Holder v. Estes

1

JUSTIN HOLDER, et al. v. BENJAMIN ESTES

No. 61-2023

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

May 3, 2024

UNREPORTED ^[*]

Circuit Court for Washington County Case No. C-21-CV-20-000430

Friedman, Tang, Battaglia, Lynne A. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

OPINION

Battaglia, J.

This case involves a property dispute between two sets of neighbors. The main issues on appeal concern whether the trial judge was legally correct in his interpretation of a deed at the summary judgment stage and whether the same judge erred in finding Little Antietam Creek in Keedysville, Maryland was not a navigable waterway, thereafter determining that there had been a trespass on the land, which he enjoined.^[1] The case arose in May of 2021, after Benjamin Estes, Appellee, filed a Second Amended Complaint^[2] in the Circuit Court for Washington County against Justin Holder, Deena Holder, Uncle Eddies Brokedown Palace, LLC^[3] ("Uncle Eddie"), the Maryland Department of Natural Resources^[4] ("DNR"), and all other interested but unknown parties in numerated counts alleging: (1) trespassing; (2) violations of Section 5-409 of the Natural Resources Article, Maryland Code (1974, 2023 Repl. Vol.); (3) nuisance; (4) aiding and abetting trespass to land; (5) quiet title; and (6) ejectment. The property at issue was a piece of land abutting Little Antietam Creek in Keedysville, Maryland. Mr. Estes requested that those sued be enjoined from further trespasses onto this land. In February of 2022, Judge Andrew Wilkinson of the Circuit Court for Washington County bifurcated the issues in the case and determined counts 5, quiet title, and 6, ejectment, would be heard together in a bench trial and counts one through four would proceed to a jury trial after the bench trial had concluded. The pending jury trial on counts one through four is not rendered moot by this opinion.

Mr. Estes filed a motion for summary judgment as to all counts in his Second Amended Complaint, except count 3, nuisance. In September of 2022, Judge Wilkinson granted the motion in part, denied it in part, and held the remaining issues under advisement. The court initially determined that the boundary line between land owned by Mr. Estes and the Holders/Uncle Eddie was "as indicated on plat 10955," which was entitled "Parcel of Reconfiguration." Judge Wilkinson denied summary judgment on the issue of whether Mr. Estes' rights to the land under the water of Little Antietam Creek prohibited others, including the Holders, from using the Creek bottom within Mr. Estes' property line. The Judge also held under advisement his decision on summary judgment for counts one through four. After a two-day bench trial, Judge Wilkinson permanently enjoined Justin Holder, Deena Holder, and Uncle Eddie from Mr. Estes' land, including the land under the water of Little Antietam Creek within Mr. Estes' property line:

ORDERED, that Defendants Justin Holder, Deena Holder, Uncle Eddie's Brokedown Palace, LLC, and any member or agent thereof, be and are hereby permanently enjoined from coming into contact with [Mr. Estes'] land within [Mr. Estes'] property lines as determined in this case, including the land under the water of the Little Antietam Creek and its tributaries within [Mr. Estes'] property lines.

(Emphasis omitted).

Justin Holder appealed the court's order granting injunctive relief. In addition, the court issued an order designating the September 2022 summary judgment opinion and order as a final order subject to appeal, which precipitated Justin Holder, Deena Holder, and Uncle Eddie, Appellants, to appeal that order.^[5] The Appellants, Justin Holder, Deena Holder, and Uncle Eddie, presented us with a number of questions which we have renumbered and summarized:^[6]

1. Whether the trial court erred by denying Mr. Holder's jury demand? 2. Whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Estes' claim for quiet title? 3. Whether a genuine dispute of material fact existed that would have prevented summary judgment?

4. Whether the trial court erred in interpreting the 1832 deed recorded at Liber NN, folio 520 ("Original Deed")?

5. Whether the trial court erred by not applying the equitable doctrine of unclean hands?

6. Whether the trial court erred in determining that the land bordering Little Antietam Creek was within Mr. Estes' chain of title?

7. Whether the trial court erred in finding that Little Antietam Creek is non-navigable, therefore limiting Appellants' rights to use the water?

8. Whether Mr. Estes was judicially estopped from litigating the public's right to use the creek bed after stipulating with DNR that the rights of the public to use the waters of Little Antietam Creek were not being litigated in this case?

9. Whether the trial court erred in finding Ms. Holder and Mr. Holder are using Uncle Eddie's as an alter-ego to hold the land neighboring Mr. Estes' property?

