HORNING v. HARDY 36 Md. App. 419, 373 A.2d 1273 (1977). CASE BRIEF

HORNING V. HARDY

36 Md. App. 419, 373 A.2d 1273 (1977)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Horning (D) purchasers and Hardy (P), landowner appealed judgments from the Circuit Court which rejected P's argument that D's committed trespass because P failed to establish that the disputed area was within the lines of their title deeds; and entered judgment in favor of P on D's counter-claim for slander of title because the interference was privileged.

FACTS: The original suit in this case, filed by P and consisted of a two count declaration alleging that Ds had committed trespass quare clausum fregit on land owned by P and sought damages from D and their ejectment from the property allegedly owned by P. D filed a cross claim against the Martins, from whom they had purchased the lots in question, seeking damages based on the special warranty recited in their deed. In addition, D filed an amended counter-claim against P in which they sought compensatory and punitive damages for malicious interference with the contracts between D and various purchasers of homes erected by D on the disputed lots, as well as damages for slander of title. P claimed ownership of the disputed land by virtue of their title deeds and by reason of adverse possession for the required 20-year period. P claimed title under the doctrine of boundary by acquiescence. The trial court found that P did not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the disputed area lies within the lines of their title deeds. As for the timberland, the court found that P was not entitled to prevail. In order to establish adverse possession of unenclosed timberland, evidence of the cutting and hauling of timber therefrom is not of itself sufficient, because such acts might be nothing more than successive trespasses. A mere statement of ownership, absent actual physical possession, is inadequate to constitute adverse possession. The court found that P was not entitled to prevail in their actions. The court also found that D was not entitled to prevail for slander of title from P. Both parties appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner