RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Property Owners Association of Arundel-on-the-Bay, Inc.

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Property Owners Association of Arundel-on-the-Bay, Inc."

Transcription

1 PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION OF ARUNDEL-ON-THE-BAY, INC., et al. Plaintiffs/Counter Defendant v. JOYCE Q MCMANUS Defendant/Counter Plaintiff * IN THE * CIRCUIT COURT * OF MARYLAND * FOR * ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY * Case No.: C RP * * * * * * * * * * * * RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Property Owners Association of Arundel-on-the-Bay, Inc. ( Association ), and Plaintiffs Frank A. Florentine and Milton Harrod, by their undersigned attorneys, Wayne T. Kosmerl, Susan T. Ford and Council, Baradel, Kosmerl and Nolan, P.A. hereby withdraw the Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Motion for Summary Judgment and hereby respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant/Counter Plaintiff Joyce Q McManus ( Defendant ) and state as follows: Summary judgment should be denied Defendant as material facts are disputed and Defendant is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Kessling v. State, 288 Md. 579, 420 A.2d 261 (1980). A material fact is one which somehow affect the outcome of the case. Stewart Title Guar. Co. v. West, 110 Md. App. 114, 133, 676 A.2d 953 (1996). 1. Material Facts Are Disputed Defendant has moved for summary judgment stating that she is the fee simple title owner of the road bed of Saratoga Avenue by virtue of Md. Real Prop. Code Ann and that she is thus entitled to block off Saratoga Avenue and claim it as her own. The Association asserts that whatever legal interest Defendant has in the roadbed, if any, that interest does not give

2 Defendant the right to block a platted street in the community and prevent others from using it. The Affidavit of John Dowling, Defendant s title expert, states that he found no evidence in the Land Records or Court Records of the County which supports any claim of ownership in the Trustees of streets, alleys or avenues within the Arundel-on-the-Bay subdivision. Exhibit B to the Complaint contains a deed dated 1949 which expressly conveys title to the streets in Arundel-on-the-Bay from the Town Commissioners to the Town Trustees. The deed expressly stated that the Trustees were to hold the streets: for the proper use, benefit and behoof of the property owners of Arundel-on-the- Bay, Md. as the property owners may be recorded in the Land Records of Anne Arundel County as such owners, and to hold the same IN TRUST, but with the power and authority vested in them to convey all or any part of the said real property to any properly organized corporation which may be organized by the aforesaid property owners of Arundel on the Bay and as directed by the aforesaid property owners, or by the County Commissioners of Anne Arundel County, or other proper constituted authority, for the use and benefit of such property owners; and to receive and disburse such funds as may come into their hands as Trustees, by levy of assessment, or voluntary contributions, for the care and use of said streets or avenues, as the majority of the property owners may direct. (emphasis added.) The Town Commissioners and Town Trustees, acting at the direction and for the benefit of all property owners in Arundel on the Bay, including Defendant s predecessors in interest, asserted title and control of the streets in Arundel-on-the-Bay. This title and control was passed to the Association in 1951 at the direction of the property owners in Arundel on the Bay, which group included Defendant s predecessor in title. The Association, governed by and at the direction of the property owners in Arundel on the Bay, later conveyed title to certain streets to the County Commissioners of Anne Arundel County. No objection to this assertion of transfer of title and control of the streets by the Town Commissioners, Trustees or Association was made by 2

3 Defendant s predecessors in interest nor Defendant, from 1898 at the time the Town was chartered, until 2005, when Defendant claimed the right to block Saratoga Avenue. There is thus a dispute of material fact as to the whether the Town Trustees had a claim of ownership to the streets in Arundel-on-the-Bay which they could convey to the Association and summary judgment should be denied. The Affidavit of John Dowling also states that he found no documents or other evidence in the County Land or Court Records showing that the private owner of the Arundel-on-the-Bay subdivision, Chesapeake and Columbia Investment Company, relinquished ownership or control of the streets, alleys or avenues to the politically created municipality called Arundel-on-the- Bay. Mr. Dowling apparently neglected to read paragraph 32 of the Acts of 1898 wherein the General Assembly expressly subjected the streets in Arundel-on-the-Bay to the control of the Town Commissioners. See, Exhibit H to Complaint, Chapter 349 Acts of the General Assembly of 1898, Section 32 (the same Exhibit was also attached to Mr. Dowling s Affidavit). Further, Section 17 of the Acts of 1898 expressly gave the Commissioners the power to establish the limits and widths of the streets of said town, and to improve the same, and remove obstructions therefrom Thus, it is abundantly clear from Defendant s own exhibit that the streets in Arundel-on-the-Bay were expressly subject to the control of the Town Commissioners and that the Commissioners had authority to remove obstructions from the platted streets. See, Affidavit of Edward J. Albert, Esq, Exhibit A hereto. Based upon that express grant of control of the streets to the Town Commissioners which acted as an acceptance of the offer of dedication of the streets, as is discussed above, the Town Commissioners later granted title and control of the streets to the Town Trustees when the Town dissolved in The Town Trustees, acting at the explicit direction of the property owners of Arundel on the Bay according to the terms of the 3

