LET US BEGIN THIS HEARING IN THE MATTER OF WARRANT NO. 96, PATRICIA M. GEYER

AND RICHARD E. GEYER, APPLICANTS.
 
 

FIRST, I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE THE MEMBERS OF THIS COURT OF RECORD.   MY

NAME IS EDWARD C. PAPENFUSE AND I AM THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND PATENTS OF

THE STATE OF MARYLAND.   TO MY LEFT/RIGHT IS RICHARD H. RICHARDSON, DEPUTY

COMMISSIONER OF LAND PATENTS.   TO MY LEFT/RIGHT IS RICHARD E. ISRAEL,

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL.   HE IS HERE TO ADVISE ME REGARDING THE

PROPER PROCEDURES AT THIS HEARING, WHICH IS HELD UNDER THE PROVISIONS

OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT.   MY QUESTIONS TO HIM AND HIS

ANSWERS THERETO NEED NOT BE A PART OF THE RECORD.
 
 

PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE BEING RECORDED BY A

PROFESSIONAL COURT REPORTER AND WILL BE TRANSCRIBED IF NECCESARY.

THE COURT REPORTER IS                                                  OF HUNTING REPORTING.
 

AT THIS TIME I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH COMAR

14.18.01,  A COPY OF WHICH WAS MAILED TO ALL PARTIES TO THIS HEARING, I MAY

CHARGE ANY PARTY TO THE HEARING WITH ANY PORTION OF THE COSTS OF THE

HEARING.
 

THE LAND PATENT PROCESS IS GOVERNED BY THE PROVISONS OF TITLE 13,

REAL PROPERTY ARTICLE, ANNOTATED CODE OF MARYLAND (1996 REPL. VOL,

2001 SUPP.) AND COMAR 14.18.01, WHICH ARE REGULATIONS ADOPTED TO

CLARIFY CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF TITLE 13.    PURSUANT THERETO, THIS HEARING IS

HELD TO DETERMINE WHETHER A LAND PATENT SHOULD BE ISSUED TO PATRICIA M.

GEYER AND RICHARD E. GEYER, WHO ON MARCH 9, 2001, MADE APPLICATION FOR A

WARRANT TO SURVEY A PARCEL OF ALLEGEDLY VACANT LAND IN THE 9TH AND 14TH

ELECTION DISTRICTS OF CARROLL COUNTY.
 
 

A WARRANT TO SURVEY WAS ISSUED TO VAN MAR ASSOCIATES, PROFESSIONAL LAND

SURVEYORS, AND NOTICE TO ALL ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS AND OTHERS

ENTILED TO NOTICE WAS GIVEN AND ALL NECESSARY PUBLICATIONS OF NOTICE

WERE MADE.   THE CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY, DESCRIPTION, AND PLAT OF THE

SUBJECT LAND WERE ACCEPTED FOR FILING ON NOVEMBER 9, 2001.    THE

APPLICATION, WARRANT TO SURVEY, CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY, DESCRIPTION, AND

PLAT, NOTICE OF RETURN OF THE CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY, HEARING NOTICE AND

ALL THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ARE HEREBY MADE PART OF THE RECORD.
 
 

A WRITTEN OBJECTION TO THE GRANTING OF A PATENT WAS FILED BY

AUBREY CARLYLE, DOYET W. CARLYLE, AND LUCY A. CARLYLE.   THEY ARE

REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY, LEE KLAVANS, ESQ.   THE WRITTEN OBJECTION

AND ANY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ARE HEREBY MADE PART OF THE RECORD.
 

NOW, WILL ALL WHO PROPOSE TO TESTIFY BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER IN THIS

MATTER PLEASE STAND, IDENTIFY YOURSELVES ONE AT A TIME FOR THE RECORD,

AND BE SWORN.   THE RECORDING SECRETARY WILL SWEAR YOU.  HE/SHE IS A

NOTARY AND WILL ADMINISTER THE OATH.   THE OATH IS AS FOLLOWS.   LET ME

READ IT TO YOU AND THEN HE/SHE WILL ADMINISTER IT.   I ________________________

DO SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY THAT I AM ABOUT TO GIVE BEFORE

THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND PATENTS  SHALL  BE THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING

BUT THE TRUTH.
 

(WITNESSES ARE SWORN IN)
 

DOES THE RECORDING SECRETARY HAVE YOUR NAMES SO THAT SHE CAN IDENTIFY

THE WITNESSES IN THIS MATTER?
 

AS YOU SPEAK, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF YOU WOULD INITIALLY IDENTIFY

YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD.
 

A HEARING BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND PATENTS IS INFORMAL AND I

STRESS THE INFORMAL, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE

PROCEDURE ACT.   ITS PURPOSE IS TO DETERMINE TO THE SATISFACTION OF

THE COMMISSIONER WHETHER OR NOT THE APPLICANTS HAVE CLEARLY

ESTABLISHED THAT THE SUBJECT LAND FOR WHICH A PATENT IS REQUESTED IS

TRULY PATENTABLE AS DEFINED BY LAW.
 

