Managing Conservation Easements in Perpetuity - Environmental ...

Maryland Environmental Trust v. Gaynor
This case study can be completed in a training or self-study program. This case study
shows the importance of good recordkeeping practices, including keeping materials that
are clear and unambiguous, to the perpetuity of an easement.
Read the case study and answer the questions below. Guidance on the answers
follows.
In 2000, the Maryland Environmental Trust was sued by a landowner claiming
that MET did not explicitly state that it would accept a conservation easement
from the landowner without a no-subdivision clause. The Gaynors claimed that
MET fraudulently induced them into signing the conservation easement with a
no-subdivision clause by not telling them explicitly that the board would take the
easement without it. In this case, a letter kept in the MET files allowed the land
trust to prevail against the Gaynors’ demand to extinguish the easement.
The Gaynors originally sought out MET to conserve their 25-acre parcel.However,
MET’s project selection criteria usually required a minimum of 50 acres, so the
project did not qualify on its own. The Gaynors then sought the participation of
their neighbors to meet the 50-acre minimum. Each conservation easement was
separately negotiated.
On one of the neighboring easements, MET required a no-subdivision clause,
but on the others the clause was a request, rather than a requirement. The MET
board voted on the package of conservation easement projects with direction to
staff to implement the board’s action. Staff wrote a letter to the Gaynors, which
MET kept in its files, stating that the board “wanted” the no-subdivision restriction
and “felt strongly about it.” The Gaynors assumed this statement meant the
no-subdivision clause was a requirement and they did not inquire further. However,
on one property on which the landowner objected to the clause, MET agreed to
accept a conservation easement without the no-subdivision language.This property
happened to be next door to the Gaynors, and the permitted site for the subdivision
and second house happened to be directly in the Gaynors’ view.
Eleven years after the easements were accepted, MET reviewed and approved the
house site and subdivision on the property adjacent to the Gaynors. The land trust
reviewed the proposal strictly from a natural resource and mission perspective without
anticipating how the subdivision and new house site might affect neighbors.
Recordkeeping 47
C A S E S T U D Y