Opinion ID: 2167906
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Dismissal of the Beanes' counterclaim to the McMullens' counterclaim in regard to water damage.

Text: In their counterclaim to the counterclaim of the McMullens against them, the Beanes claimed that they had suffered actual damages of $100,000.00 and $50,000.00 punitive damages from the willful and wrongful action of the McMullens in collecting various surface waters which did not naturally flow on the Beane land into a man-made ditch and pipe and cast it upon the Beane land, relying upon our decision in Battisto v. Perkins, 210 Md. 542, 546, 124 A.2d 288, 290 (1956) that an upper owner cannot, with impunity, artificially increase or concentrate the natural flow of water and damage the lower owner as a result of this. At the end of the proof of the Beanes on their counterclaim, the McMullens moved for a directed verdict in their favor which the trial court granted. The following colloquy between the trial court and Mr. Leonnig, counsel for the Beanes, posed the contention of the Beanes on the facts relative to their position in this regard: THE COURT: Where in any of this evidence that I am now considering is there any indication that Mr. McMullen had anything to do with any of this drainage? MR. LEONNIG: They gave permission. THE COURT. You use that word collectively. Where in the evidence did Mr. McMullen give permission to anybody? I am talking about the evidence, not what you think he did. Where in the evidence? Be specific. MR. LEONNIG: There is nothing in the evidence. THE COURT: As to Stephen. MR. LEONNIG: As to Stephen. THE COURT: Absolutely none. MR. LEONNIG: That's correct. THE COURT: Very well. Now, where is the evidence in this case as to what she did to collect this water? MR. LEONNIG: She gave them permission to put that pipe across  THE COURT: Her driveway. MR. LEONNIG: Across her land, obviously fully realizing that it had to be dumped on the plaintiffs' side. THE COURT: This is the evidence you are relying on, her permission to Mr. Richards to straighten her driveway? That is your evidence? MR. LEONNIG: Sure. Yes. THE COURT: Very well. The Court will grant the motion for directed verdict as to the McMullens in the counterclaim of the Beanes against the McMullens. First, as to Stephen McMullen, there is absolutely no evidence in this case whatsoever as to him. Secondly, the counter-plaintiff contends that the only evidence on behalf of Mrs. McMullen was her permission to Mr. Richards, who was the supervisor of the county roads system, to straighten out her driveway. The Court recollects specifically that we dealt with that testimony several times, and that is all he asked for and that is all he got. The Court rules as a matter of law that there is no credible evidence in this case here as to this trespass for unnatural diversion and/or collection of excessive water by the McMullens in this case. We have already considered the meaning of Mrs. McMullen's permission to straighten her driveway and her statement to Mr. Richards does not indicate any permission to the County to put in the drainage pipe in the place of the existing ditch and dump water on the Beane property. Evidence is lacking that the McMullens artificially increased or concentrated the natural flow of water toward the Beane land. As the trial court properly ruled, there was simply no evidence to sustain the contention of the Beanes in support of their counterclaim.