Maryland Land Records Research, Part 1

I just finished my last semester of law school, and one of the classes I took was about Federal Land Management. That class, together with my interest in history (especially local), and while studying/muddling through property lectures for the bar exam, got me interested in the history of my property. Specifically:

How far back could I trace the ownership of my property?

This post, part one, is designed to serve as an introduction to my research, so let's start with the basics. To trace ownership, we need to start at the present and work backwards When I purchased my home in 2008, I received the property in fee simple (absolute), which is the highest ownership interest that any private party can have in real property. If you "own" your property, you probably have the same arrangement; or you might have conditions on your ownership. Your deed should explain how the property was transferred from the previous owner to you.

To determine how far back we can go, we need to have an understanding of the state of ownership where we live. I live in Maryland, which was one of the original 13 colonies. On June 20, 1632, King Charles I (whose wife was Henrietta Maria of France, namesake of Maryland) granted a charter to Caecilius Calvert, Baron of Baltimore (Calvert's wife was Anne Arundell, namesake of the county where I now live). The original province included all of Maryland, as well as Delaware, and parts of what is now Pennsylvania. This grant of land from the Crown to Calvert is beginning point for all land ownership in Maryland, and conversely, the end point for my research. Theoretically, all land in Maryland should be able to be traced back to this first grant.

For those that live in public land states (states that were formed out of land acquired by the federal government), the property would be traced ultimately to the original grant (or land patent) from the federal government.

Now you might be wondering about land ownership before England, or ownership by Native Americans. Aside from the fact that I am not aware of any available records to research, the very evidence of a sovereign transfer of land via the land patent is the starting line for tracing land, so that's where we will start (or end).

Our best resource here in Maryland is this website, a project of the Maryland State Archives. It requires registration to use but is otherwise very useful for locating records. And it's pretty amazing how much is now available online. There are other resources as well, which I will introduce as they become useful.

In the next post, I'll take a look at the deed from 2008 when I bought my property. From there, we'll begin the journey into the past--and see how far we can go.

Law in Plain English: Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States

This is one in a series of posts designed to describe court decisions in plain English. For more detail and background on the legal issues, see the link to the case below. For similar posts, click here.

SCOTUSblog: Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States

Argument: Jan 14 2014 (Aud.)

"Though we recognize that the Seventh Circuit, the Federal Circuit and the Court of Federal Claims have concluded that the United States did not retain any reversionary interest in these railroad rights-of way, we are bound by our precedent."
United States v. Brandt, 496 F. App'x 822, 825 (10th Cir. 2012) cert. granted, 12-1173

Background: In 1976, the government conveyed 83.32 acres of land to Melvin M. Brandt and Lula M. Brandt — the parents of Marvin M. Brandt. The land patent conveyed the property in fee simple and stated that it was subject to a right-of-way granted to the Laramie, Hahn's Peak, and Pacific Railroad Company for railroad purposes in 1908. In 1987, the Wyoming and Colorado Railroad Company, Inc. ("WYCO") acquired the railroad right-of-way and operated the rail line for a number of years. In May 1996, WYCO filed a Notice of Intent to Abandon Rail Service with the Surface Transportation Board ("STB"). The STB approved abandonment of the rail line in December 2003, and, in January 2004, WYCO notified the STB that it had completed its abandonment of the railroad right-of-way. The United States sought to quiet title on the theory that it had an implied reversionary interest in the right-of-way. The District Court found in favor of the United States, who sought to use the right-of-way for a rails-to-trails conversion. The Tenth Circuit affirmed. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed a parallel claim by Brandt for lack of jurisdiction, but the Federal Circuit reversed.

Issue: The question before the Court was whether the United States retained an implied reversionary interest in rights-of-way created by the General Railroad Right of Way Act of 1875 after the underlying lands were patented into private ownership.

Holding: In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the right of way was an easement that was terminated by the railroad’s abandonment, leaving Brandt’s land unburdened. As a result, the Government did not retain an implied reversionary interest in the right-of-way.