4 aforementioned deed from the Town Commissioners to the Town Trustees, which property owners would have included Defendant s predecessors in title, conveyed title and control to the streets to the Association. Mr. Dowling s affidavit does not show any objection to this transfer of record by the Defendant nor by her predecessor in title until more than 50 years after the transfer occurred. There is thus a dispute of material fact about whether the Town Commissioners, acting on behalf of the property owners in Arundel on the Bay, had control of and a right to convey title to the streets to the Town Trustees upon dissolution of the Town. Defendant now objects to the transfer, more than 50 years after the fact. There is also a dispute of material fact as to whether the Town Trustees, acting at the direction of the property owners in Arundel on the Bay, could convey title and control of the streets to the Association. Defendant s motion for summary judgment should be denied. Nowhere does Mr. Dowling state that Defendant has the right to block a platted street, Saratoga Avenue, with a fence and prevent others from using it. This is because even if Defendant has bare legal title to the platted roadbed, a fact which the Association does not concede, she has no right to block the road to prevent other property owners in Arundel-on-the- Bay from using it. See, Affidavit of Edward J. Albert, Esq., Exhibit A. Thus Defendant is not entitled to summary judgment. 2. Defendant Is Not Entitled To Judgment As A Matter Of Law The Association filed an Amended Complaint on September 6, 2005, for the purpose of clarifying that the Association s suit to remove the fence from blocking Saratoga Avenue was and is based upon not only ownership of Saratoga Avenue, but also non-exclusive right of use of Saratoga Avenue via dedication to public use, prescriptive and/or implied easement, scheme of development and/or color of title. 4

5 Defendant s claim that only bare legal title to the roadbed of Saratoga Avenue is relevant to the determination of whether the road can be blocked is not supported by Maryland law. Even if Defendant has bare legal title to the roadbed of Saratoga Avenue by virtue of Md. Real Property Code Ann , a fact which the Association does not concede, all lot owners in Arundel-on-the-Bay have a right of use of Saratoga Avenue by dedication to public use or at least an implied easement over the platted streets in the community. Koch v. Strathmeyer, 357 Md. 193, 742 A.2d 946, 949 (1999) (and see, Plaintiff s Motion for Summary Judgment and supporting Memorandum filed contemporaneously herewith and incorporated by reference herein.) The stated purpose of Real Prop has been described by the Court of Appeals as one of assuring open streets for lot owners, not for blocking streets. The purpose of former is to assure landowners that they will have access to streets bounding on their land by granting to them title to the center line of the street while recognizing an easement in the other half of the street. The implied easement by plat reference rule has an identical purpose, although it accomplishes its objective by creating an easement to the whole of the street rather than by granting fee simple title to part. The purpose of each rule is to assure access to a right of way contiguous with the land so as to afford each owner full use and enjoyment of his property. In our view, the two rules are not inconsistent.therefore, absent an express provision to the contrary in the deed, those who purchase a lot with reference to a plat depicting an abutting street acquire a private easement in that street regardless of whether it has been dedicated to the public and accepted by the local government. By virtue of this easement, the purchaser has the right to keep the street open and make reasonable use thereof. 1 Boucher v. Boyer, 301 Md. 679, 694, 484 A.2d 630 (1984) (emphasis supplied). Defendant cites no authority for the proposition that Md. Real Property is intended to be used to allow abutting property owners to block off streets adjacent to their lot lines. To the contrary, Maryland law is clear that the intent of the statute is to provide street access to nearby property owners. 1 In condemnation, the naked fee in half the bed of the street was described as having no substantial value. King v. Mayor and Council of Rockville, 249 Md. 243, 238 A.2d 898 (1968). 5

6 The main case cited by Defendant for the proposition that she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, Maryland Department v. Hirsch, 42 Md. App. 457 (1979) was reversed decades ago by the Maryland Court of Appeals in Hirsch v. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Water Resources Administration, 288 Md. 95 (1980). Defendant cites the Court of Special Appeal s decision in Hirsch for the proposition that title to real property can not be transferred by legislative fiat quoting the Court s statement that a deed must be recorded, not a statute, in order to affect private property rights. (Interestingly, Defendant is claiming title to Saratoga Avenue by legislative fiat, Real Property 2-114, not by deed. She has no deed to Saratoga Avenue. Under Defendant s argument, she has no title.) First, the Court of Special Appeal s opinion was reversed by the Court of Appeals on the very ground cited by Defendant. The Court of Appeals found that the private wetland maps and State orders affecting property rights by designating lands as private wetlands, and thus subjecting the affected lands to wetlands regulations, were required to be filed among the land records. Hirsch, 288 Md. at Second, Hirsch is inapposite. The instant matter does not pertain to the impact of wetlands regulations to private property, but rather, the ownership and right of use via dedication and/or easement of a platted road in a subdivision which was formerly its own town, which road has been shown on a plat which has been recorded in Anne Arundel County s land records since In the instant matter, as previously discussed, the Association holds a deed to the roads in Arundel-on-the-Bay from 1951, Exhibit A to the Complaint. The Association s title devolves from the Town Commissioners for Arundel-on-the-Bay, Exhibit B to the Complaint who assumed control of the streets in Arundel on the Bay in 1898 Exhibit H to the Complaint.. Defendant argues that it was unable to locate any historical deed from the time of the origin of Arundel on the Bay in the 1890s to the Town Commissioners and thus suggests that the

7 deed to the Town Trustees and 1951 deed to the Association from the Trustees is ineffective. Maryland law is not in accord, however. In instances where remote links in a chain of title may be missing, the court may presume a deed. Presumptions of deeds for the protection of ancient possessions, are made upon principles of public policy. Such presumptions are founded in equity, and are always made for the promotion of justice.length of possession is the great leading fact in presuming grants and deeds The Baltimore Chemical Manufacturing Company s Lessee v. Dobbin, 23 Md. 210 (1865). Ancient possession sufficient to allow presumption of a deed can be shown by successive grants in a deed, when possession is not susceptible of proof by living witnesses. The presumption of a grant is an inference of law, the fact finder does not have to actually believe that an actual grant was executed. Elizabeth Casey s Lesssee v. Inloes, 1 Gill 430 (1844). In the case at hand, the Town Commissioners were granted control over the streets by the General Assembly in 1898, including the authority to open and pave roads and remove obstructions therefrom. Exhibit H to the Complaint. The Town Commissioners governed the Town of Arundel on the Bay from 1898 until 1949 when the Town Charter was repealed by the General Assembly. The property owners in Arundel on the Bay, including Defendant s predecessors in title, were eligible to vote to elect the Town Commissioners. Exhibit H to Complaint, Acts of 1898 Section 3. The Town Commissioners granted a deed to the streets to the Town Trustees, in trust, for the benefit of all property owners in Arundel on the Bay, including Defendant s predecessor in title. Exhibit B to the Complaint. The Town Trustees could only convey a deed to streets if so directed by the property owners of Arundel on the Bay, again who would have included Defendant s predecessor in title. The deed to the Association from the Town Trustees, who were required to act at the direction of the property owners of 7

