MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT. Plaintiffs, by their undersigned attorneys, pursuant to Maryland Rule hereby move
|
|
- Charleen Mitchell
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 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 No.: C RP * * * * * * * * * * * * MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT Plaintiffs, by their undersigned attorneys, pursuant to Maryland Rule hereby move to alter or amend the Opinion and Order entered in the above captioned proceeding on October 3, 2006 ( Opinion ) and in support state as follows: 1. Implied Easement in Saratoga Avenue The trial court states at page 5-6 of its Opinion that the Defendant has title to the portion of Saratoga Avenue abutting her deeded property boundaries by virtue of Md. Real Property Code Ann , that the Association claims an implied and/or prescriptive easement in Saratoga Avenue for the benefit of all property owners to reach adjacent public ways and the waters of Fishing Creek. The Court then states on page 6 that if Defendant establishes adverse possession, the court need not address the title issue. Plaintiffs request clarification on whether the Court thus found that all property owners held an implied easement over the disputed portion of Saratoga Avenue under Koch v. Strathmeyer, 357 Md. 193 (1999), as the Court found that the disputed portion of Saratoga Avenue leads directly to the water and a community waterfront recreational area. This clarification is important because Defendant has consistently argued that unless Plaintiff can establish ownership of the streets in Arundel-on-the-Bay, it has no standing
2 to prevent encroachments on platted streets. A determination that the members of the Association had at least an implied easement to the disputed portion of Saratoga Avenue which could only be lost through a hostile user s actual ouster of all other property owners sufficient to establish adverse possession would serve to clarify the Court s findings. 2. Title Issue Plaintiffs request clarification as to whether the Court s statement at page 5 of the Opinion summarizing Defendant s arguments was meant to be a determination on the merits of the title dispute between the parties pursuant to Md. Real Property given all the facts and circumstances of the case, or whether the finding was meant that Defendant could have title pursuant to Md. Real Property 2-114, but that because the Court ultimately found that Defendant adversely possessed the disputed portion of Saratoga Avenue, the Court did not need to reach the merits of the Md. Real Property 2-114/presumption of a deed title dispute issue. (The Court s finding is unclear because as set forth above, on page 6, the court states that if Defendant proves adverse possession, the Court need not reach the title issue.) If the finding on page 5 was a finding on the merits of the title dispute given all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court reconsider its finding regarding title for the following reasons: First, the Defendant s title claim is clearly barred by laches as it was filed over fifty years after the Town conveyed its interests in the streets to the Association. Hawkins v. Chapman, 36 Md. 83 (1872); Hungerford v. Hungerford, 223 Md. 316 (1960). In Hawkins, the Court of Appeals stated: Courts of Equity have established the doctrine that after a great lapse of time and long peaceable possession, they ought not to interfere to grant relief; for the policy of the law is to give quiet and repose to titles; and Courts of justice ought not to countenance laches or long delays on the part of claimants. Indeed, after a great lapse of time, Courts of Equity will raise a presumption of some legal or 2
3 equitable extinguishment of the adverse title, if the circumstances of the case will enable them to support it. Id., at 94. Second, Defendant s predecessor in title, Gordon Steuart, expressly disclaimed fee simple title in Saratoga Avenue, Exhibits 29 and 30, thereby conveying under Md. Real Property Code Ann to Defendant only his implied easement to Saratoga Avenue, which he would have had along with all other property owners in Arundel-on-the-Bay to use Saratoga Avenue, not fee simple title to Saratoga Avenue. Third, the Court may presume a deed to the Town to supply the missing link from the 1890s in the historical chain of title under Baltimore Chemical Manufacturing Company s Lessee v. Dobbin, 23 Md. 210 (1865). The 1951 deed conveying the streets to the Association from the Town Trustees is an ancient deed which is presumptively valid. When there are breaks in historic chains of title, the Court has the power to presume a deed to protect the integrity of ancient deeds. In order to do so, the Court need not believe that the missing deed was actually executed, it may do so solely to promote the interests of justice and promote equity. Elizabeth Casey s Lessee v. Inloes, 1 Gill 430 (1844). In the case at hand, the Court found that the Defendants themselves acknowledged that the Association was the sole owner of all the rights of way in Arundel-on-the-Bay pursuant to the 1951 deed. (Opinion, page 11.) The undisputed evidence showed that the Association has controlled and regulated the streets for over 50 years, conveying utility easements in the streets, conveying title to certain streets to Anne Arundel County, regulating the use of streets for fire control purposes, controlling use for recreational purposes such as fishing and has constructed community amenities such as the community pier and boat launching ramp from street ends. (Exhibits 15-20; 65, 66). Presuming a deed to the Town from the original grantor in 1898 would serve to preserve the scheme of development in Arundel-on-the-Bay for the last 100 years 3
