Horning v. Hardy

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

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

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