8 Arundel on the Bay again was for the proper use, benefit and behoof of the recorded property owners of Arundel on the Bay. Exhibit A to Complaint. The Association, on behalf of all property owners, including Defendant and her predecessors in title, has granted title to certain roadbeds to Anne Arundel County, including portions of Saratoga Avenue, to the County Commissioners of Anne Arundel County through the years. Such successive grants of title to and use of the roads in Arundel on the Bay to the Trustees, Association and County Commissioners of Anne Arundel County, without objection by anyone claiming superior title to the streets for over 100 years (the Acts of the General Assembly were dated 1898, Defendant claimed superior title to the roads through this litigation in 2005), is more than sufficient to show long possession and control of the roads under color of title sufficient to justify the presumption of a deed to the Town Commissioners under Baltimore Chemical Manufacturing, supra. The property owners in Arundel on the Bay directed the transfer of title to the streets from the Trustees to the Association for the benefit of all property owners, including Defendant s predecessors in title. Under such a scenario wherein there is a presumption of a deed to the Town Commissioners of Arundel on the Bay by long possession and control, the Association has superior title to Saratoga Avenue through its chain of title to the streets. The Defendant offers no deeds or other record evidence showing any title of record to Saratoga Avenue in her name. Defendant contends that only the ownership of Saratoga Ave. is at issue and asserts that unless the Association can prove ownership of Saratoga Ave., that it can not prevent Defendant from fencing off and claiming that portion of Saratoga Ave. which abuts her deeded property boundaries. The Amended Complaint filed by the Association should clarify, to extent that there was ever any doubt, that not only bare legal title, but rights of use, control and possession of the platted roads in the Arundel-on-the-Bay subdivision are at issue in the above-captioned matter. 8

9 Defendant has not sought summary judgment as to any issues of right of use, control or possession of Saratoga Ave., only as to fee simple title of Saratoga Avenue. Fee simple ownership of streets and paths is clearly not a predicate for controlling the use of streets and paths (nor does it give a right to block the streets or paths in Arundel-on-the-Bay), particularly with regard to restricting obstructions. If a street or pathway has been dedicated to public use or an easement, it may not be obstructed even by one with fee simple title. Simon Distributing Corporation v. Bay Ridge Civic Association, 207 Md. 472 (1955), Mauck v. Bailey, 247 Md. 434 (1967). Defendant has cited no authority to the contrary. As is set forth in detail in the contemporaneously-filed Plaintiff s Motion for Summary Judgment, the facts and law are clear that there has been a public dedication of Saratoga Avenue or at the very least there exists an implied easement over Saratoga Avenue in favor of all property owners in Arundel-on-the-Bay. Thus even if Defendant proves she has bare legal title to the roadbed, which the Association disputes, the fundamental issue to be resolved in this matter of whether she can block off Saratoga Avenue for her private use, remains unresolved. Defendant s argument that only bare legal title to the roadbed is relevant to determine whether the Association can compel removal of the fence is simply wrong as a matter of law and summary judgment must be denied. Defendant further argues that the Association lacks standing to clear its title and right of use to the roadbed of Saratoga Avenue on behalf of the members of the Association because the Defendant is convinced that it holds title to the roadbed of Saratoga Avenue. This novel legal proposition is not supported by any relevant case law nor by Maryland law. Clearly, parties are entitled to a declaratory judgment construing legal rights arising under a deed. Md. Cts. and Jud. Proc. Code Ann. Section The Association has a deed to Saratoga Avenue, Exhibit A 9

10 to the Complaint, the Defendant does not. As is set forth above, the facts support the presumption of a deed to the Town Commissioners and thus the Association has legal title to the roads in Arundel on the Bay. Thus Defendant s argument that Plaintiff lacks standing to maintain this suit is without merit and summary judgment should be denied. Defendant s motion for summary judgment is supported by an affidavit for which the underlying factual basis is negated by its own exhibit (i.e., the Maryland General Assembly in 1898 expressly granted control of the streets in Arundel-on-the-Bay to the Town Commissioners, contrary to the Mr. Dowling s factual opinion to the contrary), case law which has been reversed by the Court of Appeals, is contradicted by Mr. Albert s affidavit, and cites to no authority which would allow Defendant to block Saratoga Avenue even if she prevails in establishing bare legal title to Saratoga Avenue, which title is questionable at best. This Court should simply deny Defendant s motion for summary judgment as there is a dispute of material fact and Defendant is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. COUNCIL, BARADEL, KOSMERL & NOLAN, P.A. By: Wayne T. Kosmerl Susan T. Ford 125 West Street, 4 th Floor P. O. Box 2289 Annapolis, MD (410) Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Property Owners Association of Arundelon-the-Bay, Inc., et al. and Plaintiffs Frank A. Florentine and Milton Harrod 10

11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the day of October, 2005, a copy of the aforementioned Response To Motion For Summary Judgment was hand-delivered to Merle F. Maffei, P.A., 113 Cathedral Street, Annapolis, Maryland Susan T. Ford 11

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Property Owners Association of Arundel-on-the-Bay, Inc.

