Opinion ID: 1905125
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Subsequent Conduct

Text: Rather, evidence of subsequent conduct of the parties, including the Rogers' use of an easement and SDN's and Landover Gardens' acquiescence to that use, or the easement's extinction, needs to be adduced on remand of this case, in order to interpret the parties' intent. Independent of the doctrines of adverse user and way of necessity, Taylor v. Solter, 247 Md. 446, 452, 231 A.2d 697, 701 (1967), when an easement is granted in general terms, `the practical location and use of such a way ... for a long time by the grantor will operate to fix the location.' Weems, 397 Md. at 615-616, 919 A.2d 77, 83 (2007), quoting Sibbel v. Fitch, 182 Md. 323, 327, 34 A.2d 773, 774 (1943). In Sibbel, Fitch, as the dominant tenant, sought to establish a right-of-way over land conveyed to Sibbel. Their 1866 Deed had conveyed a tract of land containing 91 1/4 Acres, saving there out the family graveyard and reserving also a right of way to and from the graveyard. Id. at 325, 34 A.2d at 773. From the time of the original deed in 1866 to at least 1918, the right of way to the family graveyard ran along a course labeled the old road. In 1926, Sibbel completed a new road located solely within his tract, to be used as a driveway to his house. The evidence was uncontradicted that between the years 1926 and 1939, seven Fitch-family funerals took place, all of which traversed the new road. In 1939, Sibbel constructed a barrier fence across the new road, preventing Fitch from using the road to access the graveyard. Fitch, thereafter, sought to enforce his roadway easement over the new road, claiming that Sibbel's acquiescence in his family's use of the new road altered the location of the easement from the old road to the new road. The trial judge agreed with Fitch and awarded an easement over the new road, based on the general grant and Sibbel's acquiescence to its use. Sibbel appealed to this Court and we reversed, holding that where an easement reserves a right of way in general terms, without defining its location by metes and bounds, the use of the easement for a long time in a specific location raises an inference that the owners of the dominant and servient tenements had agreed upon the metes and bounds, and the easement's location thereby became fixed as if it had been described in the deed ... by metes and bounds. Id. at 326, 34 A.2d at 774. In reaching this conclusion, we explained: [A]fter the location of the right of way which has been granted in general terms has been defined and fixed by the owners of the dominant and servient tenements by user in a particular location over a long period of time, it becomes as definitely established as if the grant or reservation had so located it by metes and bounds and the location of the right of way as thus defined can only be changed by agreement of the owners of the dominant and servient tenements. Where an easement in land, such as a way, is granted in general terms, without giving definite location and description of it, the location may be subsequently fixed by an express agreement of the parties, or by an implied agreement arising out of the use of a particular way by the grantee and acquiescence on the part of the grantor, provided the way is located within the boundaries of the land over which the right is granted. As otherwise expressed, it is a familiar rule, that, when a right of way is granted without defined limits, the practical location and use of such way by the grantee under his deed acquiesced in for a long time by the grantor will operate to fix the location. The location thus determined will have the same legal effect as though it had been fully described by the terms of the grant.  28 C.J.S., Easements, Sec. 82. This principle has been approved in the Maryland case of Stevens v. Powell, 152 Md. 604, 137 A. 312, 313, where the court says: While the deeds providing for the right of way over an `eight-foot alley' do not describe its exact location in the area, of greater width, through which it passes, yet the definition of its course by actual user during the period of its enjoyment by the dominant, and its recognition by the servient, owners, is a sufficient identification of the way for the purposes of this proceeding.    When a right of way reserved in general terms has been definitely located and the owner of the dominant tenement has acquired vested right in the way as located, the general rule is that the location of the way can be changed only by agreement of the owners of the dominant and servient tenements. As a general rule, in the absence of contrary statute, the location of an easement when once established cannot be changed by either party without the other's consent except under the authority of a grant or reservation to this effect. 