Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 00558 September Term, 2002 ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION _______________________________

MARGARET M. HUGHES

V.

WILLIAM R. INSLEY, JR., ET AL.

_______________________________ Salmon, Barbera, Thieme, Raymond G., Jr. (Ret., Specially Assigned), JJ. _______________________________ Opinion by Salmon, J.

Filed: October 7, 2003

Central to the resolution of the issues presented in this appeal is the application of the doctrine of claim preclusion. The doctrine of res judicata (also called direct estoppel or claim preclusion) applies when the parties to a subsequent suit are the same or in privity with the parties to a prior suit; the first and second suits present the same claim or cause of action; and there was a final judgment rendered on the merits in the first suit, by a court of competent jurisdiction. When those three elements are satisfied, the first claim is merged into the judgment in the first suit and the second claim is barred. For purposes of res judicata, whether claims are the same is determined by application of the "transaction test," as set forth in section 24 of the Restatement (Second) of Judgments (1982). See Kent County Bd. of Ed. v. Bilbrough, 309 Md. 487, 489-90, 525 A.2d 232 (1987), which denotes a "claim" as including all rights of the plaintiff to remedies against the defendant with respect to all or any part of the transaction, or series of connected transactions, out of which the claim arose. The practical significance of this definition of a "claim" is that res judicata bars subsequent litigation not only of what was decided in the original litigation but also of what could have been decided in that original litigation. As the Court of Appeals explained in Alvey v. Alvey: a judgment between the same parties and their privies is a final bar to any other suit upon the same cause of action, final bar to any other suit upon the same cause of action, and is conclusive, not only as to all matters that have been decided in the original suit, but as to all matters

which with propriety could have been litigated in the first suit . . . . 225 Md. 386, 390 (1961). Chesley v. Goldstein & Baron, Chartered, 145 Md. App. 605, 622-23, cert. granted, 372 Md. 132 (2002) (some citations omitted)(emphasis added). In the subject case, the parties are at odds as to who owns 186 acres of land located in Dorchester County, Maryland. The

trial judge ruled that an ejectment suit filed by the plaintiff, Margaret Hughes, was prohibited by the plaintiff's failure (in a prior suit to quiet title brought against the same defendant) to have prevailed in regard to the same "transaction" as that involved in the second case. The court also ruled that a prior counterclaim

to quiet title asserted by defendant/counter-plaintiff, William Russell Insley, Jr., against Mrs. Hughes was similarly barred due to William Russell Insley, Jr.'s, failure (in that earlier

counterclaim) to prevail.

As a result of that ruling, the parties

were left in legal limbo, inasmuch as Mrs. Hughes, who possesses legal title, could not prevent William Russell Insley, Jr., from using the land, and William Russell Insley, Jr., could use the land but was unable to assert legal title to it. In this appeal, both parties claim that the trial court misapplied the doctrine of claim preclusion in regard to his/her claim. But, as to the opponent's claim, both parties assert that

the doctrine was correctly applied. 2

I.

THE LAND

The disputed 186 acres is located in southern Dorchester County. To the east of the property is the Black Water Wild Life

Refuge, which is owned by the federal government; to the west lies Maple Dam Road, as well as several parcels of land owned by various members of the Insley family. To the north is land owned by Land

appellant, cross-appellee, Margaret Hughes ("Mrs. Hughes").

situated to the south of the 186-acre parcel is owned by Shirley R. Quidas and other third parties. 186-acre parcel is Mrs. Hughes. The record title owner of the She inherited the land from her Mrs. Hughes,

grandfather, Charles H. Stewart, who died in 1948.

alone, paid taxes on the property continuously between 1948 and tax year 2000. by In tax year 2001, property taxes on the land were paid cross-appellee, William Russell Insley, Jr.

appellant,

("Russell, Jr."). About thirty or forty of the 186 acres in dispute were cleared, for farming purposes, by Russell, Jr.'s, father, William Russell Insley, Sr. ("Russell, Sr."); the remainder of the 186 acres is made up of a combination of woodlands and wetlands. one resides on the disputed property. II. THE INSLEY CLAIM No

Russell, Jr., claims that members of the Insley family have adversely possessed the 186 acres since at least the 1930's, when

3

Curtis Insley regularly took timber off the property, used it for hunting and trapping, and excluded others from using it. Curtis Insley died, intestate, in 1960. According to Russell, Jr., and his mother, Lottie Mae Insley ("Lottie Mae"), after Curtis's death, Russell, Sr., continued Curtis's practice of

treating the 186-acre parcel as if he owned it. earlier, Russell, property Insley's for Sr., cleared of thirty or forty

As mentioned acres after ponds of the Curtis on the

purposes

farming; Sr., dug

additionally, ditches and

death,

Russell,

property, took timber from the land, excluded others from entering onto it, erected no trespassing signs, hunted on the property, and gave permission to friends of his to hunt on the land. Russell, Sr., died, testate, in January of 1992. In his will, he left all his property to his wife, Lottie Mae. The will named

Lottie Mae as Russell, Sr.'s, personal representative. Russell, Jr., asserts that he has carried on activities on the property

Download Hughes v. Insley.pdf

Maryland Law