Opinion ID: 1922008
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Traditional Easement Law Applies to Condominiums

Text: The Condominium's Declaration states in Article 15.2: In addition to any easement established by law, each unit shall have, appurtenant thereto, an easement in the common elements for the purposes of providing maintenance, support, repair or service for such unit to and for the ducts, pipes, conduits, vents, plumbing, wiring and other utility services to the unit.  [Emphasis added.] The Court of Special Appeals, in its unreported opinion, discussed this language, finding that: Conversely, however, each such condominium unit must also shoulder the burden associated with that interest, thereby becoming both the servient and the dominant estate. This scenario is distinguishable from the traditional concept of easement, whereby one party obtains an easement for his or her benefit and another party must shoulder the obligations associated with that benefit. [7] We believe [petitioner's] interpretation to be strained, and that the mutual obligations and benefits of condominium ownership do not call for the application of traditional easement law. Petitioner contends that the Court of Special Appeals erred in its decision finding that traditional easement law does not apply to condominiums. We agree. The Court of Special Appeals' reasoning in regards to the treatment of the easement is flawed. The traditional law of easements applies to condominiums. See § 11-106(a) (Each unit in a condominium has all of the incidents of real property. (Emphasis added.)); Ridgely, 343 Md. at 370, 681 A.2d at 501. Furthermore, the Condominium's Declaration specifically provides in Article 6.1 that [e]ach unit in the Condominium has all the incidents of real property and the owner of a unit shall have such estate therein as may be acquired in real property.... [Emphasis added]. An easement is the `nonpossessory interest in the real property of another' and arises through express grant or implication. Stansbury v. MDR, 390 Md. 476, 486, 889 A.2d 403, 409 (2006) (citing Boucher v. Boyer, 301 Md. 679, 688, 484 A.2d 630, 635 (1984)); Calvert Joint Venture # 140 v. Snider, 373 Md. 18, 39, 816 A.2d 854, 866 (2003). As we stated in Miller v. Kirkpatrick, 377 Md. 335, 833 A.2d 536 (2003): In general, the terms `easement' and `right-of-way' are regarded as synonymous. Chevy Chase Land Co. v. United States, 355 Md. 110, 126, 733 A.2d 1055, 1063 (1999). An express easement by reservation arises when a property owner conveys part of his property to another, but includes language in the conveyance reserving the right to use some part of the transferred land as a right-of-way. Knotts v. Summit Park Co., 146 Md. 234, 239, 126 A. 280, 281-82 (1924). `In every instance of a private easement  that is, an easement not enjoyed by the public  there exists the characteristic feature of two distinct tenements  one dominant and the other servient.' Bd. of County Comm'rs of Garrett County v. Bell Atlantic-Md., Inc., 346 Md. 160, 175, 695 A.2d 171, 179 (1997). `Where a right of way is established by reservation, the land remains the property of the owner of the servient estate, and he is entitled to use it for any purpose that does not interfere with the easement.' Greenwalt v. McCardell, 178 Md. 132, 136, 12 A.2d 522, 524 (1940) (citation omitted). The generally accepted rule for an express easement is `that [because] an easement is a restriction upon the rights of the servient property owner, no alteration can be made by the owner of the dominant estate which would increase such restriction except by mutual consent of both parties.' Reid v. Washington Gas Light Co., 232 Md. 545, 548-49, 194 A.2d 636, 638 (1963) (citation omitted). Miller, 377 Md. at 349, 833 A.2d at 544. There are, however, in contrast to the Court of Special Appeals' opinion, instances in which a dominant and servient estate may both benefit and shoulder the burden of a particular covenant or easement. This can occur in the situation of an implied negative reciprocal easement. As we discussed in McKenrick v. Savings Bank, 174 Md. 118, 197 A. 580 (1938): That one owning a tract of land, in granting a part thereof, may validly impose upon the part granted restrictions upon the use thereof for the benefit of the part retained, and upon the part retained for the benefit of the part granted, or upon both for the benefit of both; that, where the covenants in the conveyance are not expressly for or on behalf of the grantor, his heirs and assigns, they are personal and will not run with the land, but that, if in such a case it appears that it was the intention of the grantors that the restrictions were part of a uniform general scheme or plan of development and use which should affect the land granted and the land retained alike, they may be enforced in equity; that covenants creating restrictions are to be construed strictly in favor of the freedom of the land, and against the person in whose favor they are made; and that the burden is upon one seeking to enforce such restrictions, where they are not specifically expressed in a deed, to show by clear and satisfactory proof that the common grantor intended that they should affect the land retained as a part of a uniform general scheme of development. Id. at 128, 197 A. at 584-85; but see Schovee v. Mikolasko, 356 Md. 93, 107, 737 A.2d 578, 586 (1999) (In McKenrick and in all of the cases before and since, the assertion of an implied reciprocal restriction arising from a general plan of development was premised not on a recorded Declaration defining the land subject to the restrictions or from a recorded plat noting the imposition of restrictions on the lots shown in the plat, but either from the inclusion by a common grantor of uniform restrictions in individual deeds to specific lots or from oral commitments made to purchasers of lots subject to restrictions that subsequent conveyances of retained land would be subject to the same restrictions.). In any case, while not explicitly stated in Maryland case law, we find that reciprocity of benefit and burden can exist between dominant and servient estates. In the case sub judice the language in Article 15.2 of the Condominium's Declaration creates an express easement. An easement is granted to the dominant estate, appurtenant to the individual condominium units (in this case petitioner's unit), in the common elements, i.e., the exterior of the unit, by the servient estate, the Condominium, for the purpose of providing maintenance, support, repair or service for such unit and to and for the ducts, pipes, conduits, vents, plumbing, wiring and other utility services to the unit. [Emphasis added]. This easement was properly established when the Declaration was filed along with the Bylaws and Condominium plat, establishing the Condominium. The Court of Special Appeals contends that there is an inherent conflict created by such a grant of an easement in the context of a condominium. The court argues that because the individual condominium unit owner is also a member of the Condominium unit owners as a whole, she has an interest in both the servient and dominant estate[s]. In other words, petitioner is granted an easement over or through the common elements as the dominant estate represented by her condominium unit, but as a member of the Condominium she also has an interest in the servient estate by virtue of her interest in the common elements. [8] The Court of Special Appeals finds this scenario to be distinguishable from the traditional concept of easement, whereby one party obtains an easement for his or her benefit and another party must shoulder the obligations associated with that benefit. We find no conflict in this situation. While petitioner can be said to have a tenancy in common in the general common elements with all of the other Condominium unit owners, petitioner owns her individual condominium unit in fee simple. Jurgensen v. New Phoenix Atl. Condo. Council of Unit Owners, 380 Md. 106, 115, 843 A.2d 865, 870 (2004). These are two wholly different types of estates. There is no conflict extant between the two types of ownership in regards to the existence of the express easement. As such, we reiterate that traditional easement law applies to easements granted in condominium documents, in particular, to the easement granted by the Condominium Declaration in the case sub judice. [9]