28 C.J.S., Easements, Sec. 84. A way once located can not be changed by either party without the consent of the other. When the right of way has once been exercised in a fixed and definite course, with full acquiescence and consent of both parties, it can not be changed at the pleasure of either of them.  Jones, Easements, 1898 Ed., Sec. 352.  The general rule is that the location of an easement once selected cannot be changed by either the landowner or the easement owner without the other's consent.  17 Am.Jur., Easements, Sec. 87. Id. at 327-28, 34 A.2d at 774-75 (emphasis added). Accordingly, we concluded that Sibbel was entitled to construct a barrier across the new road, because the easement reserved by the 1866 Deed was fixed as the old road, as used by the Fitches to access the graveyard for more than fifty years. Id. at 329, 34 A.2d at 775. In Taylor, 247 Md. at 446, 231 A.2d at 697, we revisited our holding in Sibbel, when determining that subsequent conduct of parties can operate to set the location of an easement when the deed reserving the easement is either imprecise or, based on the facts and circumstances, incorrect. In that case, Taylor's deed reserved a roadway easement over the western part of his parcel to the Solter tract. Id. at 448, 231 A.2d at 698. An earlier deed between predecessors in interest created a roadway over the eastern part of the Taylor property. Taylor argued that he possessed a unilateral ability to extinguish the eastern roadway easement. The evidence at trial, however, supported the existence of the eastern easement, and that no roadway ever existed on the western part of the Taylor property. Five people, who had either lived, worked or hunted on nearby parcels testified that the eastern road existed unchanged from 1921 and 1959, and notably, an oil delivery worker testified that between 1951 and 1952after the conveyance reserving the easement, but before the parties obtained ownershiphe had traversed the eastern road on the Taylor parcel to deliver oil to the Solter parcel. The trial judge determined, on the basis of the evidence, that the parties' intended to grant an easement over the eastern road, and we affirmed. We reflected that it appeared that the use of the term west side in the deed constituted obvious inadvertence on the part of the draftsman, and that subsequent agreements between the adjacent parcel holders regarding the road, the Talyor's concession that the Solters enjoyed some right of access across their property, and the use of the road for years operated to fix the easement. Id. at 452, 231 A.2d at 701. In so holding, we quoted from Sibbel and determined that the use of the easement operated to fix its location, despite the fact that the deed failed to accurately describe it: In our judgment the case at bar falls comfortably within the familiar rule stated in Sibbel v. Fitch, 182 Md. 323, 326-27, 34 A.2d 773, 774 (1943).... Id. See also Weeks v. Lewis, 189 Md. 424, 427, 56 A.2d 46, 47 (1947) (also relying on the rule in Sibbel to set the location of an easement). More recently in Weems, 397 Md. at 606, 919 A.2d at 77, we held that Sibbel's ambiguity analysis did not apply to the interpretation of a deed reserving an easement by specific grantor one explicitly defining the easement's location. Weems had sought declaratory relief to set the terminal point of a public easement of way over Leitch's Wharf Roadan easement granted to Calvert County by the land's former owner, Lydia Leitch, in a 1949 deed of conveyance. [13] The particular language of the deed, reserving a right-of way to Leitch's Wharf for public use, stated that the easement's westerly terminus was the lands of the grantor, Lydia Leitch. Id. at 611, 919 A.2d at 80. Weems argued that the lands of Lydia Leitch ended at a turnaround point on Leitch's Wharf Road and that, therefore, Weems could restrict public access between the turnaround point on the road and the barrier wall at the end of the road, abutting the Potomac River and the area known as Leitch's Wharf. Calvert County, conversely, argued that the grant of the easement was a general one, that the use of the road all the way to the barrier had fixed the location of the easement over that area, and also that the Calvert County Code, which stated that the public shall have an easement or right-of-way over any roads or ways in Calvert County leading to ... Leitch's Wharf, precluded Weems from restricting use after the turnaround point. Id. at 611, 919 A.2d at 81. In the first trial, the judge determined that the easement extended over the paved portion of Leitch's Wharf Road, past the turnabout, to the barricade. A panel of the Court of Special Appeals then concluded that the 1949 deed was ambiguous, and remanded for fact finding. During proceedings on remand, both parties presented additional evidence regarding Lydia Leitch's intent when executing the 1949 deed to reserve a right-of-way easement for the