TO THIS END, THE COMMISSIONER BEGINS EACH HEARING WITH A SERIES OF

QUESTIONS THAT HE HOPES WILL BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANTS AND THE

OBJECTORS IN THE COURSE OF THE HEARING, OR IF NEED BE, IN WRITING LATER.
 

THE COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS MAILED TO ALL PARTIES IN ADVANCE OF

THIS HEARING ARE MEANT TO PROVIDE A FOCUS FOR THE HEARING AND TO BE

CERTAIN THAT NO AREA OF CONCERN TO THE COMMISSIONER IN MAKING HIS

DETERMINATION IS OVERLOOKED.     THE APPLICANTS AND THE OBJECTORS

SHOULD FEEL FREE TO ADDRESS ANY ISSUES NOT COVERED BY THE

COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS, AT ANY TIME THE COMMISSIONER, WITH THE

ADVICE OF COUNSEL, DEEMS APPROPRIATE.
 
 

HOWEVER, BEFORE WE BEGIN A REVIEW OF THE QUESTIONS

I WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER A PRE-HEARING FILING OF THE

APPLICANTS TO DENY TWO OF THE FOUR OBJECTIONS FILED

BY THE  OBJECTORS:   1.  THE OBJECTORS ADVERSE

POSSESSION CLAIM AND  2. THE OBJECTORS CLAIM THAT

THE SURVEY PLAT IS INACCURATE.
 

(DISCUSSION)
 
 

IN THE MATTER OF WARRANT NO. 96, THE COMMISSIONER HAS SEVERAL QUESTIONS

WHICH IN THE COURSE OF THE HEARING  HE HOPES THAT THE APPLICANTS AND THE

OBJECTORS WILL ADDRESS.   LET ME GO THROUGH THE QUESTIONS FIRST AND THEN

LET US COME BACK AND LET THE APPLICANTS INITIALLY ADDRESS THOSE

QUESTIONS IN ANY WAY THAT THE APPLICANTS SEE FIT, FOLLOWED BY THE

OBJECTORS HAVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THEIR CONCERNS IN ANY WAY

THEY SEE FIT.    BUT WE ARE ALSO GOING TO MAINTAIN, I HOPE, A CERTAIN

AMOUNT OF INFORMAL GIVE AND TAKE AS WE TRY TO DISCUSS MATTERS AND WORK

OUR WAY THROUGH THE QUESTIONS.
 

THE FIRST QUESTION IS ONE WHICH DOES NEED A  FAIRLY IMMEDIATE ANSWER, AND

THAT IS THAT LAND BECOMES ELIGIBLE FOR A PATENT IN ONE OF TWO WAYS:

EITHER BECAUSE NO PATENT HAS EVER BEEN ISSUED WHICH ENCOMPASSES THE

ALLEGED VACANT LAND, OR BECAUSE YOU HOLD FEE SIMPLE TITLE TO THE LAND

AND UNDER TITLE 13, REAL PROPERTY ARTICLE DESIRE A PATENT FOR WHATEVER

REASON.  UNDER WHICH PROVISION ARE THE APPLICANTS APPLYING FOR A PATENT?
 
 

(APPLICANTS ANSWER)
 
 

THE SECOND QUESTION IS ONE OF PROVIDING US WITH A FRAME OF REFERENCE THAT

WE CAN ALL AGREE UPON.   ARE THE APPLICANTS AND THE OBJECTORS WILLING TO

ACCEPT AS A BASE MAP, FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES WITH RESPECT TO WHERE

BOUNDARIES LIE, EITHER AN ORTHOPHOTO QUAD MAP OF THE WINFIELD AREA OF

CARROLL COUNTY PREPARED BY THE CARROLL COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT IN

APRIL, 2001 FROM ORTHOPHOTOGRAPHY DATED MARCH 31, 2000 WITH A SCALE OF 1"

EQUALS 600'   OR   AN USGS TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP OF THE WINFIELD QUADRANGLE

NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1927 AND 1983 WITH A SCALE OF 1" EQUALS 2000'?
 

(RESPONSES)
 
 

IF SO, AND WE ARE ALL IN AGREEMENT, IT IS OVER ON THE SIDE TABLE AND WE

WOULD LIKE TO MARK IT AS COMMISSIONER'S EXHIBIT NO. 1.   DOES ANYONE HAVE

ANY OBJECTIONS TO THIS MAP BEING USED AS A FRAME OF REFERENCE FOR

DISCUSSION PURPOSES?
 

(ANSWERS)
 
 

THE THIRD QUESTION IS TO HAVE THE APPLICANTS AND/OR OBJECTORS LOCATE

LINES 38, 39, 40, 41, AND 42 OF A TRACT OF LAND CALLED "MANSELL'S

PURCHASE," SURVEYED IN 1771 AND LINES 3, 4, AND 5 A TRACT OF LAND CALLED "RED

OAK RIDGE," SURVEYED IN 1795 AS THOSE LINES EXIST TODAY AND ON THE BASE

MAP.   IS LINE 40 OF "MANSELL'S PURCHASE" CO-TERMINOUS WITH LINE 4 OF

'RED OAK RIDGE?"  ARE THERE EXISTING MONUMENTS ON THE GROUND

REPRESENTING THE BEGINNING AND END MARKERS OF SURVEY LINES?   IF SO, WHAT

SURVEY LINES ARE THESE AND TO WHAT PATENTS DO THEY RELATE?
 

