adverse claim in Maryland

2018"The mere fact that a witness may personally favor one side over the other does not make that witness peculiarly unavailable to the other side." Bereano , 403 Md. at 744 , 944 A.2d 538 .

2018"The mere fact that a witness may personally favor one side over the other does not make that witness peculiarly unavailable to the other side." Bereano , 403 Md. at 744 , 944 A.2d 538 .

2018App. 489 , 499-500, 470 A.2d 1301 , cert. denied , 300 Md. 90 , 475 A.2d 1201 (1984) (defendant's brother-in-law not peculiarly available to defendant); see generally Annotation, Adverse presumption or inference based on party's failure to produce or examine family member other than spouse-modern cases , 80 ALR 4th 337 , § 5.

2017Motor Vehicle Administration v. Deering, 4 38 Md. 611 , 616, 92 A.3d 495 (2014).

2015Id.

2012Later, the Court of Appeals of New York recognized the exception in Spiegel v. Ferraro, 73 N.Y.2d 622 , 543 N.Y.S.2d 15 , 541 N.E.2d 15 (1989), and explained: The theory underlying the exception is that easements not definitively located and developed through use are not yet in functional existence and therefore the owner of the easement could not be expected to have notice of the adverse claim until either the easement is opened or the owner demands that it be opened.

2012Later, the Court of Appeals of New York recognized the exception in Spiegel v. Ferraro, 73 N.Y.2d 622 , 543 N.Y.S.2d 15 , 541 N.E.2d 15 (1989), and explained: The theory underlying the exception is that easements not definitively located and developed through use are not yet in functional existence and therefore the owner of the easement could not be expected to have notice of the adverse claim until either the easement is opened or the owner demands that it be opened.

2011In those states where the transfer of either the servient or dominant estates, or both, does not trigger a presumption of adverse use, and the presumption of permissive use continues, the party seeking the prescriptive easement must provide the owner of the servient estate “some notice that an adverse claim is being made,” Miller, 91 WasL App. at 830, 964 P.2d 365 , such as “unequivocal conduct giving the owner of the property notice of hostility and adverseness,” Branson, 111 *696 Idaho at 936, 729 P.2d 408 (citation omitted), or a “distinct and positive assertion of a right hostile to the ow

2011Branson v. Miracle, 111 Idaho 933, 938 , 729 P.2d 408 (Idaho Ct.App.1986).

2008It does not amount to a subordination of defendants’ adverse claim to the disputed wedge----” Lilly, 945 P.2d at 732 (quoting Frolund, 431 P.2d at 192 ; Lilly’s emphasis omitted).

2008It does not amount to a subordination of defendants’ adverse claim to the disputed wedge----” Lilly, 945 P.2d at 732 (quoting Frolund, 431 P.2d at 192 ; Lilly’s emphasis omitted).

2008As to the case before it, the Lilly Court recognized that “[ujncontroverted evidence shows that [the title owner of the disputed area] regularly used the ramp____” Lilly, 945 P.2d at 733 .

2005Observing that “the recorded, but the misindexed Notice of Lis Pendens, did not provide constructive notice of the adverse claim of the United States,” id. at 347 , 753 A.2d at 746 , the court held that consequently neither the title insurers nor Manchester Fund had the ability to discover the mis-indexed notice of lis pendens.

2005Observing that “the recorded, but the misindexed Notice of Lis Pendens, did not provide constructive notice of the adverse claim of the United States,” id. at 347 , 753 A.2d at 746 , the court held that consequently neither the title insurers nor Manchester Fund had the ability to discover the mis-indexed notice of lis pendens.

2004Later, in Wallace v. Lechman & Johnson, Inc., 354 Md. 622 , 732 A.2d 868 (1999), we again discussed the types of acts that may give rise to a claim of conversion: [T]he gist of a conversion is not the acquisition of the property by the wrongdoer, but the wrongful deprivation of a person of property to the possession of which he is entitled.

2004Later, in Wallace v. Lechman & Johnson, Inc., 354 Md. 622 , 732 A.2d 868 (1999), we again discussed the types of acts that may give rise to a claim of conversion: [T]he gist of a conversion is not the acquisition of the property by the wrongdoer, but the wrongful deprivation of a person of property to the possession of which he is entitled.

2004Thus, under Miller , an adverse presumption may rise against the spoliator even if there is no evidence of fraudulent intent.” 115 Md.App. at 561 , 694 A.2d 150 .

2004Thus, under Miller , an adverse presumption may rise against the spoliator even if there is no evidence of fraudulent intent.” 115 Md.App. at 561 , 694 A.2d 150 .

