Special Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, ruling that the plat had established an express easement.
The Association, as petitioner, filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, which was granted by the Court of Appeals of Maryland (the state's highest court).

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a recorded subdivision plat create a valid express easement when it is signed by the grantor and sufficiently describes the easement, the dominant estate (the property to be benefited), and the servient estate (the property to be burdened)?

Opinions:

Majority - Adkins, J.

Yes, a subdivision plat can create a valid express easement under these circumstances. An express easement does not require a formal deed and can be created by any writing that complies with the Statute of Frauds, such as a signed plat. Here, the plat was signed by the grantor, Victor Posner. It also sufficiently described the right of way by unambiguously identifying Parcel 765 as the dominant estate, the Triangular Parcel as the servient estate, and the nature of the interest as an 'ingress & egress easement.' This distinguishes the case from prior precedent like Kobrine, where the plat failed to identify the grantor or the intended beneficiaries. Furthermore, the subsequent Cross Easement Agreement did not extinguish this easement because the owner of the dominant estate (Parcel 765) was not a party to it, and a servient owner cannot unilaterally extinguish an easement.

Analysis:

This decision clarifies and solidifies Maryland law that express easements can be created through recorded subdivision plats, not just formal deeds. It provides a clear framework based on Kobrine for what makes a plat sufficient: a grantor's signature, clear identification of dominant and servient estates, and a description of the easement's purpose. This reinforces the importance for developers, attorneys, and subsequent purchasers to meticulously review recorded plats as instruments of conveyance. The ruling protects the rights of property owners who rely on such plats and confirms the long-standing principle that an easement cannot be unilaterally terminated by the owner of the burdened property.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Emerald Hills Homeowners' Ass'n v. Peters (2016)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"