Causey v. Gray

243 A.2d 575, 250 Md. 380, 1968 Md. LEXIS 738
CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
DecidedJuly 1, 1968
Docket[No. 246, September Term, 1967.]
StatusPublished
Cited by24 cases

This text of 243 A.2d 575 (Causey v. Gray) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Causey v. Gray, 243 A.2d 575, 250 Md. 380, 1968 Md. LEXIS 738 (Md. 1968).

Opinion

Barnes, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This appeal seeks a review of three orders of the Circuit Court for Ann Arundel County: (1) overruling a motion of the appellants raising a perliminary objection of want of jurisdiction in equity (Saclise, J.), (2) overruling a demurrer of the appellants to the bill of complaint filed by the appellees (Childs, J.), and (3) overruling a motion by the appellants for a rehearing and suspension of the final decree filed in the suit (Childs, J.).

The bill of complaint, filed by Dorothy Gray and Alice V. Peters, appellees in this Court and owners of Lot 59, against Eugene W. Causey and Joyce Causey, his wife, appellants, owners of Lot 58, Genevieve K. von Ascheberg and River Club Estates, Inc. (defendants below but not appellants here) alleged that the plaintiffs owned Lot 59 with a frontage of 127.84 feet in a development called River Club Estates on Rhodes River, having acquired it by a duly recorded deed dated March 16, 1964, from Paul Johannes, a certified copy of the deed being filed as an exhibit. It was further alleged that Mrs. von Ascheberg, a widow, had originally owned the tract of which Lot 59 was a part and had in 1950 conveyed the tract to River Club Estates. Airs, von Ascheberg had caused the tract to be laid out into lots and roads and the original plat was duly recorded. Paul Johannes, the predecessor in title of the plaintiffs, liad acquired Lot 59 from River Club Estates on January 15, 1963.

The defendants, the Causeys, had acquired Lot 58 from River Club Estates on May 15, 1963. The dwelling on Lot 58 was constructed by Johannes and was occupied by the Causeys in September, 1963. Lot 58 adjoins the plaintiffs’ Lot 59 on the south.

*382 Prior to the conveyance of Lot 59 to the plaintiffs by Johannes, the Causeys and Johannes are alleged to have entered into an oral arrangement whereby it was agreed that they would dredge in front of their respective properties and fill in a portion of the frontage of those properties. They also agreed that a drain pipe was to be located on Lot 59 near the division line of Lot 58 to extend through the fill area. Johannes and the Causeys agreed to a division of costs between them and each paid the costs in accordance with the agreement.

The dredging and the land fill were completed and the Causeys built a wooden retaining wall with a pier extending from the wall, as shown on a plat filed as plaintiffs’ Exhibit 7. It was further alleged that the plaintiffs were informed that Johannes and the Causeys agreed upon a division line through the newly created land between Lots 58 and 59 as a S. 16° 00' 40" W line for a distance of 44.09 feet from the end of the division line between the two lots to a pipe set, but notwithstanding this agreement in regard to the division line, the Causeys now claim that the division line is an extension of the fixed division line between Lots 58 and 59 (S. 47° 59' 40" W) for a distance of 45.40 feet to a pipe found. It was alleged that the extension of the boundary line as claimed by the Causeys does and will wrongfully deprive the plaintiffs of the full use of their waterfront lot and their natural riparian rights incident to their ownership of their lot. The claim of the Causeys is also alleged to be in breach of their agreement with Johannes in regard to the division line.

It was further alleged that the plaintiffs had sought to settle the dispute in regard to the division line on an equitable basis by offering to create a new line with a bearing of S. 34° 31' 55" W.

It was also alleged that Mrs. von Ascheberg had wrongfully claimed the fill area and the area marked “Marsh” on Exhibit 7 as belonging to her and had either individually or through River Club Estates attempted to take charge of the area, convey it by deeds and place restrictions on it, notwithstanding the plaintiffs’ claim to riparian rights.

It was finally alleged that in order to prevent a multiplicity of actions, the Court should assume jurisdiction for the pur *383 pose of settling the rights of the parties with respect to the location of boundary lines and riparian rights.