THE FOURTH QUESTION IS TO HAVE THE APPLICANTS AND/OR OBJECTORS LOCATE

LINES 15, 16 17, 18, AND 19 OF A TRACT OF LAND CALLED "YORK COUNTY," SURVEYED

IN 1794.    IS LINE 16 OF "YORK COUNTY" CO-TERMINOUS WITH LINE 40 OF "MANSELL'S

PURCHASE?"
 

THE FIFTH QUESTION IS TO HAVE THE APPLICANTS AND/OR OBJECTORS TO LOCATE

LINES 12, 13, AND 14 OF A TRACT OF LAND CALLED "BATCHELOR'S REFUGE,"

SURVEYED IN 1761.
 

THE SIXTH QUESTION IS TO HAVE THE APPLICANTS AND/OR OBJECTORS TO LOCATE

LINES 87, 88, 89, AND 90 OF A TRACT OF LAND CALLED "EPPINGTON FOREST,"

SURVEYED IN 1764.
 

THE SEVENTH QUESTION IS TO HAVE THE APPLICANTS AND/OR OBJECTORS TO

LOCATE LINES 1, 2, AND 3 OF A TRACT OF LAND CALLED "NORTH

WEST POINT OF BATCHELOR'S REFUGE, " SURVEYED IN 1771.

WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE, IF ANY, OF A BALTIMORE COUNTY COURT 1820 LAND

COMMISSION, WHICH IN PART READS "…THE NORTH WEST POINT OF BATCHELOR'S

REFUGE CLEAR OF ELDER SURVEYS CONTAINING…12 [ACRES], 2 [RODS],

O [PERCHES]?"
 

THE APPLICANTS WILL BE ASKED TO DESCRIBE IN DETAIL THE RESEARCH DONE TO

ESTABLISH THEIR CONTENTION THAT THE SUBJECT LAND IN THIS APPLICATION

MEETS THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF VACANT LAND, VIZ., LAND FOR WHICH

PATENT HAS NEVER BEEN ISSUED.
 
 

THE OBJECTORS WILL BE ASKED TO DESCRIBE IN DETAIL THE REASONS FOR THEIR

OBJECTION TO THE GRANT OF PATENT TO THE APPLICANTS.
 
 
 
 

CLOSING REMARKS
 

AS IS SET FORTH IN SECTION 13-313(c)(2),  REAL  PROPERTY ARTICLE, IF THERE ARE

ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE VALUATION OF THE ALLEGED VACANCY,  THE

APPLICANTS MAY PRESENT EVIDENCE NOW OR WITHIN 15 DAYS THAT THE ASSESSED

VALUE OF THE ALLEGEDLY VACANT LAND IS LESS THEN THAT ESTABLISHED UNDER

SECTIONS 13-313(a), 13-313(b), AND 13-313(c)(1).   THE APPLICANTS WHERE SENT COPIES

OF THE CARROLL COUNTY SUPERVISOR OF ASSESSMENTS  ACTUAL FAIR MARKET

VALUATION OF THE LAND.   THE PURCHASE PRICE OF THE LAND SHALL BE THE FAIR

MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSIONER UNDER SECTION

13-313 LESS ALL EXPENSES OF THE SURVEYOR, REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEES, AND

COSTS CHARGED BY THE COMMISSIONER.   WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE HEARING, THE

APPLICANTS MUST SUBMIT AN ACCOUNT OF THE EXPENSES DEDUCTIBLE BY LAW.

PUBLICATION COSTS ARE NOT DEDUCTIBLE UNDER CURRENT LEGISLATION.
 
 

(APPLICANTS RESPOND)
 
 

AT THIS POINT, WE WILL CONSIDER THESE PROCEDINGS FORMALLY CLOSED.   I

SHALL RENDER MY DETERMINATION WITHIN 30 DAYS AS REQUIRED BY LAW.
 
 

HOWEVER, IF EITHER THE APPLICANTS OR THE OBJECTORS WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT

ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, THEY WILL HAVE 10 DAYS AFTER THE HEARING, ON OR

BEFORE  MAY 6, 2002  IN WHICH TO DO SO.   THE PARTIES WILL HAVE 10 DAYS AFTER

THAT,  ON OR BEFORE MAY 16, 2002  TO REPOND TO ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

SUBMITTED.     IF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS SUBMITTED,  I SHALL RENDER MY

DETERMINATION WITHIN 30 DAYS OF MAY 16, 2002.
 
 

I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU ALL FOR COMING HERE TODAY AND WE WILL RENDER

OUR DETERMINATION IN ACCORD WITH THE TIME TABLE THAT I SET FORTH EARLIER.