public. Weems proffered testimony that the deed's language created a specific terminus point, the lands of Lydia Lynch, so that westerly terminus of the easement had to be the turnaround point, because that was the borderline of Lydia Leitch's land after the 1949 conveyance. Calvert County's expert proffered that the easement was intended to extend to the barrier at the end of Leitch's Wharf Road. The trial judge concluded that the easement was intended to extend all the way to the barrier and that even if it did not, the Calvert County Code prevented Weems from restricting the public's access to Leitch's Wharf over Leitch's Wharf Road. We granted certiorari on our own initiative. Before us, Weems argued, in part, that the trial judge erred by arbitrarily disregarding [his] expert's opinion, regarding the plain meaning of the deed locating the easement, and by thereafter finding that the westerly terminal of the easement granted in the 1949 Deed, was located within Appellant Weems' property at the barrier wall. Id. at 610, 919 A.2d at 80. After we distinguished a general reservation of an easement from a specific one, we concluded that the language, having for its westerly terminal the lands of the grantor, Lydia Leitch, constituted a call, or a landmark clearly demarcating the location of the public right-of-way easement. Id. at 612, 919 A.2d at 81. Because we regarded the call as specific, we looked to the plain meaning of the deed and agreed with Weems that the easement terminated at the turnaround point: In the case sub judice, it is clear that the western boundary of the easement ends at the Leitch property, not within the property, and not at the westerly boundary of the property, but at the very point where the easement first touches the then property of Lydia Leitch (extant from the record as marked on the various photographs and maps as the turnaround). This clearly and unambiguously demarcates the westerly point of the right-of-way as described in the deed. There is no dispute as to the other boundaries of the easement relevant to the instant case. This case only concerns the western boundary of the public easement. The County has no rights, under this easement, beyond that point. On that issue, there is no ambiguity in regard to the easement. When the Court of Special Appeals first addressed the issue, that court should not have remanded the case. It should have found the contested description in the easement to be unambiguous as we do today. Id. at 613-14, 919 A.2d at 82. In the absence of a specific location or a call, as in the present case, subsequent conduct can elucidate use by the dominant tenant and acquiescence, if any, by the servient tenant, both with respect to affixing the location of an easement and regarding the extinguishment or abandonment of an easement or an option to place an easement in one location in lieu of another. Evidence of subsequent conduct, on remand, must be adduced, in order to declare the rights of the parties. Hunters Ridge, however, also has asserted that the language of the 1963 Deed conferred upon it a unilateral ability, irrespective of usage and acquiescence, to relocate or extinguish existing easements. Specifically, Hunters Ridge relies on the last clause from the following section of the SDN Deed, or in lieu of such private roadway, the [SDN] may dedicate and construct a public roadway across the herein described property which will provide a means of access to Landover Road or to an existing public roadway leading to Landover Road and it is further agreed that in the event [SDN] ha[s] failed to do so on or before the date said retained property is offered for sale to [SDN], its successors or assigns, or in any event on or before five (5) years from date hereof, then and in that event the parties of the first part shall have the right to construct a roadway not more than thirty (30) feet wide across the herein described land to connect to the then existing private roadways constructed by the [Rogers] it shall be constructed and maintained by said parties of the second part leading to Landover Road; any such roadway to be located approximately as shown on the site plan entitled Landover Gardens, Section One, dated July 16, 1963 or at such other location as the parties hereto or their respective heirs, successors or assigns may agree and in the event any such roadway is constructed by the [Rogers] it shall be constructed and maintained by said parties for the exclusive use of [the Rogers], and their agents, guests, or assigns, unless and until such time as [SDN] agree[s] to maintain said roadway, at which time [SDN] shall have the right to use said roadway in common with the [Rogers]; and [SDN], its successors and assigns, shall have the right, at its expense, to relocate any portion of said roadway, any such relocated portion to be of comparable quality and construction. and a similar