Covered Bridge Farms II v. State of Maryland

Covered Bridge Farms II, LLC v. State of Maryland, 63 A.3d 666 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. March 22, 2013)

State: Maryland

Procedural Status: Case concluded.

Date: 2013

Keywords: Agricultural conservation easement; public conservation easement; retroactivity; state conservation easement; subdivision violation.

Summary of Facts and Issues: In 1984, predecessor landowners sold an agricultural conservation easement to the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation (MALPF). The easement encumbered three contiguous parcels and prohibited any subdivision except with the written consent of MALPF. An earlier agricultural district agreement also covered the three parcels and prohibited subdivision except for one-acre outparcels to the owner and/or each of the owner’s children. In 2001, Covered Bridge Farms LLC (CBF) acquired the protected property, and subsequently reconfigured the three parcel boundaries and acreage through deeds of adjoinder transfer. In 2006, MALPF approved the release of one lot from the easement for a personal residence for CBF’s owners. In 2007, CBF was dissolved and, without seeking MALPF’s consent, it conveyed the three reconfigured parcels to three separate LLC entities. MALPF filed suit in 2011, claiming that the conveyances violated the easement’s and the district agreement’s subdivision prohibitions. The trial court held for MALPF on summary judgment, finding that the 2007 conveyances were a subdivision in violation of the district agreement and the easement; declaring the transfer null and void; requiring the land to be transferred to a common owner; and ordering the parcel lines eliminated or restored to their original configuration.

Holding: The appellate court affirmed, finding that this case was nearly identical to Stitzel v. State of Maryland, 195 Md. App. 443, 448-52 (2010), discussed below, in which the court found that a conveyance of one of three original parcels subject to an agricultural easement violated the subdivision prohibition. The court found immaterial any slight differences in language between the instant easement and the Stitzel easement. Finally, although it did not affect the disposition of this case, the court held that regulations enacted in 2011 that tightened the definition of “subdivision” for agricultural easements were not to be applied retroactively.

Analysis and Notes: The decision here is not surprising, as the facts were indeed quite similar to those in Stitzel. Perhaps what this case demonstrates more than anything is that a motivated landowner sometimes will aggressively litigate an issue that seems clearly settled by earlier case law. Without comment, the appellate court also awarded MALPF its legal costs.