Managing Conservation Easements in Perpetuity - Environmental ...

C A S E S T U D Y
When the house was built, the Gaynors took MET to court claiming that they were
defrauded and, therefore, the easement affecting their property should be extinguished.
Interestingly, Mr. Gaynor was a trustee of MET at the time of the lawsuit.
Two lower courts found that MET’s failure to expressly state the board’s vote on
the no-subdivision clause had the effect of defrauding the Gaynors; although one
lower court judge dissented, stating that the letter precisely conveyed the board’s
meaning. The Supreme Court of Maryland, however, ruled in MET’s favor, stating
that the facts were legally insufficient to support a finding that MET made
false or misleading representations that constituted fraud or fraudulent inducement.
The court further found that the letter made clear by its plain language that
MET requested the clause, not required it.The court found that MET had no duty
to state explicitly that the board would accept the conservation easement without
the clause.
Questions
1. Why do you think MET keep a copy of the letter it sent to the Gaynors?
2. What lessons can be learned from MET’s experience?
48
Managing Conservation Easements in Perpetuity