Horning v. Hardy
373 A.2d 1273, 36 Md.App. 419, 1977 Md. App. LEXIS 421 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party who asserts a good-faith claim to property is protected by a qualified privilege from liability for injurious falsehood. This privilege can only be overcome by proof that the party acted with malice, meaning they knew the claim was false, acted with reckless disregard for its truth, or acted out of spite or ill-will.
Facts:
- The Hardys and the Hornings owned adjacent parcels of land in a subdivision.
- The Hornings purchased their lots from the Martins and began building several houses on the land.
- Albert Hardy communicated to the Hornings' agent that the Hardys claimed ownership of a portion of the land the Hornings were developing.
- The Hardys' attorney sent a letter to the Hornings stating that any further development would be at their own risk.
- Both parties hired their own surveying firms, which came to conflicting conclusions about the true boundary line.
- Over a year later, on the scheduled settlement day for one of the houses built by the Hornings, the Hardys' attorney telephoned the lending institution and the purchasers.
- In the phone call, the attorney advised them that the Hardys had filed a lawsuit the previous day claiming ownership of the land.
- As a direct result of the phone call, the settlement was immediately aborted, and no sales of the houses on the disputed land have been consummated since.
Procedural Posture:
- Albert C. Hardy sued the Hornings in the Circuit Court for Howard County (trial court), alleging trespass and seeking ejectment.
- The Hornings filed a cross-claim against the Martins, from whom they had purchased the property.
- The Hornings also filed an amended counterclaim against the Hardys for slander of title and malicious interference with contracts.
- The trial judge, sitting without a jury, found that the Hardys failed to prove ownership of the disputed land, thus ruling against them on their initial claim.
- The trial judge also entered judgment in favor of the Hardys on the Hornings' counterclaim, finding their actions were protected by a qualified privilege.
- The Hornings (appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment on their counterclaim to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, with the Hardys as appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a party who asserts an honest, good-faith claim to property, which interferes with the sale of that property by another, liable for injurious falsehood if their claim is ultimately unsuccessful?
Opinions:
Majority - Liss, J.
No. A party is not liable for injurious falsehood when they assert a claim to property under a qualified privilege. This privilege exists when a party has a present, existing economic interest to protect and asserts an honest claim in good faith. The court adopted the tort of 'injurious falsehood' and held that the Hardys' actions were protected by such a qualified privilege. The Hornings failed to overcome this privilege because they did not provide evidence that the Hardys acted with malice—that is, with knowledge of the falsity of their claim, with reckless disregard for the truth, or out of spite. The fact that the boundary dispute was complex and required a lengthy trial demonstrated that the Hardys' claim was not baseless, but rather an 'honest claim' they had reason to believe was valid.
Analysis:
This case formally adopts the tort of 'injurious falsehood' (also known as slander of title) in Maryland and solidifies the defense of qualified privilege in this context. The decision establishes that a party has a right to assert a colorable claim to property, even if it causes economic harm to another, without facing liability unless the high standard of malice is met. This protects good-faith claimants from being intimidated by potential lawsuits while pursuing legitimate property disputes. It places a significant burden of proof on the party claiming harm, requiring them to show more than just that the defendant's claim was ultimately incorrect.