clause in the Landover Gardens Deed, said roadway to be located approximately as shown on the site plan entitled: Landover Gardens, Section One, dated 7/16/63 and to be not less than 22 feet wide and to be maintained by [Landover Gardens], its successors and assigns, unless the same is dedicated to public use, and it is further agreed that in the event said permanent roadway has not been so constructed within two years from the date hereof then and in that event, the [Rogers], their heirs and assigns, shall have the right to construct a roadway not more that 30 feet wide across the herein described land to be located approximately as shown on the above described site plan or at other such location as the parties hereto, their heirs, successors or assigns, may agree; it being agreed that in the event the [Rogers] construct said roadway that in such event said roadway shall be constructed and maintained by said parties and shall be for the exclusive use of said parties and their agents, guests, invitees unless and until such time as the [Landover Gardens] agree[s] to maintain said roadway, at which time [Landover Gardens] shall have the right to use the roadway in common with the [Rogers]; and [Landover Gardens], its successors and assigns, shall have the right, at its expense, to relocate any portion of said roadway, and such relocated portion to be of comparable quality and construction. In essence, Hunter's Ridge argues that the last sentence permits it to relocate any roadway at its expense, so long as the relocated portion is of a comparable quality and construction. Rogers, conversely, argues that the last sentence, permitting relocation, applies only to that roadway that would have been constructed by Rogers in response to SDN's or Landover Gardens' failure to build a roadway within the time limits provided. We agree with Rogers regarding the interpretation of this last sentence, as did the trial judge and the panel of the Court of Special Appeals.
We shall only briefly address the utility easements, for we adopt the conclusions of the trial judge and the Court of Special Appeals in this respect. Rogers argues that Hunter's Ridge cannot relocate or extinguish the utility lines on Hunter's Ridge property, because the memorandum appended to the 1963 Deed reserved a right to hook into these lines at the Rogers' expense, and the subsequent declarations created easements specifically locating the utility lines on the SDN and Landover Gardens properties. In essence, Rogers argues that the utility easements created in subsequent declarations were for the benefit of their land and cannot now be moved. Hunter's Ridge counters that the easements were created solely for the benefit of the SDN and Landover Gardens apartment buildings, and can be moved because they are located wholly within Hunter's Ridge property, and Rogers has no right to set their location. The trial judge found, and it is not disputed, that the Rogers never exercised their right to hook into the SDN or Landover utility lines. Thus, unlike the roadway easement previously discussed, issues of subsequent use and acquiescence do not arise to fix the location of the utility easements. The trial judge held, with respect to the plain meaning of the declarations creating the utility easements, that he could not conclude that the easements that were put in place on the Landover and SDN property were for anything other than the connection and construction to the various apartments, which were constructed and might have been constructed.... In affirming, the Court of Special Appeals aptly noted that the 1964 Declaration stated that the easements were to serve the apartments intended to be constructed on the property, and that the plain meaning of this language indicates that the easements were not for the benefit of the Rogers Property, and recognized that the Rogers were not a party to the 1968 Declaration of Easements for Purposes of Ingress and Egress for Water and Sanitary Sewer, nor could the Rogers property be construed to be a third party beneficiary of the declaration, as the language, to serve the apartments to be built thereon, clearly stated the Declaration's purpose. Because it is undisputed that Rogers never used the utility easement, no issue of subsequent conduct arises, and we agree with the conclusion that the utility easements were not placed on Hunter's Ridge property with the intent to benefit the Rogers parcel. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS VACATED, AND CASE REMANDED TO THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS WITH DIRECTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY AND TO REMAND THE CASE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE FILING OF A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. COSTS IN THIS COURT AND IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS TO BE PAID BY RESPONDENTS.