Preview:

HEADNOTE Hillsmere Shores Improvement Association, Inc. v. D. Gregory Singleton, et al., No. 1373, September Term, 2007 ADVERSE POSSE SSION; C OMM UNITY PROPE RTY; SU BDIVIS ION; RIPARIAN RIGHTS; SPECIAL COMMUNITY BENEFIT DISTRICT; TAX SALE; SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY; DEDICATION. Appellees, residents of a subdivision, brought quiet title actions against the community association, appellant. They sought a declaration that, by adverse possession, they had gaine d title to portions of the commu nity beach sitting b etween th eir respective lots and the water. The case concerns adverse possession of land to which riparian rights may attach, not adverse possession of riparian rights alone. The hostility element of adverse possession was not defeated by appellees' request to the Association for permission to construct bulkhead s on their resp ective prop erties; the Association's covenants required permis sion fo r constru ction on the land owne rs' own proper ties. One of the appellees also filed real property tax assessme nt appeals. T hose app eals did not constitute the renunciation of a claim of adverse possession. Nor did his purchase at a tax sale of another property in the subdivision, not adjacent to the water, defeat his claim of adv erse po ssession . Appellan t, as administrator of a special community benefit district that consisted of the subdivision , was not a S tate agency and did not enjoy protection from adverse possession based on sovereign immunity. Nor was the developer's conveyance of the community beach to the Association a dedication to the public, so as to bar adverse possession.

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1373 SEPTEMBE R TERM, 2007

HILLSMERE SHORES IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION, INC. v. D. GR EGO RY S INGL ETO N, et al.

Hollander, Zarnoch, Thieme, Raymo nd G., Jr. (retired, specially assigned), JJ.

Opinion by Hollander, J.

Filed: October 30, 2008

This matter, which is before us for the second time, concerns ownership of portions of a "Community Beach" within the Hillsmere Estates Subdivision (the "Su bdivision"), located near A nnapo lis. See Hillsm ere Sho res Imp rovem ent Ass 'n, Inc. v. Singleton, No. 763, Sept. Term 2004 (filed December 5, 2005) (" Hillsmere I"). Hillsmere Shores Improvement Association, Incorporated ("HSIA," "Hillsmere," or the "Association"), appellant, is the record owner of "community property" in the Subdivision, including the Community Beach, which lies along the shore of Duvall Creek, a tributary of the South River. Under deed covenants, all lot owners in the Subdivision have the right to use of community property. D. Gregory and Susan "Gerri" Singleton (the "Singletons"), Edward and Leah Hertz (the "Hertzes"), and Parviz Sahandy ("Sahandy"), appellees, are residents of the Subdivision; they own properties adjoining the Community Beach. In 2003, appellees filed quiet title actions against appellant, seeking a declaration that, by adverse possession, they had gained title to the portions of the Co mmunity Beach sitting be tween their respective lots and the water. 1 Following a remand in Hillsmere I, the Circuit C ourt for A nne Aru ndel Cou nty conducted a court trial in June 2007.2 On July 19, 2007, the court issued a "Memorandum

Appellees are repre sented by the same attorney. Pursuant to a joint motion for the parties, the circuit court consolidated the three law suits. Ultimately, the co urt issued on ly one O rder, w hich ap plied to a ll parties. In Hillsmere I, we vacated the circuit court's grant of summary judgment to appellees based on a failure to join nec essary pa rties. Hillsmere I, slip op. at 55. Following the remand, appellees filed an Amended Complaint on June 6, 2006, naming the other lot owners in the Subdivision as add itional defendants. Lien ho lders were later added as defendants. Many of the answ ers contain th e followin g assertion, o r one similar to it: "[We] make no claim to any po rtion of the Sin gleton, th e Saha ndy, or the Hertz d isputed proper ties." (contin ued...)
2

1

Opinion and Order," in which it determined that appellees were entitled to the disputed portions of the Community Beach, based on adverse possession. In a separate Order dated July 19, 20 07, the c ourt de clared th e rights o f the pa rties. Unhappy with the court's rulings, app ellant noted th is appeal. H illsmere prese nts seven questions for our review, which we quote: I. Did the trial court err in considering the appellees' subjective intent when determining whether appellees had recognized the title holder's rights? II. Did the trial court err in not finding that the appellee, Dr. Sahandy, had renounced claims of adverse possession? III. Did the trial court err in allowing the tacking of successive possessions? IV. Did the trial court err in awarding appellees more land than they actually possessed? V. Did the trial court err in denying the appellant's claim for sovereign imm unity? VI. Did the trial court err in finding that adverse possession could subdivide a single platted lot in violation of the Anne Arundel County Code? VII. Did the trial court err in deciding that title to recreation areas may be taken from a community association by adverse possession when the Anne Arundel County Code only allows a community association to hold title? For the reas ons that follo w, we sh all affirm the judgmen t of the circuit c ourt.

(...continued) According to the circu it court, " no othe r individ ual De fenda nts partic ipated in the trial." Moreover, it does not appear that appellant renewed the countercla im that wa s filed in connection with the initial suits. 2

2

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY3 A. The Subdivision The Subdivision was created in phases between 1952 an d 1959 b y a corporate developer, Hillsmere Estates, Inc. (the "D evelop er"). Appellees own three noncontiguous lots in the Subdivision that sit along the south side of East Bay View Drive, a street that consists of a row of homes comprising Lots 1-17 of Section 1, Block A of the Subdivision. In particular, the Singletons own Lot 9, at 117 East Bay View; the Hertzes own L ot 15, a t 129 East Bay View; Sahandy owns Lot 17, at 133 East Bay View. Sah andy's property, at the east end of the row, is se parated fro m Lot 18 by a twenty-foo t-wide path (the "Path") that provides access from East Bay View Drive to a large area of the Community Beach, which includes a comm unity pier. The Community Beach can also be accessed from East Bay View Drive at the west end of the row, where Hillsmere Drive terminates at its intersection w ith East Bay View. At the terminus o f Hillsmere Drive, ano ther large po rtion of the C ommu nity Beach, containing a playground, sits adjacent to Lot 1. The two larger portions of the Comm unity Beach, one at the end of Hillsmere Drive an d at the other the end of th e Path, are connected to each other by a narrow strip of beach that runs behind and borders Lots 1-17,

Pursuant to Maryland Rule 8-501(g), the parties have provided a "Stipulated Statement Of The F acts (the "Stipulation"), in lieu of the "625 pages of Docket Entries, 200 pages of miscellaneous pleadings, over 400 pages of transcripts and over 120 pages of exhibits" generated in this suit. Our factual summary is drawn largely from the Stipulation, the exhibits at trial, as well as the circuit court's Memorandum Opinion and Order of July 19, 2007. We have also included portions of the procedural history recounted in Hillsmere I. 3

3

separating the rear prop erty lines of those lots from th e shoreline of Duvall Creek. The portions of this narrow strip that sit directly behind Lots 9, 15, and 17 are the disputed areas in this case.4 In May 1952, upon the platting of Section 1 of the Subdivision, the Developer executed a "Deed of C ovenants, Restrictions and C onditions" (the "Dee d of Coven ants"), which was reco rded in the lan d rec ords of A nne Aru ndel County (the "County").5 With respect to S ection 1 of the Subd ivision, the D eed of C ovenants provided , in part: 4. A com mittee of the [Develo per] shall approve the exterior plan and construction or any alterations of any building and the position of the building on the lot. No building shall be m ore than 2

Download Hillsmere v. Singleton.pdf

Maryland Law