4 followed by everyone including the Defendant and thus clearly serves public policy and promotes justice. 3. Adverse Possession A. Recognition of Right to Land The Opinion contains several key factual findings which Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court reconsider. The Court correctly stated that the Defendant s possession must be unaccompanied by any recognition, express or inferable from the circumstances, of the real owners right to the land. Blickenstaff v. Bromley 243 Md. 164 (1966). The following documents constitute the McManuses recognition, express and inferable, of the Association s ownership of Saratoga Avenue. i. Wetlands License The Opinion finds at page 11 that the wetlands license 1 mentions Saratoga Avenue only insofar as it was described as being a wet area containing salt meadow cord grass that ran most of its length and encompassed by one half for the right of way. The Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court re-examine the wetlands license issued by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources at Exhibit 59A, attached hereto for ease of reference. The wetlands license application drawings, filed by Mr. McManus, expressly identify the adjacent property owners. Harry Kelly is listed as owning the adjacent property to the North, and the Property Owners Association is specifically listed, by Mr. McManus, as being the owner of Saratoga Avenue as located between his whole lot and the unnumbered parcel. In paragraph E of the Department of Natural Resource s Wetlands Report and Recommendation, which lists as the 1 The Opinion states the wetlands license is Exhibit 59; it is Exhibit 59A. 4
5 date of the Wetlands License hearing as February 27, 1980, the findings of the Department of Natural Resources state: The applicant proposed to construct a bulkhead in order to save what remains of the partial lot bordering the shoreline. If that property erodes back to the right-ofway [Saratoga Avenue], he would no longer own any water front. Eventually, he plans to raise the level of his property and prevent flooding; however, the filling proposed in this application includes only that area between the bulkhead and the seaward end of the right-of-way [Saratoga Avenue]. Filling of the wet area is not included in this application. Thus Saratoga Avenue was not just physically described as being wet and containing cord grass, but the Association s ownership interest in Saratoga Avenue was expressly acknowledged by Mr. McManus. The entire purpose for the wetlands license application, as described in a hearing before the Department of Natural Resources by Mr. McManus, was to protect the unnumbered lot from erosion because if it eroded back to Saratoga Avenue (which Mr. McManus stated was owned by the Association), Mr. McManus expressly said he would no longer own any water front. If Mr. McManus already owned or claimed an ownership interest in Saratoga Avenue, there would have been no possibility that he could no longer own any waterfront as all of Saratoga Avenue would have constituted his waterfront in case of erosion of the unnumbered parcel. The wetlands license application and hearing before the Department of Natural Resources included public statements 2 by Mr. McManus that the Association, not he, owned Saratoga Avenue between the unnumbered parcel and his main lots. They constitute a recognition, express or inferable from the circumstances, of the real owner s right to the land under Blickenstaff, supra. Such a recognition of the real owners right to the land defeats adverse possession. 2 Federal regulations require that certain water-related permits include the names of adjacent property owners and that they be notified of the pending permit application. 33 CFR 325.1(d) and 33 CFR 325.3(d). The Association has no reason to believe the law was not followed with regard to the subject pier and bulkhead permit application. 5
6 The wetlands license as issued was subject to the special condition that the work be accomplished in accordance with the plans and drawings prepared by Mr. McManus (page 1 of the Wetland License No ) The license was repeatedly renewed, thus renewing the validity of assertions made in the plans and drawings, in 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986 by both Mr. and Mrs. McManus. (The renewal letters are contained in Exhibit 59A). ii. Variance Exhibit 59 is the McManus 1984 variance application for their pier. There, the County finds that because Saratoga Avenue would likely not be developed, there was no harm to granting the variance to allow an accessory structure to be built on the McManus unnumbered parcel. Again, Saratoga Avenue is recognized by the McManuses and Anne Arundel County as a platted street which the McManuses did not own. (This is true because if they had owned it, they would not have needed a variance, they would have owned one big waterfront lot from which they could have built their pier.) iii. Letter from Mr. McManus to the Association Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court examine Exhibit 58, attached hereto for ease of reference, wherein the McManus expressly stated to the Association that they agreed to have the roads adjacent to our properties turned over to the County. Saratoga Avenue was clearly located adjacent to the McManus property and thus the fact that the McManus requested of the Association that roads be turned over to the County again confirms their assertion that the Association owns the roads. Otherwise, the McManus could have turned over roads adjacent to the property to the County themselves. iv. June 1, 1988 Letter to Association from Joyce McManus 6
