460                                          LAWS OF MARYLAND                          [Ch. 12

OR HIS PREDECESSOR'S ADVERSE POSSESSION FOR THE STATUTORY
PERIOD, WHEN HIS TITLE TO THE PROPERTY IS DENIED OR
DISPUTED, OR WHEN ANY OTHER PERSON CLAIMS, OF RECORD OR
OTHERWISE TO OWN THE PROPERTY, OR ANY PART OF IT, OR TO
HOLD ANY LIEN ENCUMBRANCE ON IT, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR
NOT THE HOSTILE OUTSTANDING CLAIM IS BEING ACTIVELY
ASSERTED, AND IF AN ACTION AT LAW OR PROCEEDING IN EQUITY
IS NOT PENDING TO ENFORCE OR TEST THE VALIDITY OF THE
TITLE, LIEN, ENCUMBRANCE, OR OTHER ADVERSE CLAIM, THE
PERSON MAY MAINTAIN A SUIT IN EQUITY IN THE COUNTY WHERE
THE PROPERTY LIES TO QUIET OR REMOVE ANY CLOUD FROM THE
TITLE, OR DETERMINE ANY ADVERSE CLAIM.

(B) PROCEEDING.

THE PROCEEDING SHALL BE DEEMED IN REM OR QUASI IN
REM SO LONG AS THE ONLY RELIEF SOUGHT IS A DECREE THAT
THE PLAINTIFF HAS ABSOLUTE OWNERSHIP AND THE RIGHT OF
DISPOSITION OF THE PROPERTY, AND AN INJUNCTION AGAINST
THE ASSERTION BY THE PERSON NAMED AS THE PARTY DEFENDANT,
OF HIS CLAIM BY ANY ACTION AT LAW OR OTHERWISE. ANY
PERSON WHO APPEALS OF RECORD, OR CLAIMS TO HAVE A HOSTILE
OUTSTANDING RIGHT, SHALL BE MADE A DEFENDANT IN THE
PROCEEDINGS.

REVISOR'S NOTE: This section presently appears as
Art. 21, §14-108 of the Code. It is divided
into subsections for organizational purposes.
The only other changes are in style.

14-109. EJECTMENT WHEN GRANTOR REMAINS IN POSSESSION
AFTER DELIVERY OF DEED AND IN VIOLATION OF AGREEMENT.

(A) IN GENERAL.

THE DISTRICT COURT HAS JURISDICTION IN ANY CASE IN
WHICH IT APPEARS THAT THE GRANTOR HAS REMAINED IN
POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY, IN VIOLATION OF A WRITTEN
AGREEMENT TO DELIVER POSSESSION AT A TIME STATED IN THE
AGREEMENT, AFTER DELIVERY OF A DEED FOR THE PROPERTY, IF
THE GRANTOR FAILS OR REFUSES TO SURRENDER THE PREMISES IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE AGREEMENT, THE GRANTEE MAY COMPLAIN
IN WRITING TO THE DISTRICT COURT IN THE COUNTY WHERE THE
PREMISES ARE LOCATED. THE COURT IMMEDIATELY SHALL ISSUE
A SUMMONS TO THE GRANTOR COMMANDING HIM TO APPEAR ON THE
DAY NAMED TO SHOW CAUSE WHY POSSESSION OF THE PREMISES IN
DISPUTE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED TO THE GRANTEE.
NOTWITHSTANDING ANY CONTRARY PROVISION OF LAW OR LOCAL
LAW, IF THE COURT FINDS THAT THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE
COMPLAINT ARE TRUE, IT SHALL GIVE JUDGMENT FOR IMMEDIATE
POSSESSION, AND THE COURT SHALL ISSUE ITS WARRANT TO THE
SHERIFF COMMANDING HIM TO DELIVER POSSESSION OF THE
PREMISES TO THE GRANTEE.