Adverse Possession in Maryland

by

An  unreported opinion last week by the Maryland Appellate Court in the case of Carpenter v. Jenkins holds significant implications for the understanding and application of adverse possession law within the state.

This case meticulously explores the stringent criteria that claimants must satisfy to successfully assert ownership over disputed land through adverse possession, a legal principle that allows a person to claim ownership of land under certain conditions over time. The appellate court’s detailed examination of the evidence against the backdrop of established legal standards provides valuable insights into the practical challenges of proving adverse possession.

Ultimately, the court affirmed the trial court’s decision that the Carpenters did not meet the necessary legal thresholds, this opinion underscores the importance of demonstrating all elements of adverse possession unequivocally. This decision not only clarifies the application of adverse possession laws in Maryland but also serves as a cautionary tale for both legal practitioners and property owners about the complexity and difficulty of establishing claims based on these grounds.

Adverse Possession in Maryland

Adverse possession is a legal doctrine that allows a person to claim ownership of land under certain conditions, even if they are not the title owner. In Maryland, like in other jurisdictions, adverse possession is governed by both statutory law and case law, which outline specific requirements that must be met for a claim to be successful. Understanding the nuances of adverse possession law in Maryland is crucial for legal practitioners, property owners, and potential claimants.

Here are they key components to adverse possession law in Maryland:

  1. Statutory Period: Under Maryland law, the claimant must possess the property continuously for a statutory period. The general period required is 20 years (Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-103), but it can be reduced to 10 years if the possession is based on a color of title and the claimant has paid property taxes on the land during that period (Md. Code Ann., Tax-Prop. § 14-108).
  2. Actual Possession: The possession must be actual, meaning the claimant has physically used the land in a manner typical of ownership. This use must be visible and tangible, such as building structures, planting, or fencing (Costello v. Staubitz, 300 Md. 60 (1984)).
  3. Open and Notorious: The claimant’s possession of the property must be so conspicuous that it gives notice to the legal owner that someone is asserting a claim against their property. It cannot be hidden or secretive (Senez v. Collins, 182 Md. App. 300 (2008)).
  4. Exclusive: The possession must be exclusive, indicating that the claimant uses the property without sharing control with others, especially the true owner (Porter v. Schaffer, 126 Md. App. 237 (1999)).
  5. Hostile: The possession must be hostile, meaning it is without the true owner’s permission. This does not imply ill will but rather that the claimant is using the property as if they are the rightful owner, contrary to the actual owner’s rights (Blickenstaff v. Bromley, 243 Md. 164 (1966)).
  6. Continuous: The claimant’s possession must be continuous for the entire statutory period, without significant interruption (Miklasz v. G.W. Stone, Inc., 60 Md. App. 438 (1984)).

Adverse possession requires a claimant to demonstrate a set of stringent elements for a continuous period of 20 years: actual, open and notorious, and exclusive use; continuous and uninterrupted use for the required duration; and use that is hostile, under a claim of title or ownership. Failure to meet any of these criteria results in the claim being dismissed.

Facts of Carpenter v. Jenkins

The Carpenters alleged they had acquired rights over a 433 square-foot triangular segment of the Jenkins’ property through adverse possession.

The Carpenters presented evidence of their activities on the disputed land, which included the construction and maintenance of a bulkhead and jetty, as well as their recreational activities such as fishing and playing on the land. They asserted that these actions demonstrated their actual, open, notorious, and exclusive use of the land. Additionally, they claimed that this use was continuous over the years and was carried out without the Jenkins’ permission, thereby satisfying the hostility requirement.

Subheading-3

The contested area was meticulously analyzed during a bench trial in the Circuit Court for Charles County, which ultimately found the Carpenters’ evidence lacking, particularly in proving the land was used in a manner that was actual, open and notorious, and exclusive. Consequently, their complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

The Appeal

The appellate court’s review focused on the trial court’s application of the law to the facts, particularly scrutinizing the evidence pertaining to the actual, open and notorious, and exclusive use of the land by the Carpenters. The court emphasized that activities such as construction and maintenance of a jetty and recreational use did not convincingly demonstrate the required elements of adverse possession. Specifically, the court noted that the claimants’ actions did not unequivocally indicate an assumed control or use consistent with ownership.

Further complicating the Carpenters’ claim was their inability to establish the land’s use was hostile. The trial records revealed a history of amicable access agreements between the neighboring families.  They agreed they could enter on each other property without permission – which is not exactly adverse. This undermined the assertion of hostility necessary for a successful adverse possession claim in Maryland.

The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision, underscoring the necessity of satisfying all elements of adverse possession unequivocally. This case reaffirms the rigorous standards required to establish adverse possession, emphasizing the importance of visible, clear, and exclusive acts of ownership over disputed land. It also highlights the challenges claimants face when attempting to convert permissive use into a claim of adverse possession, especially in contexts where historical neighborliness muddies the waters of assumed ownership.

Five Key Maryland Adverse Possession Cases

Certainly, here is a summary of the five key adverse possession cases in Maryland that highlight the doctrine’s application and the judicial interpretation of its elements:

1. Costello v. Staubitz, 300 Md. 60 (1984)

This landmark case clarified the requirements for establishing adverse possession in Maryland.  It is the only major holding in an adverse possession case from the Maryland Court of Appeal/Supreme Court.

This case emphasized that for possession to be deemed adverse, it must be actual, open and notorious, exclusive, continuous, and hostile for a period of 20 years. The significance of this case lies in its detailed discussion on what constitutes “open and notorious” use – also an issue in the case we are talking about – which must be so conspicuous that it gives the legal owner a notice of the adverse claim.

2. Senez v. Collins, 182 Md. App. 300 (2008)

In this case, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals discussed the “open and notorious” element of adverse possession. It held that the claimant’s use of the property must be visible and notorious enough to provide constructive notice to the true owner. This case is often cited for its explanation of how possessory acts must be of such a character as to openly and publicly indicate an assumed control or use consistent with the character of the premises in question.

3. Porter v. Schaffer, 126 Md. App. 237 (1999)

This appellate decision focuses on the exclusivity element of adverse possession. It underscores that the claimant’s possession of the land must be exclusive, meaning possession for the claimant’s own use and benefit, and not shared with the true owner or the public. The court highlighted that exclusive possession means that the claimant must possess the land as if they are the true owner.

4. Blickenstaff v. Bromley, 243 Md. 164 (1966)

Blickenstaff v. Bromley addresses the hostility requirement, clarifying that possession must be without the true owner’s permission. The court explained that “hostile” does not imply ill will but indicates that the claimant is using the property contrary to the true owner’s rights, without any permission. This case is pivotal for understanding that adverse possession does not require animosity but rather a non-permissive use of the property.

5. Miklasz v. G.W. Stone, Inc., 60 Md. App. 438 (1984)

This case is instructive for the continuous possession requirement over the statutory period.

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals held that the claimant’s possession of the land must be continuous, without significant interruption, for the entire statutory period required by law. Miklasz v. G.W. Stone, Inc. emphasizes that breaks or interruptions in possession can jeopardize an adverse possession claim.

These cases collectively form the bedrock of adverse possession jurisprudence in Maryland, each contributing to the nuanced understanding of the doctrine’s requirements. They serve as essential references for legal practitioners navigating adverse possession claims in the state, offering guidance on how to effectively establish each element of the claim.