7 Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court review Exhibit 46, attached hereto for ease of reference, wherein Mrs. McManus expressly stated to Mrs. Wilma Coble in 1988 as the Chairwoman of the Board of Directors that Mrs. Browne s pier [Mrs. Browne is Mrs. McManus adjacent neighbor to the South on Saratoga Avenue] abuts community property [Saratoga Avenue] and that it was Mrs. McManus s belief that Mrs. Browne needed the agreement from the Property Owner s Association before the County could issue her a permit The pier permitting drawings, attached hereto for ease of reference, Plaintiff s Exhibit 47 and Defendant s Exhibit 4-Z, similar to Mr. McManus pier permit drawings set forth at Exhibit 59A, list the owners of the adjacent properties. The Association is shown as the owner of both Redwood Avenue and Saratoga Avenue (specifically showing Saratoga Avenue being located between the McManus house lot and the unnumbered parcel improved with the McManus pier) and Mrs. McManus is listed as the owner of the property to the North of Mrs. Browne. Mrs. McManus took the trouble to write to the Association, in 1988, about the Browne pier permit application, expressing concern about the length of the Browne pier extension. Mrs. McManus expressly acknowledged that Saratoga Avenue was community property and that the Brownes needed the Association s permission to build the pier attached to community property. She made no objection to the permit drawings that showed the Association as the owner of Saratoga Avenue between her deeded lots, only to the length of the pier Mrs. Browne intended to build and to her purported lack of notice regarding the proposal. If Mrs. McManus was claiming Saratoga Avenue as her own property, she would not have expressly stated that Saratoga Avenue was community property. Again, Mrs. McManus, stating in writing to the Association that Saratoga Avenue is community property is a recognition, express or inferable from the circumstances, of the real owner s right to the land under Blickenstaff, supra. 7
8 B. Association s Acknowledgment of a Possessory Interest in Saratoga Avenue The Opinion at page 15 states, in the context of analyzing hostility that there is no evidence that the Association ever acknowledged in so many words that it had a possessory interest in Saratoga Avenue. Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court review Exhibits 29, 30, 127, 171 and 172A, attached hereto for ease of reference. i. Browne Suit Exhibits 29 and 30 consist of the suit papers filed by the Association in the 1960s when the McManus s neighbor, Mr. Browne, erected a fence across Saratoga Avenue and when requested, refused to remove it. The suit, filed by the Association and by the Steuarts, the McManus s predecessors in title, Exhibit 13B, stated the Defendant erected a fence across Saratoga Avenue which constitutes an encroachment and continuing trespass on Saratoga Avenue and that the fence was an unlawful infringement upon the rights of the plaintiffs Gordon Steuart and Elizabeth Steuart, his wife, and other property owners in said community who are entitled to free and unobstructed use of said platted streets for ingress, egress and regress from, to and between their respective properties and the various beaches and other community areas in Arundel-on-the-Bay. The corporate plaintiff, on its own behalf and on behalf of the recorded lot owners of the said community, has requested the defendant to remove his said fence from Saratoga Avenue, but the defendant has wrongfully failed, neglected and refused to do so. (Paragraphs 6 and 7, Exhibit 29). The Stipulation granting permission to maintain the fence until the Association needed to make use of Saratoga Avenue is attached as Exhibit 30. Filing suit claiming ownership and right of use constitutes an acknowledgement of a possessory interest in Saratoga Avenue. (ii) 1999 Re-Zoning Vote 8
9 Exhibit 127, attached hereto for ease of reference, contains the minutes of the Association meeting in 1999 wherein the Association discussed and voted upon, in a community meeting attended by more than 70 property owners in Arundel-on-the-Bay, rezoning the portion of Saratoga Avenue between Redwood and Walnut Avenue (which includes the disputed portion of Saratoga Avenue) to MA1, community marina zone. The fact that Mrs. McManus attended this meeting is shown by the sign-in sheet on Exhibit 127. If she believed or was asserting that she had an ownership interest in the disputed portion of Saratoga Avenue, the same land for which the Association was seeking a re-zoning change to make the disputed property a community marina zone, she should have made it known to the Association at that time. The motion to re-zone the property was not carried by a majority vote at the meeting. The Association s assertion of title, ownership and right to control the disputed portion of Saratoga Avenue through its seeking to re-zone the disputed parcel, however, was made perfectly clear to everyone attending the Association meeting, including Mrs. McManus. The Association s right to attempt to re-zone the property was not challenged and constituted the Association s unequivocal statement to the community, including actual notice to Mrs. McManus, of its title and possessory interest in the disputed portion of Saratoga Avenue in iii. Saratoga Pier Agreement Exhibits 171 and 172A, attached hereto for ease of reference, contain a Construction Crossing Agreement dated April 2000 and associated Board Minutes regulating construction of a walkway over an undeveloped portion of Saratoga Avenue to the North of the disputed area. The Association expressly stated that it owns Saratoga Avenue and granted permission for a property owner to construct a crossing to connect to a pier across Saratoga Avenue. The permission notes that free and open access must be provided and permitted along 9