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Property Owners Association of Arundel-on-the-Bay, Inc. PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION OF ARUNDEL-ON-THE-BAY, INC., et al. v. Plaintiff/Counter Defendants JOYCE Q MCMANUS Defendant/Counter Plaintiff * IN THE * CIRCUIT COURT * OF MARYLAND * FOR * ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

More information

MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT. Plaintiffs, by their undersigned attorneys, pursuant to Maryland Rule hereby move

MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT. Plaintiffs, by their undersigned attorneys, pursuant to Maryland Rule hereby move PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION OF ARUNDEL-ON-THE-BAY, INC. Plaintiff/Counter Defendant v. JOYCE Q MCMANUS Defendant/Counter Plaintiff * IN THE * CIRCUIT COURT * OF MARYLAND * FOR * ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY * Case

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2004 GEORGE T. BLACK, GLORIA D. BLACK, ET AL, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D03-2306 ORANGE COUNTY, ETC., Appellee. Opinion filed

More information

v. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN September 18, 2009 MICHAEL D. DELORE, ET AL.

v. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN September 18, 2009 MICHAEL D. DELORE, ET AL. PRESENT: All the Justices HENRY ANDERSON, JR., ET AL. v. Record No. 082416 OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN September 18, 2009 MICHAEL D. DELORE, ET AL. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BEDFORD COUNTY

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC LOWER COURT CASE NO. 3D PRIME WEST, INC. and PRIME WEST CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC LOWER COURT CASE NO. 3D PRIME WEST, INC. and PRIME WEST CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC 05-1697 LOWER COURT CASE NO. 3D04-471 PRIME WEST, INC. and PRIME WEST CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Petitioners, v. LORENZO CAMARGO and ANA CAMARGO, his wife;

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE August 15, 2007 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE August 15, 2007 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE August 15, 2007 Session JUDITH ANN FORD v. JAMES W. ROBERTS, ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Hamilton County No. 01-0846 Howell N. Peoples, Chancellor

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT JACKSON COUNTY

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT JACKSON COUNTY [Cite as Watson v. Neff, 2009-Ohio-2062.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT JACKSON COUNTY Jeffrey S. Watson, Trustee, : : Plaintiff-Appellant, : : Case No. 08CA12 v. : : DECISION

More information

Present: Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Goodwyn, Millette, and Mims, JJ.

Present: Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Goodwyn, Millette, and Mims, JJ. Present: Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Goodwyn, Millette, and Mims, JJ. MCCARTHY HOLDINGS LLC OPINION BY v. Record No. 101031 JUSTICE S. BERNARD GOODWYN September 16, 2011 VINCENT W. BURGHER, III FROM THE CIRCUIT

More information

BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE G. STEVEN AGEE January 11, 2008 JANET SIMMONS

BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE G. STEVEN AGEE January 11, 2008 JANET SIMMONS PRESENT: All the Justices BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC OPINION BY v. Record No. 062715 JUSTICE G. STEVEN AGEE January 11, 2008 JANET SIMMONS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ROCKINGHAM COUNTY James V. Lane, Judge

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS SOUTH COVE CONDO ASSN, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED October 31, 2006 v No. 270571 Berrien Circuit Court DUNESCAPE @ NEW BUFFALO II, LTD, LC No. 2005-002810-CZ Defendant-Appellee.

More information

ENTRY ORDER SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO JULY TERM, 2018

ENTRY ORDER SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO JULY TERM, 2018 Note: In the case title, an asterisk (*) indicates an appellant and a double asterisk (**) indicates a crossappellant. Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No / Filed February 23, Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, Michael R.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No / Filed February 23, Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, Michael R. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 1-087 / 10-0949 Filed February 23, 2011 MARGARET ELLIOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. WAYNE JASPER, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello

More information

ARIZONA TAX COURT TX /18/2006 HONORABLE MARK W. ARMSTRONG

ARIZONA TAX COURT TX /18/2006 HONORABLE MARK W. ARMSTRONG HONORABLE MARK W. ARMSTRONG CLERK OF THE COURT L. Slaughter Deputy FILED: CAMELBACK ESPLANADE ASSOCIATION, THE JIM L WRIGHT v. MARICOPA COUNTY JERRY A FRIES PAUL J MOONEY PAUL MOORE UNDER ADVISEMENT RULING

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS WILLIAM KULINSKI, RONALD KULINSKI, and RUSSELL KULINSKI, UNPUBLISHED December 9, 2014 Plaintiffs-Appellees, v No. 318091 Lenawee Circuit Court ILENE KULINSKI, LC No.

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA International Development : Corporation, : Appellant : : v. : No. 1805 C.D. 2010 : Argued: June 6, 2011 Sherwood B. Davidge and Calvery : Crary, their heirs, executors,

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JAMES S. MCCORMICK, Plaintiff/Counter Defendant - Appellant, UNPUBLISHED March 16, 2010 and ELIZABETH A. HOCHSTADT, Plaintiff/Counter Defendant, v No. 283209 Livingston

More information

These related appeals concern the rights of certain sign companies to. construct billboards in areas formerly located in unincorporated Fulton

These related appeals concern the rights of certain sign companies to. construct billboards in areas formerly located in unincorporated Fulton In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: June 13, 2011 S11A0023. FULTON COUNTY et al. v. ACTION OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, JV et al. S11A0101. CITY OF SANDY SPRINGS et al. v. ACTION OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, JV et

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ROBERT J. DETTLOFF and JOANNE DETTLOFF, UNPUBLISHED October 20, 2009 Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants- Appellees, v No. 287019 Oakland Circuit Court JO McCLEESE-ROSOL, LC

More information

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF McDONALD COUNTY. Honorable John R. LePage, Associate Circuit Judge

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF McDONALD COUNTY. Honorable John R. LePage, Associate Circuit Judge RUSSELL VAN ELK, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, vs. DARLENE L. URBANEK, as Trustee of the DARLENE L. URBANEK TRUST, Dated May 2, 2005, and Nos. SD 29364 & SD29412 DARLENE L. URBANEK, Individually, Opinion

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS LON R. JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED June 27, 2006 and DORIS A. JACKSON, LAWRENCE ORTEL, KAREN ORTEL, ASTRID HELEOTIS, and DREW PESLAR, Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants-

More information

STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT. } Appeal of Robustelli Realty } Docket No Vtec } Decision on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT. } Appeal of Robustelli Realty } Docket No Vtec } Decision on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT } Appeal of Robustelli Realty } Docket No. 255-12-05 Vtec } Decision on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment Appellant Robustelli Realty (Robustelli) appealed from the

More information

PRESENT: Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Goodwyn, Millette, Mims, and Powell, JJ., and Russell, S.J.

