Wagner v. Ruhl

Urner, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. A tract of land containing one hundred and seven acres, situated at the intersection of Eastern Avenue Road and Back River, in Baltimore County, was devised by Conrad Buhl, Sr., to- his wife, Anna, Alaria Buhl, for life and to his children, Conrad, Henry and Mary Ruhl, in remainder. At ⁵²² the time of the testator’s death, which occurred in 1901, the improvements on the land were of small value and utility and the annual revenue it produced did not exceed two hundred dollars. By reason of its location the property was available for leasing in small parcels, fronting on the river and the roadway, to persons who were willing to improve the lots at their own expense, in consideration of their tenure being free of rent for a certain period, and with the understanding that the buildings and other improvements erected by the lessees should become a part of the freehold.

For a period of about four years after the death of the testator the property was managed by his two sons for the benefit of their mother as life tenant and of their sister and themselves as remaindermen. During that period they leased portions of the land to various tenants upon such terms and conditions as we- have indicated. In the latter part of the year 1903 the life tenant executed a deed of trust to the appellant, her grandson, under which he assumed the management of the property, and remained in charge of it until the death of the life tenant in 1916. While the appellant was in control of the property -as trustee, he continued the policy of leasing river, shore and road front lots upon terms similar to those already stated.

He also expended large sums of money in practically reconstructing the old farm buildings which were on the land at the time of the testatoris death, and made other permanent improvements. As a result of this policy of leasing and development the annual income from the land increased from $200 at the beginning of the life estate to about $3,600 at the time it expired. The improvements to the property during that interval were of the approximate value of $18,000.00. All were made with the knowledge and consent of the remainderman, and were insured for their benefit, and that of the life tenant, according to their respective interests.

The life tenant left a will of which the appellant is executor. In that capacity he has filed a bill in equity for the ⁵²³ purpose of charging the remaindermen with the cost of the permanent improvements, made during the existence of the preceding life estate, upon the land which they now own absolutely. From the allegations of the bill we have obtained the facts to which we have referred. A demurrer to the bill was sustained, with leave to amend, and for the review of that action the case has been brought to this court on appeal.

The circumstances of the case as disclosed by the bill of complaint, are thoroughly appropriate for the application of the general rule that the remainderman is not chargeable for permanent improvements which