The Circuit Court for Baltimore County has affirmed a judgment of the District Court on a Complaint For Wrongful Detainer determining that a wife was the owner of the family home and legally entitled to possession of the real property, granting restitution of possession of the property from the husband and mother in law.

Ruling that this more than 600 year old real estate law “trumps” Maryland’s modern domestic relations laws, which would have taken many months to resolve the right of possession to the family home, in Stone v. Stone, the Court heard the statutorily expedited appeal and ruled within 21 days.

Useful in a broad breadth of factual situations, Wrongful Detainer simply “means to hold possession of a property without right of possession.” The rarely utilized cause of action can be used by a purchaser of property at foreclosure to obtain possession should a prior owner remain on the premises. Using the law in a domestic situation is novel in the Maryland courts.

The Facts

In Stone, the parties were husband and wife, having been married in 1998. The wife was the owner of the real property by way of a deed in her name in 1999. In 2005, the wife told her husband to leave the family home, but he refused and invited his mother to move in. The wife and their minor child left the home and the husband remained in possession at the time of the trial.

On January 19, 2005, at a trial on the merits on a Complaint For Wrongful Detainer, the District Court determined the wife to be the owner of the property and, as such, legally entitled to possession of the real property. The Court recorded a judgment for restitution of the possession of the property against the husband and mother in law. The husband noted a de novo appeal that was heard before the Circuit Court on February 10th.

Ownership of Property

It is widely accepted, in its general sense, that the term ‘property’ means something to which a person has legal title, or that which one owns, or in which one has ownership or rights of possession. Title to real property (and improvements thereon) is transferred by a deed, properly executed, delivered and recorded.

An owner is one who has dominion over property which is the subject of ownership, and ‘ownership’ is a collection of the rights to possess, to use, and to enjoy property.

Wrongful Detainer as a Remedy

Maryland Code, Real Property Article, Sec. 8-402.4.(b) makes clear that “[a] person may not hold possession of property unless the person is entitled to possession of the property under the law.” That statutory definition is buttressed by the concluding sentence of the case Moxley v. Acker et ux, “[w]e hold today that the action of forcible detainer requires only that one unlawfully detain the property from the lawful possessor.”

Forcible Detainer at Common Law

Today, a Wrongful Detainer action must be commenced in the District Court, pursuant to Real Property Article, Sec. 8-402.4., but an historical perspective is necessary to appreciate this common law cause of action. The Court of Appeals provided a wonderful historical overview less than a year ago in the criminal case, Laney v. State, when it observed, forcible detainer is a common law cause of action in Maryland that lies when one unlawfully detains property from the lawful possessor (in that case, after a foreclosure).

The Court went on, “[i]n Moxley [citation omitted], we discussed the evolution of the cause of action of forcible detainer, shedding light on the common law origin of the landowner’s “right of self-help” to recover possession of real property:

At common law prior to the enactment of the statute of 5 Richard 2d, Chapter 8 (1381) in the 14th century, whenever a right of entry existed, the party entitled to the right could lawfully enter and gain his possession by force. This right of self-help was curbed by 5 Richard 2d Chapter 8 which limited entries under claim of right.

5 Richard 2d Chapter 8 (1381), as recorded in Alexander’s British Statutes 247 (2d. ed., vol. 1, 1912), states: “And also the King defendeth, That none from henceforth make and Entry into any Lands and Tenements, but in case where entry is given by the Law, and in such case not with the strong hand, nor with multitude of people, but only in peaceable and easy manner. And if any man from henceforth do to the contrary, and thereof be duly convict, he shall be punished by Imprisonment of Body, and thereof ransomed at the King’s will.”

That law was not in England in 1381 and is not today, punitive. It was enacted in order to address problems existing in the decades following the Black Death, during which time public policy allowed forcible entry or detainer of land and tenements made vacant by death (e.g. between 1347 and 1352 one third of Europe’s population died), but was in 1381 determined to be “prejudicial to the public peace.” Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England

In 1882, the Maryland legislature, codified the British common law in force in Maryland on July 4, 1776, adopting a forcible detainer statute and since that enactment such actions have been brought pursuant to the statutory scheme that exists today in Real Property Article, Sec. 8-402.

While the process remains substantially unchanged since 1882, there has been a substantive modification to forcible detainer law. Prior to Moxley, some Maryland courts had held that force or the threat of force was a necessary element of a forcible detainer claim. In Moxley, the Court of Appeals, modified “forcible detainer” by deleting the requirement of force so that one can bring the cause of action to regain possession of property wrongfully detained in any way. The cause of action is now know as “wrongful detainer.”

Today, the District Court has exclusive original jurisdiction in the cause and that Court even prescribes a preprinted form for use in commencing a Wrongful Detainer action. In Stone, the wife claimed One Dollar in damages, possibly successfully deflecting a request by the husband for a jury trial (only available if the amount of damages is $10,000 or more). Maryland’s Wrongful Detainer law, authorizes an expedited hearing and, if requested, a very prompt appeal, and provides for the award of attorneys fees.

Confusion Over Marital Property

In the Stone case, the husband argued that there were several theories of domestic relations law that somehow controlled over the Wrongful Detainer action.

However, a claim that a property is “marital property” and that, as such, domestic relations law controls over real estate law, is simply wrong. That real property is “marital property” as identified in Family Law Article, Sec. 8-205, et seq, does not create any possessory interest in the real property, but rather “marital property” is identified and valued at the time of an absolute divorce, for the purpose of determining if a monetary award should be made to one spouse or the other, as an adjustment of the equities and rights of the parties, based upon statutorily enumerated criteria. By determining real property to be marital property, no right of ownership nor any right of possession is created!

The case Kline v. Kline, explains the concept, “Property normally connotes corporeal, tangible property, subject to dominion – a thing, whether real estate or chattel, that can be owned (and thus bought, sold, given away, or otherwise transferred), possessed, and used. … however, we designate property, as marital or nonmarital, we are using words which have no relationship to traditional concepts of property. Whether property is marital or nonmarital has nothing whatsoever to do with who owns it, possesses it, or uses it.”

Additionally, domestic relations law does not permit a court to transfer ownership of real property from one spouse to the other incident to dissolution of a marriage. Family Law Article, Sec. 8-202(a)(3).

Confusion Over Use and Possession

In proper circumstances, a court has the authority to grant ‘use and possession’ of the family home to one spouse, for the time allowed by law, even if that spouse to whom the right to use that real property is conferred is not the title owner. “Family home means the property in this State that: (i) was used as the principal residence of the parties when they lived together; (ii) is owned or leased by 1 or both of the parties at the time of the proceeding; and (iii) is being used or will be used as a principal residence by 1 or both of the parties and a child.” Family Law Article, Sec. 8-201(c)(1).

But such was not relevant in the Stone case when the minor child resided with the wife. Moreover, while the husband did file a Complaint For Limited Divorce in the Circuit Court after the Wrongful Detainer was commenced, it would take many months for a court determination of the use and possession request in that complaint.

The District Court also discounted the husband’s theory that he was somehow a tenant entitled to ‘notice to quit’ in finding there had been no intent of the parties to create a landlord tenant relationship. And the trial court dismissed the husband’s allegation that he had an ownership interest in the property through a ‘constructive trust’ when the court held there was no evidence of fraud when the wife acquiring the property.

Conclusion

Wrongful Detainer offers an expedited judicial review to remedy a broad breadth of factual situations involving land. The rarely utilized law offers a desirable alternative, in many domestic situations and much more, where a landowner seeks to obtain possession of property.