Adverse Possession in Maryland

by

An unreported opinion by the Maryland Appellate Court in the case of Carpenter v. Jenkins helps better understand the application of adverse possession law within the state.  We will use this case, which is now two years old, as a lens to understand adverse possession laws in Maryland.

It is tough to prove adverse possession in Maryland.   This case explores the stringent criteria that plaintiffs must satisfy to successfully assert ownership over disputed land through adverse possession. This is a legal principle that allows a person to claim ownership of land under certain conditions over time. The  Maryland appellate court’s examination of the evidence provides good insight into the practical challenges of proving adverse possession.

Ultimately, the court affirmed the trial court’s decision that the Carpenters did not meet the necessary legal thresholds. This opinion shows the need to demonstrate all elements of adverse possession unequivocally. This decision not only clarifies the application of adverse possession laws in Maryland but also serves as a guide for both legal practitioners and property owners about the complexity and difficulty of establishing claims based on these grounds.

Adverse Possession in Maryland

Adverse possession is a legal doctrine that allows a person to claim ownership of land under certain conditions, even if they are not the title owner. In Maryland, like in other jurisdictions, adverse possession is governed by both statutory law and case law, which outline specific requirements that must be met for a claim to be successful. Understanding the nuances of adverse possession law in Maryland is crucial for legal practitioners, property owners, and potential claimants.

Here are the key components to adverse possession law in Maryland:

  1. Statutory Period: Under Maryland law, the claimant must possess the property continuously for a statutory period. The general period required is 20 years (Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-103), but it can be reduced to 10 years if the possession is based on a color of title and the claimant has paid property taxes on the land during that period (Md. Code Ann., Tax-Prop. § 14-108).
  2. Actual Possession: The possession must be actual, meaning the claimant has physically used the land in a manner typical of ownership. This use must be visible and tangible, such as building structures, planting, or fencing (Costello v. Staubitz, 300 Md. 60 (1984)).
  3. Open and Notorious: The claimant’s possession of the property must be so conspicuous that it gives notice to the legal owner that someone is asserting a claim against their property. It cannot be hidden or secretive (Senez v. Collins, 182 Md. App. 300 (2008)).
  4. Exclusive: The possession must be exclusive, indicating that the claimant uses the property without sharing control with others, especially the true owner (Porter v. Schaffer, 126 Md. App. 237 (1999)).
  5. Hostile: The possession must be hostile, meaning it is without the true owner’s permission. This does not imply ill will but rather that the claimant is using the property as if they are the rightful owner, contrary to the actual owner’s rights (Blickenstaff v. Bromley, 243 Md. 164 (1966)).
  6. Continuous: The claimant’s possession must be continuous for the entire statutory period, without significant interruption (Miklasz v. G.W. Stone, Inc., 60 Md. App. 438 (1984)).

Adverse possession requires a claimant to demonstrate a set of stringent elements for a continuous period of 20 years: actual, open and notorious, and exclusive use; continuous and uninterrupted use for the required duration; and use that is hostile, under a claim of title or ownership. Failure to meet any of these criteria results in the claim being dismissed.

Can You Win an Adverse Possession Claim in Maryland?

Winning an adverse possession claim in Maryland is a steep hill. It is not enough to use land for a long time or to believe it is yours. You have to prove that your possession was actual, open and notorious, exclusive, hostile, and continuous for the full statutory period. Think of it like a combination lock. Every number has to line up. Miss one and the whole claim stays shut.  That is why claiming adverse possession is hard.

That is what happened in Carpenter v. Jenkins, which we will talk about in a second. The claimants pointed to improvements and recreational use of the disputed property, but the courts found that the evidence fell short. Just as important, the history of friendly access between the families undermined the hostile element. In other words, if the use looks more like neighborly permission than ownership, Maryland courts are unlikely to find adverse possession.

The hardest adverse possession cases often involve boundary strips, waterfront property, old fences, or long informal use arrangements between neighbors. These are the kinds of disputes where people assume long use equals ownership. Maryland law is much stricter than that.