Procedural History

In November of 2020, Benjamin Estes filed a Complaint against Justin Holder and Deena Holder^[7] in the Circuit Court for Washington County for: (1) trespass to land; (2) a statutory claim pursuant to violating Section 5-409 of the Natural Resources Article, Maryland Code (1974, 2023 Repl. Vol.);^[8] (3) private nuisance; and (4) aiding and abetting trespass to land. In March of 2021, Mr. Estes filed his First Amended Complaint, which added two counts: (5) quiet title and injunctive relief; and (6) an alternative claim for ejectment. In May, Mr. Estes filed his Second Amended Complaint, which added Uncle Eddie, DNR, and all other interested but unidentified parties as defendants. All named defendants filed answers to the Second Amended Complaint.

In his Second Amended Complaint, Mr. Estes requested damages and quiet title and/or ejectment with respect to a section of real property along Little Antietam Creek that borders both Mr. Estes' and Uncle Eddie's property. As Mr. Estes stated in the Second Amended Complaint, "[t]he real property at issue in this case (the "Estes Property") is commonly known as Lot 2, Mt. Hebron Road, Keedysville, Maryland 21756." As the Amended Complaint recited, the land was more fully described as:

Being all of Lot 2 on the Plat of Subdivision entitled "Preliminary/Final Plat of Subdivision of Lot 2 for M. Yvonne &Maxwell B. Hope, II" prepared by Frederick, Seibert &Associates, Inc. dated September 27, 2006 and designated as Job No. 1967.2 and recorded in Plat folio 9186 among the Plat Records maintained by the Clerk of the Circuit Court for Washington County, Maryland; containing 8.28 acres of land, more or less.

Mr. Estes sought a determination that he was the sole owner of the property and that the defendants had no right, title, or interest in any portion of the property, including the land underneath the water of Little Antietam Creek that abutted the land. Mr. Estes also sought to enjoin Uncle Eddie and his agents from entering the land, as he alleged that they repeatedly came onto the property without permission:

16. From October 1, 2018 through the present, Defendant Justin Holder, by himself and/or through his agents did knowingly and intentionally destroy property on the Estes Property, by knowingly and intentionally removing, cutting or otherwise clearing and destroying trees, shrubs, underbrush, and/or other plants and or vegetation with full knowledge that he or his agents did not have the permission, implied or otherwise, of the Plaintiff, and knowing such vegetation was wholly located on the Estes Property. Defendant Justin Holder destroyed numerous trees, plants and bushes, common to the Maryland floodplain, including, among other vegetation, walnut trees, spice bushes, sycamore seedlings, box elder seedlings/trees, wild rose bushes and other plants, bushes and trees.

17. That Defendant Justin Holder has acknowledged that he intentionally entered upon land that he knew belonged to Plaintiff and cut down trees, plants, shrubs, alders and vegetation that he knew belonged to Plaintiff.

18. As of the date of this pleading, Defendant Justin Holder continues to enter onto Plaintiff's land and has stated his intention to continue to do so.

Mr. Estes alleged that the parties disagreed about the location of the boundary between the two properties:

22. Defendants (specifically, Justin Holder, individually and/or on behalf of Deena Holder and/or Uncle Eddies) contend that Little Antietam Creek forms the boundary between the Holder Property and Estes Property.

23. However, the chains of title for both properties including plats of both properties prepared by a licensed surveyor-Frederick Seibert &Associates ("FSA")-separately on behalf of the parties, clearly show that the boundary line between the properties is on the western side of Little Antietam Creek.

24. Specifically, the Plat attached hereto as Exhibit A shows the boundary line between the Estes Property and the Holder Property as running, in part, on the west side of Little Antietam Creek. The Estes Property and Holder Property share the portions of the boundary depicted on Exhibit A starting at the point where "L10" ends and "L11" begins, thence running to the opposite end of a line . . . terminating on/in or near a bridge abutment (the "Shared Boundary").

25. Plaintiff contends that the Shared Boundary shown on Exhibit A accurately depicts the boundary between the Estes Property and Holder Property.

* * *

27. Plaintiff is the legal owner of the entirety of the Estes Property, including, but not limited to, the property located between the western bank of Little Antietam Creek and the Shared Boundary (the "Disputed Area"), as well as any land on the Estes Property that is beneath any creeks, streams or waters within the Estes Property.

28. Defendants have made these claims

...