Summary
The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that an action for trespass to land is a local action that must be brought in the county where the affected land is located. The court rejected aggregation of separate, noncontiguous properties in Baltimore County and Baltimore City for venue purposes and held that related unjust-enrichment and quiet-title claims founded on the alleged trespass were likewise subject to the same venue restriction. The judgment affirming dismissal of the amended complaint was affirmed.
Holdings
- An action for trespass to land is a local action that must be brought in the county where all or any portion of the affected land is located. Separate, noncontiguous parcels owned by different plaintiffs cannot be aggregated into a single subject matter of the action to create venue in a county where one parcel is not located.
- Courts must look beyond labels and conclusory allegations to the substance of the pleading. Claims labeled unjust enrichment and quiet title remain subject to the local-action venue rule when they are founded solely on an alleged trespass and seek the same relief as the trespass count.
- The circuit court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the amended complaint rather than transferring the Chaplinski claims to Baltimore City when the plaintiffs had previously rejected the offered transfer and insisted on maintaining the improper joinder.
Questions Presented
- Whether claims for trespass to separate, noncontiguous parcels of land located in different counties may be joined and litigated in one county when the parcels have no common ownership.
- Whether the unjust enrichment and quiet title counts could be treated as transitory actions and maintained in Baltimore County despite being based entirely on the alleged trespass to Baltimore City property.
- Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by dismissing the amended complaint rather than transferring the Chaplinski claims to Baltimore City.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (5)
- Piven v. Comcast Corp., 168 Md. App. 221, 895 A.2d 1118 (2006)(followed)
- Roessner v. Mitchell, 122 Md. 460, 89 A. 722 (1914)(distinguished)
- Crook v. Pitcher, 61 Md. 510, 513 (1884)(followed)
- Kane v. Schulmeyer, 349 Md. 424, 708 A.2d 1038 (1998)(followed)
- Gunther v. Dranbauer, 86 Md. 1, 6, 38 A. 33 (1897)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…