10 Saratoga Avenue, and along the waterfront below Mean High Water (page 2 of the Construction Crossing Agreement). (As stated above, Plaintiff s Exhibit 47 and Defendant s Exhibit 4-Z are pier agreements for other piers touching Saratoga Avenue.) Exhibit 172A contains Board of Directors Minutes wherein the Association stated the request was initially denied because the design could hinder movement along Saratoga Avenue. These documents also constitute express statements by the Association of its possessory interest in Saratoga Avenue. C. Ouster of Co-Tenants Maryland law is clear, as the Opinion stated, that the required hostility in cases involving ouster of a co-tenant wherein each party has a right of use of the property, must include notorious and unequivocal acts of hostility. Young v. Young, 37 Md. App. 211 (1977). As this Court recognized, Defendant has to prove actual ouster. Ouster may not be proved by exclusive possession by one co-tenant, there is no constructive ouster. Hogan v. McMahon, 115 Md. 195, 200 (1911). Because it appears that this Court analyzed the adverse possession claim in the context of extinguishment of an easement right, rather than with respect to title, then it follows that Defendant has to show actual ouster against all holders of an implied easement. (Under Koch, supra; Klein v. Dove, 205 Md. 285, 107 A.2d 82 (1954) and Simon Distributing Corporation v. Bay Ridge Civic Association, 207 Md. 472, 480, 114 A.2d 829 (1955) all property owners in Arundel on the Bay have an implied easement over Saratoga Avenue as it ends at the waters of the Chesapeake and leads directly to waterfront community recreational areas.) There was no evidence that the McManuses made any effort to make the individual property owners in Arundel on the Bay aware that they were being ousted from Saratoga Avenue. Indeed as this Court recognized, Mr. Stasio, Mr. Florentine and Ms. Cook used Saratoga Avenue openly in the 1990s and did not observe a fence. It was the Defendant s 10
11 burden to show actual, not constructive, ouster, Hogan, supra, though notorious and unequivocal acts, brought home to the knowledge of the property owner whose rights were being ousted. Bratton v. Hitchens, 43 Md. App. 348, 405 A.2d 333 (1979), Ross v. Phillips, 148 Md. 165 (1925). As each property owner in Arundel on the Bay is essentially a co-tenant of the Defendant under the implied easement as each have an equal right of use of the platted streets, the Defendant had to prove that her acts of ouster were brought home to the knowledge of each property owner in Arundel on the Bay. As she never notified the Association or anyone else of her claim of exclusive right to the land, particularly, as is set forth in detail above, when the Association sought to re-zone the disputed portion of Saratoga Avenue at a community meeting which she attended, she failed to meet her burden to show ouster against all property owners in Arundel on the Bay. This Court has found that it was a well known policy in Arundel-on-the-Bay that property owners could maintain and beautify undeveloped streets with the express understanding that the streets were community property. (Opinion, page 9.) Thus, the McManus s acts of planting, clearing and generally maintaining and using the property for parties and the like was permissive. Permissive use is presumed to continue. Hungerford v. Hungerford, 234 Md. 338, 341 (1964). The Association was not put on notice until August, 2004 that Mrs. McManus claimed the disputed portion of Saratoga Avenue as her private property. Exhibit 170. Under Pearson v. Virginia City Ranches Association, 298 Mont. 52, 63 (2000), a fence does not constitute use adverse to an easement until the servient estate holder is requested to remove it and refuses to do so. There, the court stated: Moreover, the owner of the dominant tenement is not required to make use of the easement as a condition to retaining his interest in the easement. Thus, where an easement has been created but no occasion has arisen for its use, the owner of the 11
12 servient tenement may fence the land and this will not be deemed adverse until such time as the need for the right-of-way arises and the owner of the dominant tenement demands that the easement be opened and the servient tenement owner refuses to do so. (Similarly, in Spessard v. Spessard, 64 Md. App. 83, 88 (1985) quoting from Newman v. Chase, 70 N.J. 254 (1976) the Court of Special Appeals stated where one cotenant remains in possession and refuse to accede to plaintiff s demands for access to the property, such conduct clearly constitutes an ouster. ) Further, in the Durant case involving another fence in Arundel-on-the-Bay, Exhibit 71, attached hereto for ease of reference, this Court analyzed whether another fence which had been up since the 1940s met the requirements for adverse possession in Arundel-on-the-Bay. There, the Defendants testified that the fence was intended to prevent trespassers of any kind from entering the disputed property directly in front of their lots, that they regularly maintained and paid taxes on the land. The Court examined extensive testimony about the purpose for the fence and found that the Defendants failed to meet their burden to show adverse possession. In the case at hand, there was no testimony about the purpose for the fence, only about the McManuses acts of possession of the property. Because exclusive possession alone is not sufficient to show ouster and because the McManuses possession was permissive and they presented no facts about the purpose of the fence, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court find that there was no actual ouster until the McManuses put the Association on notice, in writing, of their claim of ownership in 2004 under Pearson, supra. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court clarify its implied easement and title findings. Plaintiffs also request that this Court state its rulings as to Counts I IV of the Complaint. 12