Winning Adverse Possession in Maryland
Maryland treats adverse possession like a lock with multiple numbers. Every element has to line up. If one is missing, the claim usually fails.
1. Actual
Real physical use
Using the land in a way an owner would, such as building, fencing, planting, or maintaining structures.
2. Open and Notorious
Visible to others
The use cannot be hidden. It has to be obvious enough that the true owner could notice it.
3. Exclusive
Control that looks like ownership
The claimant must act like the land is theirs, not like it is shared casually with the owner or the public.
4. Hostile
Without permission
Hostile does not mean angry. It means the use is inconsistent with the true owner’s rights and not allowed by permission.
5. Continuous
Uninterrupted over time
The possession has to continue for the full statutory period, usually 20 years in Maryland.
How the Claim Works
Actual
+
Open
+
Exclusive
+
Hostile
+
Continuous
=
Possible Claim
Why Carpenter v. Jenkins Matters
The claim failed because the court did not think the Carpenters proved every required piece. Their use of the disputed waterfront area, including the jetty, bulkhead, and recreational activity, did not clearly show the kind of actual, open, notorious, exclusive, and hostile ownership Maryland requires. The friendly history between the families also made the use look permissive rather than adverse.

 

Facts of Carpenter v. Jenkins

The Carpenters alleged they had acquired rights over a 433 square-foot triangular segment of the Jenkins’ property through adverse possession.

The Carpenters presented evidence of their activities on the disputed land, which included the construction and maintenance of a bulkhead and jetty, as well as their recreational activities, such as fishing and playing on the land. They asserted that these actions demonstrated their actual, open, notorious, and exclusive use of the land. Additionally, they claimed that this use was continuous over the years and was carried out without the Jenkins’ permission, thereby satisfying the hostility requirement.

The trial judge dug into this evidence during a bench trial in the Circuit Court for Charles County. The judge found the Carpenters’ evidence was not enough, particularly in proving the land was used in a manner that was actual, open and notorious, and exclusive. Consequently, their complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

The Appeal

The appellate court’s review focused on the trial court’s application of the law to the facts, particularly digging into nuanced evidence pertaining to the actual, open and notorious, and exclusive use of the land by the Carpenters. The court emphasized that activities such as the construction and maintenance of a jetty and recreational use did not convincingly demonstrate the required elements of adverse possession. Specifically, the court noted that the claimants’ actions did not unequivocally indicate an assumed control or use consistent with ownership.

Further complicating the Carpenters’ claim was their inability to establish that the land’s use was hostile. The trial records revealed a history of amicable access agreements between the neighboring families.  They agreed they could enter on each other’s property without permission, which is not exactly adverse. This undermined the assertion of hostility necessary for a successful adverse possession claim in Maryland.

The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision, underscoring the necessity of satisfying all elements of adverse possession unequivocally. This case reaffirms the rigorous standards required to establish adverse possession, emphasizing the importance of visible, clear, and exclusive acts of ownership over disputed land. It also highlights the challenges claimants face when attempting to convert permissive use into a claim of adverse possession, especially in contexts where historical neighborliness muddies the waters of assumed ownership.

Frequently Asked Adverse Possession Questions

Adverse possession in Maryland sounds simple when lawyers-to-be first hear about it in law school.  (There are other more complex property topics we dealt with then.) But at the most basic level, if someone uses land for a long time, maybe it becomes theirs.

Yet that is not how it usually works. Maryland courts make these claims very hard to prove, and the Carpenter v. Jenkins case that is the focus of this post is a good example of why. It is not enough to mow the grass, use the property casually, or assume long use equals ownership. To win an adverse possession claim in Maryland, you have to prove every required element, including actual, open, exclusive, hostile, and continuous possession for the full statutory period. That is why most adverse possession cases turn on the small details.

