Tidler v. City of New Carrollton

WEANT, Judge. Harold S. Tidier, E. Burton Tidier and Thomas K. Zeverly, Trustees (appellants), appeal from an Order of the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County (James Magruder Rea, J.) determining the boundary line between the property of the appellants and that of the City of New Carrollton (appellee) pursuant to Md.Real Prop.Code Ann. art., § 14-111 (1981). While not worded precisely as the questions submitted by the parties, we believe the following more clearly cover the problems: I. Under the circumstances of the instant case, was the trial court’s application of Real Property Article § 14-111, sua sponte, erroneous.

II

Where there is no evidence of a boundary line between two tracts and no acquiescence in the line stated in the deed, did the court err in rejecting a metes and bounds description which contained numerous errors and contradictions and which could not be harmonized in ²⁵ favor of a boundary that was consistent with the intention of the grantor? This property dispute involved a section of a tract originally known as Lot Number Three (Lot 3) of the Harvey Farm which abuts on Good Luck Road in Prince George’s County. In 1910, Lot 3, “containing 28 acres, more or less,” 1 was conveyed to Elizabeth Thorne. In 1915 Thorne conveyed “[o]ne-half (14.32 acres) Lot numbered three (3) ... ” to Mary Agnes Dunn, the appellee’s predecessor in title.

In 1949, Thorne conveyed her remaining interest in Lot 3 to H. Stanley and Edna Tidier. The area purported to be conveyed by the metes and bounds description contained in the Tidier deed included a portion of the land previously conveyed by the 1915 deed to Dunn, creating an “overlap.” Conflicting ownership claims to that “overlap” are the basis of this appeal. The testimony before the trial court was given by three surveyors: Harry L. Stoner, who had made a field survey for the appellee’s predecessor in title, platted the original deeds of Lot 3, the adjacent Lot 4 and Tidler’s title deed; Clinton G. Light, who had surveyed the remaining Tidier property prior to the conveyance to the church; and James M. Fowler, who had surveyed Tidler’s property lying east of the Beltway. In addition to the testimony, documentary evidence in the form of title deeds and plats prepared by the various surveyors were admitted.

Based on his examination of the metes and bounds description in the several title deeds, each witness testified that mistakes in the calls committed by the surveyors, or scrivener’s errors by the clerk in reproducing the deeds for the record books, resulted in “closing errors” in the appellants’ title deed and in several later conveyances in the appellee’s chain of title. ²⁶ I. After extensive testimony and exhaustive questioning from the bench, the court advised the parties that it would implement the seldom used Real Property article § 14-111 in order to resolve the boundary dispute. That statute provides: If there is a dispute over any boundary line or if the bounds mentioned in a document are lost, on petition of any party in interest, the circuit court of the county where the property lies may establish the boundary lines or the location of the missing bounds. The court may appoint engineers, surveyors, or other experts to assist the court in its determination, and the fees of the experts are costs in the proceeding. (Ann.Code 1957, art. 21, § 14-111; 1974, ch. 12, § 2.) The appellants contend that since neither party filed a petition requesting relief under the statute, the trial court was without authority to invoke that remedy.

The appellants’ argument is without merit. At the close of all the evidence, the court advised the parties of its intention to proceed in this manner. The appellants not only failed to object to the court’s announcement, but volunteered information regarding certain deeds in the chain of title. In addition, when the court ordered the