13 Plaintiffs further request that this Court re-consider the Exhibits described above. Each of the documents described above referring to Saratoga Avenue spanning a time frame from 1968 to 2000, written by the McManuses or the Association, state unequivocally that the Association is the owner of Saratoga Avenue. The Association attempted as late as 1999 in a community meeting attended by over 70 people, including Mrs. McManus, to re-zone the disputed portion of Saratoga Avenue to community marina zoning without any assertion by Mrs. McManus that she, not the Association, owned the disputed portion of Saratoga Avenue. In Arundel-on-the-Bay, the Durant case shows that the mere fact of a long-standing fence has been held not to indicate adverse possession of the blocked off property, even in the face of testimony that the fence was intended to block off a platted street. There was no such testimony in this case. It was the Defendant s burden to be clear to the Association and all property owners in Arundel on the Bay for 20 years and to this Court at trial about the purpose of the fence. In the absence of Defendant doing so, her claim must fail. Plaintiffs thus respectfully request that this Court find that Defendant has failed to meet her burden and grant the relief requested in the Complaint allowing free access to all members of the Association to the disputed portion of Saratoga Avenue. 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)
14 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Property Owners Association of Arundel-on-the-Bay, Inc. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the day of October, 2006, a copy of the foregoing Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment was mailed first class, postage prepaid, to Merle F. Maffei, P.A., 113 Cathedral Street, Annapolis, Maryland Susan T. Ford 14
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 informationRESPONSE TO 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. Plaintiffs/Counter Defendant v. JOYCE Q MCMANUS Defendant/Counter Plaintiff * IN THE * CIRCUIT COURT * OF MARYLAND * FOR * ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY
More informationIN 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 informationv. 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 informationIN 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 informationSTATE 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 informationc. elimination as encumbrance 1) express release 2) review of specific facts with underwriter (general description)
TITLE ISSUES IN EASEMENTS AND CCR S I Easements (the Company ) insures, as of Date of Policy and, to the extent stated in Covered Risks 9 and 10, after Date of Policy, against loss or damage, not exceeding
More informationBARBARA 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 informationPresent: 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 informationSTATE 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 informationSTATE 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 informationIN 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 informationARIZONA 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 informationPRESENT: 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 informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-10-00505-CV Lillie Phillips, Appellant v. Irene Schneider, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 169TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 236,506-C,
More informationIN 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 informationSTATE 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 informationENTRY 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 informationJUDGMENT REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Division III Opinion by: JUDGE RUSSEL Casebolt and Graham JJ., concur
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No.: 05CA0538 El Paso County District Court No. 03CV4670 Honorable Rebecca S. Bromley, Judge Carol S. Matoush, Plaintiff Appellee, v. David H. Lovingood and Debra
More informationIN 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 informationNO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1996
NO. 95-519 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1996 A.C. WARNACK, Trustee of the A.C. WARNACK TRUST; and KENNETH R. MCDONALD, v. Plaintiffs, Appellants and Cross-Respondents, THE CONEEN FAMILY
More informationIN 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 informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Submitted on Briefs September 12, 2005
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Submitted on Briefs September 12, 2005 ENVISION PROPERTIES, LLC v. PAUL RICHARD JOHNSON, ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Hamilton County No.