PRESENT: Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Goodwyn, Millette, Mims, and Powell, JJ., and Russell, S.J. PRESENT: Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Goodwyn, Millette, Mims, and Powell, JJ., and Russell, S.J. MAC R. CLIFTON, ET AL. OPINION BY v. Record No. 121232 SENIOR JUSTICE CHARLES S. RUSSELL September 12, 2013 EVELYN

More information

BARBARA BEACH OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS FEBRUARY 27, 2014 JAY TURIM, TRUSTEE, ET AL.

BARBARA BEACH OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS FEBRUARY 27, 2014 JAY TURIM, TRUSTEE, ET AL. PRESENT: All the Justices BARBARA BEACH OPINION BY v. Record No. 130682 JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS FEBRUARY 27, 2014 JAY TURIM, TRUSTEE, ET AL. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA Lisa B. Kemler,

More information

Certiorari not Applied for COUNSEL

Certiorari not Applied for COUNSEL 1 SANDOVAL COUNTY BD. OF COMM'RS V. RUIZ, 1995-NMCA-023, 119 N.M. 586, 893 P.2d 482 (Ct. App. 1995) SANDOVAL COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Plaintiff, vs. BEN RUIZ and MARGARET RUIZ, his wife, Defendants-Appellees,

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Appellants :

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Appellants : IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Amos S. Lapp and Emma S. Lapp, : : Appellants : : v. : No. 1845 C.D. 2016 : ARGUED: June 5, 2017 Lancaster County Agricultural Preserve : Board : BEFORE: HONORABLE

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 3 November 2015

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 3 November 2015 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA No. COA14-1222 Filed: 3 November 2015 Buncombe County, No. 13 CVS 3992 THE RESIDENCES AT BILTMORE CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff, v. POWER DEVELOPMENT,

More information

No. 102,355 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. JOHN BROWNBACK, Appellee,

No. 102,355 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. JOHN BROWNBACK, Appellee, No. 102,355 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS JOHN BROWNBACK, Appellee, v. JOHN/JANE DOE, TRUSTEE OF THE THOMAS M. GILKISON TRUST, Dated December 13, 1980; and RICHARD WILSON and MARY WILSON,

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JOHN SCHOENHERR, SHELLEY SCHOENHERR, TIMOTHY SPINA, and ELIZABETH SPINA, UNPUBLISHED November 22, 2002 Plaintiffs-Appellees, v No. 235601 Wayne Circuit Court VERNIER

More information

NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 21 May 2013

NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 21 May 2013 NO. COA12-860 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 21 May 2013 REO PROPERTIES CORPORATION, GRADY I. INGLE and ELIZABETH B. ELLS, solely in their capacities as Substitute Trustees under certain Deed of

More information

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC Fourth DCA Case No. 4D09-728

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC Fourth DCA Case No. 4D09-728 SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC11-263 Fourth DCA Case No. 4D09-728 MCLAUGHLIN ENGINEERING COMPANY, a Florida Corporation, JERALD MCLAUGHLIN, individually, and CARL E. ALBREKSTEN, individually, vs.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS KENNETH H. CORDES, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant- Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 7, 2012 v No. 304003 Alpena Circuit Court GREAT LAKES EXCAVATING & LC No. 09-003102-CZ EQUIPMENT

More information

Present: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Stephenson, Whiting, 1 Hassell, and Keenan, JJ.

Present: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Stephenson, Whiting, 1 Hassell, and Keenan, JJ. Present: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Stephenson, Whiting, 1 Hassell, and Keenan, JJ. Lacy, RICHARD F. DAVIS, ET AL. v. Record No. 941971 OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY September 15, 1995 JOHN T. HENNING,

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PAUL MARINO and LINDA MARINO, Plaintiffs-Appellants, UNPUBLISHED June 19, 2001 v No. 215764 Wayne Circuit Court GRAYHAVEN ESTATES LTD., LLC, LC No. 98-813922-CH GRAYHAVEN-LENOX

More information

Litigation of Surveying Court Cases. Daniel Duyck

Litigation of Surveying Court Cases. Daniel Duyck Litigation of Surveying Court Cases Daniel Duyck Daniel Duyck Whipple & Duyck, PC Attorneys at Law 503-222-6191 dduyck@whippleduyck.com www.whippleduyck.com How Property is Held in Oregon Fee Simple Life

More information

No July 27, P.2d 939

No July 27, P.2d 939 Printed on: 10/20/01 Page # 1 111 Nev. 998, 998 (1995) Schwartz v. State, Dep't of Transp. MARTIN J. SCHWARTZ and PHYLLIS R. SCHWARTZ, Trustees of the MARTIN J. SCHWARTZ and PHYLLIS R. SCHWARTZ Revocable

More information

Borowski v. STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, Wis: Court of Appeals, 1st...

Borowski v. STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, Wis: Court of Appeals, 1st... Page 1 of 5 JOHN BOROWSKI, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. Appeal No. 2013AP537. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District I. Filed: December 27, 2013. Before

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE DOMINICK and LYNN MULTARI, Husband and wife, v. Plaintiffs/Appellees/ Cross-Appellants, RICHARD D. and CARMEN GRESS, as trustees under agreement dated

More information

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR RECALL ARBITRATION VILLAGE CREEK CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2012

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2012 Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2012 Opinion filed September 19, 2012. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D12-360 Lower Tribunal No.

