Court denies developer use of lot for a road ; Ruling seen recognizing need to protect property FINAL Edition

Namleb sold the existing house on Penelope Court but retained a portion of the land for "pipe-stem" driveways to provide access for six of the lots. The remaining two lots are on Hooper Court, Sturtz said. [Patrick Garrett] and other residents sued Namleb in Circuit Court, stating that the...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inThe Sun (Baltimore, Md. : 1837)
Main Author Liz F. Kay and Jamie Smith Hopkins
Format Newspaper Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Baltimore, Md Tribune Publishing Company, LLC 03.01.2003
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Namleb sold the existing house on Penelope Court but retained a portion of the land for "pipe-stem" driveways to provide access for six of the lots. The remaining two lots are on Hooper Court, Sturtz said. [Patrick Garrett] and other residents sued Namleb in Circuit Court, stating that the road was not for the residential use of the house on Penelope Court but for the commercial development of Beaufort Estates. The court issued a permanent injunction on construction of the driveway in 2001, and Namleb appealed. Namleb also argued that the corporation was entitled to an easement because without the access several lots would be landlocked. The Court of Special Appeals ruled that the Circuit Court could place the permanent injunction because the property was not landlocked originally.
ISSN:1930-8965