More informationParty 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 informationSpecimen 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 informationIN 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 JAMES J. BENTZ and EILEEN BENTZ, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D03-1898 CARROLL MCDANIEL and MELVENE J. MCDANIEL, ETC.,
More informationSTATE 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 informationSTATE 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 informationAPPEAL 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 informationAnswer A to Question 5
Answer A to Question 5 Betty and Ed s Interests Ann, Betty, and Celia originally took title to the condo as joint tenants with right of survivorship. A joint tenancy is characterized by the four unities
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II RANDALL INGOLD TRUST, by and through its trustee, BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., No. 41115-6-II Respondent, v. STEPHANIE L. ARMOUR, DOES 1-5, UNPUBLISHED
More informationWALTER A. HEUSCHKEL and BONNIE L. HEUSCHKEL, husband and wife, Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants/Appellees,
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
More informationPresent: 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 informationDAVID 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 informationThird 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 informationPresent: Hassell, C.J., Lacy, Keenan, Koontz, Lemons, and Agee, JJ., and Russell, S.J.
Present: Hassell, C.J., Lacy, Keenan, Koontz, Lemons, and Agee, JJ., and Russell, S.J. THE BARTER FOUNDATION, INC., ET AL. OPINION BY v. Record No. 022409 JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. January 16, 2004
More informationCommonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
RENDERED: JANUARY 8, 2016; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2014-CA-000767-MR RUTH C. DEHART APPELLANT APPEAL FROM GRAVES CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE DENNIS R.
More informationBLACKSTONE INVESTMENTS LLC
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2010 CA 1163 BLACKSTONE INVESTMENTS LLC VERSUS GENE STROTHER AND NELL CURRY STROTHER Judgment Rendered Max 6 2011 I I
More informationLitigation 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 informationS14A1055. KELLEY et al. v. RANDOLPH et al. This case arises out of a dispute regarding title to property located in the
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: September 22, 2014 S14A1055. KELLEY et al. v. RANDOLPH et al. THOMPSON, Chief Justice. This case arises out of a dispute regarding title to property located in
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D., 2013
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D., 2013 Opinion filed September 25, 2013. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D12-2257 Lower Tribunal No.
More informationWOODLE v. COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, 287 Neb Neb. 917
Page 1 of 8 287 Neb. 917 BRAD WOODLE AND CHASE WOODLE, APPELLANTS, v. COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, A NEBRASKA CORPORATION, AND OMAHA TITLE & ESCROW, INC., A NEBRASKA CORPORATION, APPELLEES.
More informationAn easement is an incorporeal hereditament, an interest which does not give the owner right to physical possession.
Easement An easement is a right which the owner of land (known as dominant tenement) has over another land (servient tenement) to compel the owner of servient tenement to allow something to be done on
More information12--Can Property Owners Be Bound by Unrecorded Restrictions, Rights, and Obligations?
12--Can Property Owners Be Bound by Unrecorded Restrictions, Rights, and Obligations? A property may be restricted by unrecorded equitable servitudes. An equitable servitude is an enforceable restriction
More informationADVERSE INTERESTS [IDENTIFY SOURCE OF INFORMATION], AND OF ALL PERSONS CLAIMING THEREUNDER.