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2004 ALLISON M. COSTELLO, ETC., Appellant, v. Case No. 5D02-3117 THE CURTIS BUILDING PARTNERSHIP, Appellee. Opinion filed

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE Filed 8/27/09 Murphy v. Hansen CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED PELICAN CREEK HOMEOWNERS, LLC, H.A. BUSSEY,

More information

THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT PETITIONER S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION

THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT PETITIONER S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT FLORIDA WEST REALTY PARTNERS, LLC Petitioner, Case No.: SC07-155 Lower Court Case No.: 2D06-5808 v. MDG LAKE TRAFFORD, LLC, Respondent. / PETITIONER S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION Mark

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE December 13, 2012 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE December 13, 2012 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE December 13, 2012 Session BARRY RUSSELL, ET AL. v. HENDERSONVILLE UTILITY DISTRICT Appeal from the Chancery Court for Sumner County No. 2010C120 Tom E.

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. Case No. Appellees. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF JURISDICTION BY APPELLANTS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. Case No. Appellees. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF JURISDICTION BY APPELLANTS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO JAY HOUSEHOLDER, SR., et al. Appellants, Case No. -vs- ERNEST SHANNON, et al. On Appeal From The Jefferson County Court of Appeals Seventh Appellate District Appellees. Court

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed May 21, 2014. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D12-3445 Lower Tribunal No. 11-5917 U.S. Bank National

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS E. RICHARD RANDOLPH and BETTY J. RANDOLPH, Plaintiffs-Appellants, FOR PUBLICATION October 3, 2006 9:00 a.m. v No. 259943 Newaygo Circuit Court CLARENCE E. REISIG, MONICA

More information

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR BINDING ARBITRATION - HOA Indian Lake Estates, Inc.,

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION May 16, 2006 9:10 a.m. v No. 265717 Jackson Circuit Court TRACY L. PICKRELL, LC No.

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed July 23, 2014. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D13-2968 Lower Tribunal No. 9-65726 Walter Pineda and

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NUMBER: SC LOWER CASE NUMBER: 3D THOMAS KRAMER, Petitioner,

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NUMBER: SC LOWER CASE NUMBER: 3D THOMAS KRAMER, Petitioner, IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NUMBER: SC04-815 LOWER CASE NUMBER: 3D03-2440 THOMAS KRAMER, Petitioner, v. VERENA VON MITSCHKE-COLLANDE and CLAUDIA MILLER-OTTO, in their capacity as the HEIRS

More information

DAVID RAU v. BRENDA D. COLLINS, NO. 653, SEPTEMBER TERM, 2005

DAVID RAU v. BRENDA D. COLLINS, NO. 653, SEPTEMBER TERM, 2005 HEADNOTE DAVID RAU v. BRENDA D. COLLINS, NO. 653, SEPTEMBER TERM, 2005 EASEMENT BY NECESSITY; MICHAEL v. NEEDHAM, 39 MD. APP. 271 (1978); DALTON v. REAL ESTATE AND IMPROVEMENT CO., 201 MD. 34 (1952); BECAUSE

More information

P.F. WOOD, APPELLANT, V. C. MANDRILLA, RESPONDENT. SAC. NO SUPREME COURT

P.F. WOOD, APPELLANT, V. C. MANDRILLA, RESPONDENT. SAC. NO SUPREME COURT Supreme Court of California,Department Two. 167 Cal. 607 {Cal. 1914) WOOD V. MANDRILLA P.F. WOOD, APPELLANT, V. C. MANDRILLA, RESPONDENT. SAC. NO. 2089. SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA,DEPARTMENT TWO. APRIL

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE October 15, 2008 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE October 15, 2008 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE October 15, 2008 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY ON RELATION OF WALTER J. DAVIS, TRUSTEE OF SAID COUNTY, ET AL.

More information

Party Walls. Institutional Repository. University of Miami Law School. Mark S. Berman. University of Miami Law Review

Party Walls. Institutional Repository. University of Miami Law School. Mark S. Berman. University of Miami Law Review University of Miami Law School Institutional Repository University of Miami Law Review 7-1-1971 Party Walls Mark S. Berman Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr Recommended

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED July 17, 2008 v No. 277039 Oakland Circuit Court EUGENE A. ACEY, ELEANORE ACEY, LC No. 2006-072541-CHss

More information

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES FOR REHEARING AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES FOR REHEARING AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED County Civil Court: CIVIL PROCEDURE Summary Judgment. The trial court correctly found no issue of material fact and that Appellee was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Affirmed. Christian Mumme

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT BARBARA L. BARNEY, ERNEST W. BARNEY, ET AL., Appellants, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA ISLAND RESORTS INVESTMENTS, INC., Plaintiffs, v. CHRIS JONES, Property Appraiser for Escambia County, Florida, and

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC DISTRICT COURT CASE NO.: 3d TRIAL COURT CASE NO MARIA T.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC DISTRICT COURT CASE NO.: 3d TRIAL COURT CASE NO MARIA T. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC07-1526 DISTRICT COURT CASE NO.: 3d06-1873 TRIAL COURT CASE NO. 05-15150 MARIA T. THORNHILL Plaintiff / Petitioner Vs. ADMIRAL FARRAGUT CONDOMINIUM APARTMENTS

More information

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT ADMINISTRATORS OF VACANT SUCC. OF ISAAC J. CELESTINE, ET AL. **********

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT ADMINISTRATORS OF VACANT SUCC. OF ISAAC J. CELESTINE, ET AL. ********** STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 13-1453 CITY OF DERIDDER, LOUISIANA VERSUS ADMINISTRATORS OF VACANT SUCC. OF ISAAC J. CELESTINE, ET AL. ********** APPEAL FROM THE THIRTY-SIXTH JUDICIAL

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MARILYN A. DZINGLE TRUST, by MARILYN A. DZINGLE, Trustee, UNPUBLISHED February 14, 2017 Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 330614 Isabella Circuit Court JAMES EARL PLATT, LC No.