Q: How long do you need for adverse possession in Maryland?
A long time. In Maryland, the general rule is that you need 20 years of possession to make an adverse possession claim. As we talked about above, Maryland courts take this doctrine seriously and make people prove every element, not just long use. There is a narrow situation in which the period can drop to 10 years if the claimant has color of title and has paid property taxes, but for most people, the real number to remember is 20 years.
Q: Does paying property taxes matter in Maryland adverse possession cases?
Yes, but not in the way you might think. Paying property taxes by itself does not win an adverse possession case. It can matter because, as noted above, Maryland law may reduce the required period to 10 years when someone has color of title and has paid taxes on the land. But even then, you still have to prove the rest of the case. You still need actual, open, notorious, exclusive, hostile, and continuous possession. So paying taxes helps in some cases, but it is not a shortcut.
Q: Can you get adverse possession if the owner gave permission?
Usually no. That is one of the biggest takeaways from what we said above. If the owner gave permission, the use is not hostile, and hostility is one of the required elements in Maryland. In Carpenter v. Jenkins, the history of friendly access between the families was a real problem for the claimants because it made the use look permissive instead of adverse. If it looks like neighborly accommodation, Maryland courts are generally not going to transform that into ownership.
Q: Can mowing grass create adverse possession?
Usually not by itself. Mowing grass may show use, but Maryland courts want something stronger and clearer if someone is trying to take legal ownership of land.  Going back to the combination lock analogy. Every number has to line up. Yet, occasional maintenance like mowing may help support a broader story of possession. But standing alone, it usually looks more like friendly upkeep than a clear claim of ownership.
Q: Does building a fence help prove adverse possession?
It can. A fence is often one of the better facts in an adverse possession case because it can show actual, open, and exclusive control over the land. Courts like visible acts that look an awful lot like ownership. That does not mean a fence automatically wins the case, because Maryland still requires proof of hostility, continuity, and everything else. But if you are asking whether a fence is better evidence than casual use or mowing, the answer is absolutely yes.
Q: Can family members claim adverse possession against each other?
They can try, but those cases are really tough. The problem is the same one we touched on above, with neighbors who have friendly access arrangements. When family members use land informally, courts are probably going to see the use as permissive unless there is strong evidence showing that one relative was openly treating the property as their own against the rights of the title owner. So yes, it is possible, but the family relationship can make hostility much harder to prove.
Q: What does hostile mean in Maryland adverse possession law?
It does not mean angry or aggressive. In Maryland, hostile just means the possession is without the true owner’s permission and is inconsistent with the owner’s rights. That is exactly the point made in the discussion of Blickenstaff v. Bromley one of the older Maryland cases that we talk about below. A claimant does not have to be picking a fight. They just have to be using the land as if they own it, without permission from the actual owner.
Q: What is color of title in Maryland?
Color of title basically means you have some document or written instrument that appears to give you title, even though it turns out not to validly do so. Think of a defective deed, mistaken description, or some other paper that looks like it gives ownership but legally it falls short in some way.  Maryland’s classic color of title case is Goen v. Sansbury, 219 Md. 289 (1959), which explains that color of title can expand possession constructively, but not when the record owner is already in actual possession of part of the disputed tract.”
In Maryland, color of title can matter because, together with the payment of property taxes, it may reduce the adverse possession period from 20 years to 10. But again, just like we said above, it does not erase the need to prove the other elements.

Five Key Maryland Adverse Possession Cases

These are the five key adverse possession cases in Maryland that help us more clearly understand the doctrine’s application and the judicial interpretation of its elements:

1. Costello v. Staubitz, 300 Md. 60 (1984)

This landmark case clarified the requirements for establishing adverse possession in Maryland.  It is the only major holding in an adverse possession case from the Maryland Supreme Court.

This case emphasized that for possession to be deemed adverse, it must be actual, open and notorious, exclusive, continuous, and hostile for a period of 20 years. The significance of this case lies in its detailed discussion on what constitutes “open and notorious” use – also an issue in the case we are talking about – which must be so conspicuous that it gives the legal owner a notice of the adverse claim.

2. Senez v. Collins, 182 Md. App. 300 (2008)

In this case, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals discussed the “open and notorious” element of adverse possession. It held that the claimant’s use of the property must be visible and notorious enough to provide constructive notice to the true owner. This case is often cited for its explanation of how possessory acts must be of such a character as to openly and publicly indicate an assumed control or use consistent with the character of the premises in question.

3. Porter v. Schaffer, 126 Md. App. 237 (1999)

This appellate decision focuses on the exclusivity element of adverse possession. It underscores that the claimant’s possession of the land must be exclusive, meaning possession for the claimant’s own use and benefit, and not shared with the true owner or the public. The court highlighted that exclusive possession means that the claimant must possess the land as if they were the true owner.

4. Blickenstaff v. Bromley, 243 Md. 164 (1966)

Blickenstaff v. Bromley addresses the hostility requirement, clarifying that possession must be without the true owner’s permission. The court explained that “hostile” does not imply ill will but indicates that the claimant is using the property contrary to the true owner’s rights, without any permission. This case is pivotal for understanding that adverse possession does not require animosity but rather a non-permissive use of the property.

5. Miklasz v. G.W. Stone, Inc., 60 Md. App. 438 (1984)

This case is instructive for the continuous possession requirement over the statutory period.

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals held that the claimant’s possession of the land must be continuous, without significant interruption, for the entire statutory period required by law. Miklasz v. G.W. Stone, Inc. emphasizes that breaks or interruptions in possession can jeopardize an adverse possession claim.

These cases collectively form the bedrock of adverse possession jurisprudence in Maryland, each contributing to the nuanced understanding of the doctrine’s requirements. They serve as essential references for legal practitioners navigating adverse possession claims in the state, offering guidance on how to effectively establish each element of the claim.