ADVERSE INTERESTS ADVERSE INTERESTS DISCLOSED BY SEARCH This exception should be raised where information is encountered in the course of an examination of title which discloses a stranger to the title
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE April 10, 2003 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE April 10, 2003 Session BILLY CULP AND LOIS CULP v. BILLIE GRINDER AND HELEN GRINDER Appeal from the Chancery Court for Wayne County No. 10503 Jim T. Hamilton,
More informationv No Otsego Circuit Court
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S BERNARD C. SWARTZ DECLARATION OF TRUST DATED FEBRUARY 25, 2009, UNPUBLISHED February 20, 2018 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 335470 Otsego Circuit
More informationPAYMENT FOR AND EXTINGUISHMENT OF EASEMENTS: SPECIAL ISSUES. UTAH STATE BAR SUMMER CONVENTION Snowmass, Colorado
PAYMENT FOR AND EXTINGUISHMENT OF EASEMENTS: SPECIAL ISSUES UTAH STATE BAR SUMMER CONVENTION Snowmass, Colorado Friday, July 18, 2014 11:30 a.m. RUSSELL A. CLINE Presenter CRIPPEN & CLINE, P.C. 10 South
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JOHN T. RUDY and ANN LIZETTE RUDY, Plaintiffs-Appellees, UNPUBLISHED February 22, 2011 v No. 293501 Cass Circuit Court DAN LINTS and VICKI LINTS, LC No. 08-000138-CZ
More informationSTATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION Bay Pointe Waterfront Condominium Association,
More informationBAYVIEW 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 informationSTATE 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 informationIn the Missouri Court of Appeals Western District
In the Missouri Court of Appeals Western District DARL D. FERGUSON AND DELORIS M. FERGUSON TRUSTEES OF THE DARL D. FERGUSON AND DELORIS M. FERGUSON AMENDED IRREVOCABLE TRUST, v. Appellants, PEGGY HOFFMAN
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 6 June Appeal by defendants from order entered 18 July 2016 by Judge Jay D.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA No. COA16-1189 Filed: 6 June 2017 Onslow County, No. 14 CVS 4011 KINGS HARBOR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff, v. ROY T. GOLDMAN and wife, DIANA H. GOLDMAN,
More informationIN 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 informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT JACQUELINE GRANGER AS INDEPENDENT ADMINSTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JUSTIN BOUDREAUX **********
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 07-1392 JACQUELINE GRANGER AS INDEPENDENT ADMINSTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JUSTIN BOUDREAUX VERSUS TRI-TECH, LLC ********** APPEAL FROM THE THIRTY-FIRST
More informationThird 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 informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS FENTON LAKES SPORTSMEN CLUB, -1- Plaintiff/Counterdefendant- Appellee, UNPUBLISHED May 25, 2001 v No. 220603 Genesee Circuit Court MCCULLY LAKE ESTATES, INC., LC No.
More informationSTATE 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 ORLANDO IGLESIAS and NANCY IGLESIAS, Petitioners,
More informationIN 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 informationCircuit 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 informationDaniel 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 informationSERVITUDE RIGHTS REQUIRE REGISTRATION
SERVITUDE RIGHTS REQUIRE REGISTRATION Troskie and Another v Liquidator of RSD Construction CC Wilbecar Liquidators CC t/a Bureau Trust Gauteng RSD Construction CC and Others (71322/2010) [2015] ZAGPPHC
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT WAYNE GOLDMAN, MARIANNE GOLDMAN and SEAN ACOSTA, Appellants, v. STEPHEN LUSTIG, Appellee. No. 4D16-1933 [January 24, 2018] CORRECTED OPINION
More informationSTATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION Sunrise of Palm Beach Condominium Association,
More informationRENT estate uses damages --
Next Class See website. Review the State of California Official Judicial Council Unlawful Detainer Answer. Carefully review California Code of Civil Procedure 1174.2 at page 100 of the Supplement. Abandonment
More informationIN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS. ooooo ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS ooooo The Abraham & Associates Trust and Michael Robert Barker, Trustee, v. Plaintiffs and Appellants, James M. Park, Tori L. Park, Dennis Carr, and Donette Carr, Defendants
More informationP.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 informationIN 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 informationSTATE 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 informationBorowski 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 informationRAILS- TO- TRAILS PROGRAM IN MICHIGAN. in implementing so- called rails- to- trails programs, which seek to convert unused
Michigan Realtors RAILS- TO- TRAILS PROGRAM IN MICHIGAN A. INTRODUCTION Over the last few decades, all levels of government have been increasingly interested in implementing so- called rails- to- trails
More informationNO. COA Filed: 15 November Easements- servient tenant s impermissible interference with dominant tenant s use-- motion to dismiss
FRANK H. R. FALKSON, KENNETH COLLIER, FRANCIS CARTER, ALBERT G. FOLCHER, III, VICTOR VANCE, BURT MOODY, AND WATERWAY LANDING - POCOSIN FARMS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiffs, v. CLAYTON LAND CORPORATION,
More informationPhysical Encumbrances
Physical Encumbrances Types of physical encumbrances include (1) deed restrictions, (2) easements, and (3) encroachments. D eed restrictions A major package of private deed restriction are covenants, conditions
More informationBy motion dated January 3, 2 008, the New Jersey Council. on Affordable Housing (the "Council" or "COAH") received a request
IN RE ROCKAWAY TOWNSHIP, MORRIS ) NEW JERSEY COUNCIL ON COUNTY, MOTION FOR A STAY OF ) ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING THE COUNCIL'S JUNE 13, 2 007 AND, ) SEPTEMBER 12, 2007 RESOLUTIONS ) DOCKET NO. 08-2000 AND
More informationIN 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 informationNo. 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 informationMURPHY, et al. OLSEN, et al.
