Solomons Island Yacht Club, Inc. v. Elliott

357 A.2d 848, 31 Md. App. 508, 1976 Md. App. LEXIS 513
CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland
DecidedJune 4, 1976
DocketNo. 512
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 357 A.2d 848 (Solomons Island Yacht Club, Inc. v. Elliott) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Special Appeals of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Solomons Island Yacht Club, Inc. v. Elliott, 357 A.2d 848, 31 Md. App. 508, 1976 Md. App. LEXIS 513 (Md. Ct. App. 1976).

Opinion

Powers, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Appellant here, Solomons Island Yacht Club, Incorporated, sued Paul X. Elliott and Mary L. Elliott, appellees here, in the Circuit Court for Calvert County, for trespass to real estate. The suit put in issue the title of the parties to a disputed strip of land along the common boundary of adjoining parcels in Solomons Island owned by the respective parties. The declaration contained a technical claim for damages, but no damages were sought. The suit was a typical use of the common law action of trespass q.c.f. to try the issue of a disputed title to real estate. 1 Poe, Pleading and Practice (Tiffany ed. 1925) § 244, Rosencrantz v. Shields, Inc., 28 Md. App. 379, 346 A. 2d 237 (1975).

After the parties thought they had reached a settlement, a judgment was entered by agreement. The settlement was aborted, however, and upon motion and hearing, the judgment was stricken and the case was restored to the trial calendar.

Trial was held before a jury and Judge Perry G. Bowen, Jr., in the Circuit Court for Calvert County. At the close of all of the evidence the trial judge denied a motion by the Elliotts for a directed verdict in their favor, and reserved ruling on a motion by the Yacht Club for a directed verdict in its favor. Instructions were given by the court and arguments were made by counsel. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants. After the court denied a motion by the Yacht Club for judgment n.o.v. a final judgment was entered on the verdict. The appeal is from that judgment.

The sole issue raised here by the Yaeht Club is whether the court erred in denying its motion for a directed verdict. We hold that it was error to deny the motion. We shall reverse the judgment appealed from, and enter a final judgment in favor of the appellant.

A review of the evidence shows that the Yacht Club and the Elliotts each own a parcel of land fronting on Route #2 in Solomons Island. The Elliott parcel lies immediately south of the Yacht Club parcel along the road frontage. The Yacht Club parcel extends several hundred feet to the rear, which [510]*510borders on Mill Creek. The Elliott parcel extends back from the public road a distance, according to one measurement, of 76 feet, and, according to another measurement, of 78.51 feet. The width of the Elliott parcel is approximately 60 feet, or slightly more, depending on the resolution of the dispute.

Evidence of the titles and of the location of both parcels came in through a Title Abstractor and through two Registered Land Surveyors, all of whom were conceded to be experts. There wag no material dispute as to any of their evidence.

One of the exhibits is a plat prepared by a registered land surveyor which purports to show Lots 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21, as laid out in a plat prepared about 1870 by one Thomas R. Grover. The Grover plat is not now available in the Land Records and no known copy exists.1 All of those lots fronton a public road, now Maryland Route 2, and extend back to Mill Creek, a distance on the order of 250 to 300 feet. We are concerned in this case only with Lots 19 and 20. The frontage on the public road of the Yacht Club property is made up of most, but not all, of the original frontage of Lot 19. The frontage of the Elliott parcel, immediately south, is made up of all of the original frontage of Lot 20, plus part of the original frontage of Lot 19. How much of the Lot 19 frontage is the subject of the dispute in this case.

[511]

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

Related

Carnevale v. Dupee, 95-0182 (1999)
Superior Court of Rhode Island, 1999
Scureman v. Judge
626 A.2d 5 (Court of Chancery of Delaware, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
357 A.2d 848, 31 Md. App. 508, 1976 Md. App. LEXIS 513, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/solomons-island-yacht-club-inc-v-elliott-mdctspecapp-1976.