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 PETER S. GRAF, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : v. : : CARA NOLLETTI, : : Appellee : No. 2008 MDA 2013 Appeal from the

More information

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION MICHAEL DAYTON, Petitioner, v. Case No.

More information

Appeal from the Order Entered May 22, 2007, Court of Common Pleas, Lancaster County, Civil Division, at No. CI

Appeal from the Order Entered May 22, 2007, Court of Common Pleas, Lancaster County, Civil Division, at No. CI 2008 PA Super 227 MARVIN E. HERR AND YVONNE S. HERR, v. Appellees DONALD C. HERR, CYNTHIA T. EVANS- HERR, BRIAN J. EVANKO & DAWN R. EVANKO, Appellants IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 1109 MDA

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No / Filed August 25, Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cedar County, Mark J.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No / Filed August 25, Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cedar County, Mark J. MARK BINNS and GRACE BINNS, Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 0-498 / 09-1571 Filed August 25, 2010 DON STEWART and BRENDA STEWART, Defendants-Appellants. Judge. Appeal from

More information

7 A.2d 696 Page 1 63 R.I. 216, 7 A.2d 696 (Cite as: 63 R.I. 216, 7 A.2d 696)

7 A.2d 696 Page 1 63 R.I. 216, 7 A.2d 696 (Cite as: 63 R.I. 216, 7 A.2d 696) 7 A.2d 696 Page 1 (Cite as: ) Supreme Court of Rhode Island. STANTON et al. v. SULLIVAN et al. No. 1460. July 18, 1939. Case Certified from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties. Proceeding in

More information

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals RENDERED: FEBRUARY 8, 2013; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2011-CA-001880-MR CHARLES RAY PHELPS AND DONNA P. SOLLY, CO-TRUSTEES OF THE HERSCHEL L. AND ERMA

More information

TOWN OF WOODSIDE. Report to Town Council Agenda Item 6 From: Susan George, Town Manager July 26, 2011

TOWN OF WOODSIDE. Report to Town Council Agenda Item 6 From: Susan George, Town Manager July 26, 2011 TOWN OF WOODSIDE Report to Town Council Agenda Item 6 From: Susan George, Town Manager July 26, 2011 SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING A HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MATTHEW J. SCHUMACHER, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION April 1, 2003 9:10 a.m. v No. 233143 Midland Circuit Court DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,

More information

PRESENT: Lemons, Goodwyn, Millette, Mims, and Powell, JJ., and Russell and Koontz, S.JJ.

PRESENT: Lemons, Goodwyn, Millette, Mims, and Powell, JJ., and Russell and Koontz, S.JJ. PRESENT: Lemons, Goodwyn, Millette, Mims, and Powell, JJ., and Russell and Koontz, S.JJ. SWORDS CREEK LAND PARTNERSHIP OPINION BY v. Record No. 131590 SENIOR JUSTICE CHARLES S. RUSSELL September 12, 2014

More information

[Involves The Question Of Whether Permission To Use A Farm Constitutes A Lease Or A. Mere License]

[Involves The Question Of Whether Permission To Use A Farm Constitutes A Lease Or A. Mere License] No. 86, September Term, 2000 Catherine Delauter and Doris E. James, Personal Representatives of the Estate of Beulah L. Diebert v. Charles E. Shafer, Jr. [Involves The Question Of Whether Permission To

More information

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT DANIEL WESNER, d/b/a FISH TALES, Appellant, v. Case No. 2D16-4646

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE HENRY BLACK, MARY LOU BLACK, RAYMOND BUCHTA, W. SCOTT BLACK, AND BLACKBALL PROPERTIES, Defendants Below- Appellants, v. GARY STAFFIERI and ADRIA CHARLES STAFFIERI,

More information

[Cite as Maggiore v. Kovach, 101 Ohio St.3d 184, 2004-Ohio-722.]

[Cite as Maggiore v. Kovach, 101 Ohio St.3d 184, 2004-Ohio-722.] [Cite as Maggiore v. Kovach, 101 Ohio St.3d 184, 2004-Ohio-722.] MAGGIORE, APPELLEE, v. KOVACH, D.B.A. ALL TUNE & LUBE, APPELLANT. [Cite as Maggiore v. Kovach, 101 Ohio St.3d 184, 2004-Ohio-722.] Landlords

More information

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT. TRUSTEES OF THOMAS GRAVES LANDING CONDOMINIUM TRUST & another 1. vs. PAUL GARGANO & another.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT. TRUSTEES OF THOMAS GRAVES LANDING CONDOMINIUM TRUST & another 1. vs. PAUL GARGANO & another. NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 (2009), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address

More information

PRESENT: Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, Goodwyn, and Millette, JJ., and Carrico, S.J.

PRESENT: Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, Goodwyn, and Millette, JJ., and Carrico, S.J. PRESENT: Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, Goodwyn, and Millette, JJ., and Carrico, S.J. W&W PARTNERSHIP OPINION BY v. Record No. 090328 JUSTICE S. BERNARD GOODWYN February 25, 2010 PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY

More information

This case comes before the Court on Petitioner Susan D. Garvey's appeal

This case comes before the Court on Petitioner Susan D. Garvey's appeal STATE OF MAINE YORK, ss. SUSAN D. GARVEY, Petitioner v. ORDER SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO: AP-05-036 ' 0 C ' ['I7 TOWN OF WELLS, Respondent This case comes before the Court on Petitioner Susan

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed November 16, 2016. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D15-1575 Lower Tribunal No. 14-201-K Norma Barton,

More information

SYLLABUS. 3. Under Compiled Laws, Section 3179, a suit for partition may be maintained notwithstanding the land in question is subject to an easement.