MURPHY, et al. v. OLSEN, et al. 04-P-431 Appeals Court JAMES F. MURPHY, trustee,[1] & others[2] vs. JANET L. OLSEN & others.[3] No. 04-P-431. Suffolk. February 18, 2005. - May 4, 2005. Present: Greenberg,
More informationIN 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 informationSTATE 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[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 informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ROBERT LITTLE and BARBARA LITTLE, Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants- Appellants, UNPUBLISHED March 23, 2006 v No. 257781 Oakland Circuit Court THOMAS TRIVAN, DARLENE TRIVAN,
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION NEIL A. CRAIG AND : ROSALIE T. CRAIG, : Plaintiffs : vs. : NO: 09-1880 : JAMES DULCEY AND : KATHLEEN DULCEY, : Defendants : James
More informationSTATE 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 informationv No Kalamazoo Circuit Court THOMAS DAVID STAPERT and DAWN M. LC No CZ STAPERT,
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S LYLE LADUKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED February 13, 2018 v No. 338239 Kalamazoo Circuit Court THOMAS DAVID STAPERT and DAWN M. LC No. 2015-000334-CZ
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO HOLY DONUT, LLC ) CASE NO. CV 12 790472 ) Plaintiff, ) JUDGE JOHN P. O DONNELL ) vs. ) ) MO UN YEE GEE, et al. ) JOURNAL ENTRY GRANTING IN ) PART HOLY
More informationSTATE 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 informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2002
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2002 SAND LAKE SHOPPES FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D01-1534 SAND LAKE COURTYARDS, L.C., ET AL.,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS CIVIC ASSOCIATION OF HAMMOND LAKE ESTATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION May 18, 2006 9:05 a.m. v No. 264249 Oakland Circuit Court HAMMOND LAKES ESTATES NO. 3 LOTS
More informationIN 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 informationProperty, Servitudes/Easements- pp November 6, 2006 Crusto s Socratic Dialogue. 1. Please provide an Analytical Overview of the Topic.
Property, Servitudes/Easements- pp. 667-677 November 6, 2006 Crusto s Socratic Dialogue 1. Please provide an Analytical Overview of the Topic. This is the last topic we will cover for the semester: the
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON July 21, 2009 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON July 21, 2009 Session BENTON COUNTY, TENNESSEE, ET AL. v. VERN FRANKLIN CHUMNEY Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Benton County No. 7CCV-1149 Charles
More informationNOT 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 BRUCE W. CHARITY and GABRIELE CHARITY, as husband and wife; MARJORIE
More informationRAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS
CHRISTI CRADDICK, CHAIRMAN RYAN SITTON, COMMISSIONER WAYNE CHRISTIAN, COMMISSIONER DANA AVANT LEWIS INTERIM DIRECTOR RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS HEARINGS DIVISION Oil & Gas Docket No. 09-0308694 COMPLAINT
More informationTHE 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 informationAMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF PAGE 1
Case :-cv-00-mjp Document Filed 0// Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 0 THOMAS E. HORNISH AND SUZANNE J. HORNISH JOINT LIVING TRUST, TRACY AND BARBARA
More informationIN 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 informationNOT 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 informationA Deep Dive into Easements
A Deep Dive into Easements Diane B. Davies, John A. Lovett, James C. Smith I. Introduction Easements are ubiquitous in the United States. They serve an invaluable function. They allow persons and property
More informationIN 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