Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Urbanization & Agriculture

Court Bans Retroactive Application of Amendment
to Agricultural Easement Statute

Walt McCarter
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Claggett v. Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation, 957 A.2d 1083 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2008), the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland held that an amendment to the state's agricultural easement statute would effectively deprive a landowner of his substantive rights rather than enlarge them, and thus only allowed a prospective application of the amended statute.

Background

Appellant conveyed an agricultural easement to the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation, a division of the Department of Agriculture, but retained the right to apply to the Foundation for release from the easement restrictions on up to two acres "for the purpose of constructing a dwelling house." Id. at 1086. The appellant had received a preliminary release in 2002 for that purpose, but in 2004 lawmakers amended the applicable statute to require that a release or preliminary release include a statement that the owner's lot may not be transferred for 5 years from the date of the final release. Id. at 1090-92. In 2005, the Foundation offered the appellant a proposed "final release," which incorporated the provision required by the amended statute, but he refused to sign and proceeded with construction of a residence on the lot. Id. at 1092-93. He filed a declaratory action against the Foundation, claiming that he was not bound by the five-year restriction, but the case was dismissed by the circuit court, and he appealed. Id. at 1093.

Arguments

Appellant argued that he was not bound by the five-year restriction on his right to alienate the lot because retroactive application of the amendment infringed on his contractual and substantive rights. Id. at 1098.

The Foundation argued that prior to the 2004 amendment, any transfer of an owner's lot at any time was subject to its approval, so the amendment actually relaxed of the restriction by allowing the owner to sell the lot without the Foundation's approval after five years, and thus retroactive application was appropriate because the amendment had enlarged the appellant's substantive rights. Id.

Analysis and Holdings

The court found that prior to the 2004 amendment, Agric. § 2-513 had allowed a landowner who obtained the release of an owner's lot and constructed a dwelling to sell the lot and house free of easement restrictions. Id. at 1103-08. In support of its interpretation, the court also noted that neither the preliminary release nor the deed of easement explicitly included any restriction on the alienability of the lot. Id. at 1109. Therefore, the court held that because the appellant had executed his deed of easement and received his preliminary release before the amendment was enacted, he did not need the Foundation's approval to transfer his lot to a third party. Id. at 1110.

The case was decided on October 6, 2008.