The plaintiffs prayed for a declaratory decree:

(a) fixing a proper division line through the fill area;

(b) settling the riparian rights of the plaintiffs in so far as challenged by Mrs. von Ascheberg and River Club Estates; and

(c) granting other and further relief.

All of the defendants raised a preliminary objection pursuant to Maryland Rule 323 a (1) for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the jurisdiction of the cause of action was exclusively at law and not in equity in that disputed boundary lines and questions of title to land in possession of the alleged wrongful possessor were involved. The Circuit Court (Sachse, J.) overruled the motion raising the preliminary objection on July 11, 1966.

The defendants then filed a combined demurrer and answer to the whole bill of complaint. The demurrer set forth the following grounds:

1. The Statute of Frauds is a complete defense to the alleged oral agreement or agreements.

2. The bill of complaint shows on its face that the plaintiffs are not riparian owners.

3. There is no allegation that the line allegedly agreed upon was uncertain or in dispute.

4. The bill of complaint shows on its face that the Causeys were in possession of the land claimed by the plaintiffs. The answer admitted certain allegations, denied others, and asserted several defenses.

The Chancellor (Childs, J.) took testimony and concluded that the alleged oral agreement had not been established by the evidence. He concluded that the equity court had jurisdiction, that riparian rights were involved and that the trial court should proceed to apportion the land fill in an equitable manner, in accordance with the established rules, and declare the proper division line for the riparian rights of the owners of Lots 58 and 59. The Chancellor set forth his findings and conclusions in a well-considered written opinion, overruled the demurrer and passed the final decree of May 16, 1967, on the *384 merits in which he declared that Lots 58 and 59 shown on the Amended Plat of River Club Estates border on the waters of Rhodes River in Anne Arundel County and have full riparian rights, established the division line between those two lots over any land fill, decreed that the owners of Lot 59 (the appellees) pay the owners of Lot 58 (the Causeys) $42.30 for certain improvements and divided the costs equally between the parties.

In order to understand more fully the factual situation, the contentions of the respective parties and the decree of the Chancellor, a plat has been prepared and the reporter is directed to print the plat as part of this opinion. 1 (See p. 394 infra.)

The Chancellor in applying the rule of apportionment stated in Baltimore v. Baltimore & Philadelphia Steamboat Co., 104 Md. 485, 65 A. 353 (1906), and Mutual Chemical Co. v. Baltimore, 33 F. Supp. 881, infra properly determined the division line as follows:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Assateague Coastal Trust, Inc. v. Schwalbach
136 A.3d 866 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2016)
Glover v. Glendening
829 A.2d 532 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2003)
Cove Properties, Inc. v. Walter Trent Marina, Inc.
796 So. 2d 322 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1999)
Anne Arundel County v. City of Annapolis
721 A.2d 217 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1998)
Holiday Point Marina Partners v. Anne Arundel County
707 A.2d 829 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1998)
People's Counsel v. Maryland Marine Manufacturing Co.
560 A.2d 32 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1989)
Rayne v. Coulbourne
500 A.2d 665 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1985)
Broadwater v. State
494 A.2d 934 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1985)
Abbott v. Forest Hill State Bank
483 A.2d 387 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1984)
National Electrical Industry Fund v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.
463 A.2d 858 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1983)
NATIONAL ELEC. INDUS. v. Beth. Steel
463 A.2d 858 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1983)
Verona Housing, Inc. v. St. Mary's County Metropolitan Commission
413 A.2d 270 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1980)
Harbor Island Marina v. BOARD OF CTY. COMMISSIONERS OF CALVERT CTY.
407 A.2d 738 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1979)
Wicks v. Howard
388 A.2d 1250 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1978)
Mayor of Baltimore v. Crane
352 A.2d 786 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1976)
Bosley v. Grand Lodge of Ancient Free & Accepted Masons
283 A.2d 587 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1971)
Board of Public Works v. Larmar Corp.
277 A.2d 427 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1971)
Owen v. Hubbard
271 A.2d 672 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1970)
S. & G. Realty Co. v. Woodmoor Realty Corp.
259 A.2d 281 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1969)
Western Contracting Corp. v. Titter
258 A.2d 600 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
243 A.2d 575, 250 Md. 380, 1968 Md. LEXIS 738, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/causey-v-gray-md-1968.