Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1865 September Term, 2000

MARYLAND ENVIRONMENTAL TRUST

v.

CATHY COOK GAYNOR et al.

Eyler, Deborah S., Krauser, Alpert, Paul E. (Ret., specially assigned), JJ.

Opinion by Alpert, J., Dissenting Opinion by Eyler, Deborah S., J.

Filed: September 10, 2001

This case involves the events surrounding the establishment of an environmental easement over the property of appellees, Cathy Cook Gaynor and her husband, Kevin Gaynor. On February 11, 2000, the Gaynors filed a First Amended Complaint in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County against the Maryland Environmental Trust {"MET"). The Amended

Complaint raised claims of fraud in the inducement; negligent misrepresentation; deceit, concealment and non-disclosure; and, sought a declaratory judgment for ultra vires action. A court trial was held on March 15, 2000 (Silkworth, J. presiding). At the close of the Gaynors' case, the MET moved The court granted judgment in

for judgment on all counts.

favor of the MET on the claim for declaratory judgment for ultra vires action. The court held the remaining counts sub

curia in order to render a written opinion. In a written memorandum opinion and order dated September 12, 2000, the trial court found in favor of the Gaynors on their claim for fraud and ordered recission of the Deed of Conservation Easement and all other written and oral agreements underlying that agreement between the Gaynors and the MET. Judgment was entered in favor of the MET on the

claims for negligent misrepresentation and deceit,

concealment, and non-disclosure.

This appeal followed.1

Subsequently, the Land Trust Alliance, Inc. was granted permission to file a brief as amicus curiae.

ISSUES PRESENTED The MET presents a single question for our review. is, whether the trial court erred in finding that it was fraudulent in its communications with the Gaynors. On cross-appeal, the Gaynors claim that the trial court erred in finding that Mr. Highsaw's promise to inform them of events at the MET board meeting did not create a duty of care and that the MET had no duty to disclose accurately all material facts as required by statute. The Land Trust Alliance, Inc. asserts that rescinding a conservation easement on the evidence brought forth at trial may do irreparable harm to land conservation in Maryland. argues that the lower court's ruling should be reversed and that the lower court should dismiss the Gaynors' complaint. We disagree with the position asserted by the Land Trust Alliance, Inc. We shall hold that the trial court did not err It That

The parties failed to include in their Joint Record Extract a copy of the docket entries. Our failure to sanction the parties should not be construed as condonation of their failure to comply with the rules of appellate procedure. See Md. Rule 8-501. -2-

1

in finding that the MET was fraudulent in its communications with the Gaynors. In light of our holding, we need not

address the issues raised in the Gaynors' cross-appeal. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The MET is a public agency governed by a Board of Trustees and operating as part of the Department of Natural Resources. 202. Md. Code (1973, 2000 Repl. Vol.), Nat. Res.

Download Environmental Trust v. Gaynor.pdf

Maryland Law