Controversial Court Decisions: Raleigh Avenue Beach Assn. v. Atlantis Beach Club

This is one in a series of posts designed to describe controversial, notorious, infamous, and outrageous court decisions. For similar posts, click here.

Case: Raleigh Avenue Beach Assn. v. Atlantis Beach Club, 185 N.J. 40 (2005).

Map note: The property in question is the dry beach area listed below as the "Atlantis Beach Club Property." To its south is property of the United States Coast Guard which is closed most of the summer. To its north is Seapointe Village's Beach, which is open to the public.

Facts: Tony Labrosciano, a member of the Raleigh Avenue Beach Association, was issued a summons for trespassing when he attempted to leave the wet sand area and walk across the private property of the Atlantis Beach Club to the eastern terminus of Raleigh Avenue in Cape May, New Jersey. The Association, which consists of individuals who reside on Raleigh Avenue in the Diamond Beach neighborhood, filed a complaint against Atlantis, and claimed that Atlantis was in violation of the public trust doctrine and sought free public access through the Atlantis property to the beach, and to a sufficient amount of dry sand above the mean high water line to permit the public to enjoy the beach and beach-related activities. The public trust doctrine is the principle that certain resources are preserved for public use, and that the government is required to maintain them for the public's reasonable use. The doctrine was born in Roman times, when Justinian ruled that seashores were open to the public, so that fishermen could dry their nets.

Trial Court: The trial court held that the public was entitled to a right of horizontal access to the ocean by means of “a three-foot wide strip of dry sand, immediately landward of the mean high water line and extending from the northern to the southern boundaries of [the Atlantis] [p]roperty, which may be utilized by the public, at no charge, for the purpose of entering into and exiting from” the area located below the mean high water line. The trial court also held that the public was entitled to limited vertical access to the ocean, consisting of a path from the bulkhead through the dunes on the property. The trial court also ruled that the Public Trust Doctrine does not apply to permit the Department [of Environmental Protection] to regulate the use of the Beach Area. (emphasis added)”

Appellate Court: The Appellate Division of the Superior Court, and then the Supreme Court of New Jersey, ruled that Atlantis could not limit vertical or horizontal public access to its dry sand beach area nor interfere with the public's right to free use of the dry sand for intermittent recreational purposes connected with the ocean and wet sand. Atlantis could charge reasonable fees to access the beach, but was required to pick up trash, provide shower facilities, and provide lifeguard service. 

Why It's Controversial: The public trust doctrine was born in Roman times from the need to protect the livelihood of fishermen. In New Jersey, the courts recognized that the public trust doctrine focused on the preservation of the “natural water resources” of New Jersey “for navigation and commerce and fishing, an important source of food.” In an earlier case, New Jersey extended this doctrine to recreational uses, without any legal justification. And even in New Jersey, the public trust doctrine had never extended to purely private property as was the case with the Atlantic Beach Club. Doubling down on an expansive use of the public trust doctrine ("The public trust doctrine...should not be considered fixed or static, but should be molded and extended to meet changing conditions and needs of the public it was created to benefit.was created to benefit"), the New Jersey Supreme Court decimated the private property rights of the Atlantic Beach Club, despite the fact that Seapointe Village's Beach was open to the public just a few hundred feet to the north (see map above).

A comic strip introduction to property law

Bar Prep: Property #1

This is one in a series of posts designed to give you some insight into the questions that one might see on the bar exam, and how one might go about answering them. For similar posts, click here.

QUESTION: Che and Cedric own adjoining pieces of land in a rural community, but the boundary line between the 2 properties was never clearly marked. Twenty-five years ago Che dug a well on a piece of the property that he believed to be his. He has used the well continuously since then and has taken care of the area surrounding it. Fifteen years ago, Cedric was defined as mentally ill and found incompetent. He died today and the executor of his estate filed suit to throw Che off the land with the well. The adverse possession requirement is 20 years. Which best summarizes the status of the well property?

A. Che has acquired title by adverse possession.

B. Che cannot claim title as an adverse possessor since he never entered with hostile intent.

C. Che is in adverse possession but does not hold title, since Cedric's incompetence 15 year ago stopped the possession clock from running.

D. None of the above