SYLLABUS. 3. Under Compiled Laws, Section 3179, a suit for partition may be maintained notwithstanding the land in question is subject to an easement. THOMPSON V. DE SNYDER, 1908-NMSC-011, 14 N.M. 403, 94 P. 1014 (S. Ct. 1908) LEVI R. THOMPSON, et al., Appellants, vs. MARIA INEZ GARCIA de SNYDER, Appellee No. 1132 SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO 1908-NMSC-011,

More information

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. BENJORAY, INC., v. Plaintiff-Respondent, ACADEMY HOUSE CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER,

More information

PLANNING & BUILDING INSPECTION. Dale Ellis, AICP Assistant Director of Planning and Building Inspection

PLANNING & BUILDING INSPECTION. Dale Ellis, AICP Assistant Director of Planning and Building Inspection MEMORANDUM PLANNING & BUILDING INSPECTION County of Monterey Date: June 17, 2003 To: From: Members of the Planning Commission Dale Ellis, AICP Assistant Director of Planning and Building Inspection Subject:

More information

Case 3:10-cv MO Document 123 Filed 08/02/11 Page 1 of 9 Page ID#: 1439

Case 3:10-cv MO Document 123 Filed 08/02/11 Page 1 of 9 Page ID#: 1439 Case 3:10-cv-00523-MO Document 123 Filed 08/02/11 Page 1 of 9 Page ID#: 1439 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION JON CHARLES BEYER and SHELLEY RENEE BEYER,

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Sarah O Layer McCready, Appellant v. No. 1762 C.D. 2016 Argued April 4, 2017 Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission BEFORE HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge HONORABLE

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed February 25, 2015. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D14-2324 Lower Tribunal No. 14-21513 Two Islands

More information

GILMORE V. NORTH AMERICAN LAND. CO. ET AL. [Pet. C. C. 460.] 1 Circuit Court, D. Pennsylvania. Oct. Term, 1817.

GILMORE V. NORTH AMERICAN LAND. CO. ET AL. [Pet. C. C. 460.] 1 Circuit Court, D. Pennsylvania. Oct. Term, 1817. GILMORE V. NORTH AMERICAN LAND. CO. ET AL. Case No. 5,448. [Pet. C. C. 460.] 1 Circuit Court, D. Pennsylvania. Oct. Term, 1817. FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES INTENT PRESUMPTION PURCHASER UNDER EXECUTION AGAINST

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA RICHARD KEITH MARTIN, ROBERT DOUGLAS MARTIN, MARTIN COMPANIES OF DAYTONA BEACH, MARTIN ASPHALT COMPANY AND MARTIN PAVING COMPANY, Petitioners, CASE NO: 92,046 vs. DEPARTMENT

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Modesto Bigas-Valedon and Julie Seda-Bigas, No. 513 C.D. 2013 Husband & Wife and Victor J. Submitted December 27, 2013 Navarro and Cheryl A. Navarro, Husband &

More information

CONSENT ACTION BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF VENETO IN MIRAMAR CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.

CONSENT ACTION BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF VENETO IN MIRAMAR CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. CONSENT ACTION BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF VENETO IN MIRAMAR CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. The undersigned, being all of the members of the Board of Directors of Veneto in Miramar Condominium Association,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs September 4, 2018

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs September 4, 2018 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs September 4, 2018 10/05/2018 HERBERT T. STAFFORD v. MATTHEW L. BRANAN Appeal from the Chancery Court for Sequatchie County No. 2482

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the PACIFIC REPORTER. Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts, 303 K Street, Anchorage,

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed December 27, 2017. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D16-2748 Lower Tribunal Nos. 13-4200 & 13-4203 940

More information

Specimen Complaint to Establish Easement Rights 1

Specimen Complaint to Establish Easement Rights 1 Specimen Complaint to Establish Easement Rights 1 [Case Caption] COMPLAINT NATURE OF CLAIM This is an action brought by property owners to establish their rights, title, or interest to use the beach in

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA LEWIS Y. and BETTY T. WARD, et al., Petitioner, v. GREGORY S. BROWN, Property Appraiser of Santa Rosa County, et al., Case Nos. SC05-1765, SC05-1766 1st DCA Case No. 1D04-1629

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 43343 MARIAN G. HOKE, an individual, and MARIAN G. HOKE as trustee of THE HOKE FAMILY TRUST U/T/A dated February 19, 1997, v. Plaintiff-Respondent,

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA HERON AT DESTIN WEST BEACH & BAY RESORT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA HERON AT DESTIN WEST BEACH & BAY RESORT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA HERON AT DESTIN WEST BEACH & BAY RESORT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING

More information

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals RENDERED: OCTOBER 2, 2009; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2008-CA-002271-MR DRUSCILLA WOOLUM, LAVETTA HIGGINS MAHAN, RUFUS DEE HIGGINS, AND ARLINDA D. HENRY

More information

Daniel M. Schwarz of Cole Scott & Kissane, P.A., Plantation, for Appellants.

Daniel M. Schwarz of Cole Scott & Kissane, P.A., Plantation, for Appellants. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA SILVER BEACH TOWERS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., SILVER BEACH TOWERS EAST CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., and SILVER BEACH TOWERS WEST

More information

Circuit Court for Montgomery County Case No v UNREPORTED

Circuit Court for Montgomery County Case No v UNREPORTED Circuit Court for Montgomery County Case No. 408212v UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1684 September Term, 2016 VICTOR NJUKI v. DIANE S. ROSENBERG, et al., Substitute Trustees

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS FRANK J. NOA, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 13, 2005 v No. 255310 Otsego Circuit Court AGATHA C. NOA, ESTATE OF MICHAEL J. LC No. 03-010202-CH NOA and M&M ENTERPRIZES,

More information