1995Id. 220 N.W.2d at 125 (citing, as to the first proposition, Tanksley, 408 S.W.2d at 103 and, as to the third, 93 A.L.R. at 408-09 .).

1995Id. 220 N.W.2d at 125 (citing, as to the first proposition, Tanksley, 408 S.W.2d at 103 and, as to the third, 93 A.L.R. at 408-09 .).

1985And in Bender v. Bender, 57 Md.App. 593, 599 , 471 A.2d 335 (1984), we recognized that “unauthorized acts of use or ownership over the goods” constitute a conversion of that property.

1985And in Bender v. Bender, 57 Md.App. 593, 599 , 471 A.2d 335 (1984), we recognized that “unauthorized acts of use or ownership over the goods” constitute a conversion of that property.

1975The proper rule to apply to the instant case is found in Columbia Hills Corp. v. Mercantile Safe Deposit and Trust Co., 231 Md. 379 , 190 A. 2d 635 (1963): “Under these circumstances, the important question in the instant case is whether the easement was apparent to appellant, which is purely one of fact.

1975The proper rule to apply to the instant case is found in Columbia Hills Corp. v. Mercantile Safe Deposit and Trust Co., 231 Md. 379 , 190 A. 2d 635 (1963): “Under these circumstances, the important question in the instant case is whether the easement was apparent to appellant, which is purely one of fact.

1975In Illinois Steel Co. v. Budzisz, 115 Wis. 68 , 90 N. W. 1019 (1902), the continuity of adverse possession was held to have been interrupted as a matter of law.

1975In Illinois Steel Co. v. Budzisz, 115 Wis. 68 , 90 N. W. 1019 (1902), the continuity of adverse possession was held to have been interrupted as a matter of law.

1969In McLaughlin v. Barnum, 31 Md. 425 (1869), Judge Miller, for the Court reviewed the prior Maryland cases and authorities generally and announced the applicable law as follows: “All that is required to entitle a defendant to claim this equity is that he be a bona fide occupant or possessor, and not a mere tort feasor or mala fide intruder, holding with full knowledge of his own position and of the adverse claim.

1969The Supreme Court, in Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheat. 79 , have defined a bona fide possessor, according to the doctrine of the civil law, to be one ‘who not only supposes himself to be the true proprietor of the land, but who is ignorant that his title is contested by some other person claiming a better right to it.’ ” (Emphasis in the original, 31 Md. at 453-54 ).

1924Co. v. Phillips, 108 Md. 285, 295 ; Thomson v. Gortner, 73 Md. 474, 478 . *328 At the time of the delivery of the deed to the News Publishing Company, the Maryland Wrecking and Equipment Company was in possession of the premises.; and, consequently, the grantee took with notice of the rights of the Maryland Wrecking and Equipment Company under its contract.

1924Co. v. Phillips, 108 Md. 285, 295 ; Thomson v. Gortner, 73 Md. 474, 478 . *328 At the time of the delivery of the deed to the News Publishing Company, the Maryland Wrecking and Equipment Company was in possession of the premises.; and, consequently, the grantee took with notice of the rights of the Maryland Wrecking and Equipment Company under its contract.

1914As was said by Judge Alvey in Wilhelm v. Caylor, 32 Md. 151 , that Courts of Equity in such cases, act upon its own inherent doctrine of discouraging for the peace of society, stale demands, by refusing to interfere in favor of a party guilty of laches or unreasonable acquiescence in the assertion of. an adverse claim. • There are numerous other authorities to the same effect with' those cited, and they are amply sufficient to dispose of this case, upon this ground alone.

1907In McLaughlin v. Barnum, 31 Md. 454 , Judge Miller delivering the opinion of the Court, uses this language: “All that is required to entitle a defendant to claim this equity is that he be a bona fide occupant or possessor, and not a mere tort feasor or mala fide intruder, holding with full knowledge of his own position and of the adverse claim.” The Supreme Court, in Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheat. 79, have defined a bona fide possessor, according to the doctrine of the civil law, to be one ’ “who not only supposes himself to be the true proprietor of the land, but who is ignorant that his title is

1907In McLaughlin v. Barnum, 31 Md. 454 , Judge Miller delivering the opinion of the Court, uses this language: “All that is required to entitle a defendant to claim this equity is that he be a bona fide occupant or possessor, and not a mere tort feasor or mala fide intruder, holding with full knowledge of his own position and of the adverse claim.” The Supreme Court, in Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheat. 79, have defined a bona fide possessor, according to the doctrine of the civil law, to be one ’ “who not only supposes himself to be the true proprietor of the land, but who is ignorant that his title is