A History of the Suit to Save Blandair Farm

To implement Elizabeth Smith's vision, the Blandair Foundation filed suit against the estate and the title to the farm in June, 1998. In August, 1998, Howard County put $10.7 million into an escrow account to purchase the farm for use as an active recreational park. The County was given control of the farm, but the suit would determine the ownership.

The legal problem began when Miss Elizabeth C. Smith died one day before she was to sign documents that would have transferred all the assets over which she had control, including Blandair Farm, to a non-profit foundation she had decided to establish. The purpose of the foundation was to preserve and to protect the 300-acre farm in perpetuity as open space for the benefit of the public.

No other signed will was found, so Elizabeth Smith was declared to have died intestate.

At the time of Miss Smith's death, there existed massive evidence, in the form of private and public records and testimony, of her intentions to preserve the farm and to convey it and her personal fortune to the non-profit foundation. Besides the attorneys responsible for drafting the documents by which the farm would be preserved, three individuals gave her considerable help with her plans for preservation of the farm and for the foundation. The legal problem was that of obtaining the implementation of Miss Smith's plans.

Upon learning of Elizabeth Smith's death, Byron C. Hall, Jr., her friend of nearly 30 years who was named as a trustee to the foundation she was to create, began to investigate ways of saving her dream.

In March and April of 1997, Mr. Hall investigated the possibility of filing the unsigned documents for probate. All the attorneys consulted stated that without her signature, the documents had no legal force, and they knew of no legal remedy in this case. Mr. Hall learned later the assessment made by these distinguished attorneys was incomplete.

On December 2, 1997, the Elizabeth C. Smith Foundation was incorporated for the purpose of acquiring, preserving, and protecting Blandair Farm.

In late December, 1997, Mr. Hall contacted Douglas G. Worrall, a Baltimore attorney recommended by the Land Trust Alliance, to ask advice on behalf of the Foundation. Mr. Worrall took an interest in the problem and the Foundation employed his firm to make a factual and legal investigation, resulting in the filing of a lawsuit, Blandair Foundation, Inc. et al v Jane P. Nes et al, against the title of Blandair Farm and the personal estate of Elizabeth C. Smith on June 29, 1998.

The legal theory behind the suit was that Elizabeth C. Smith made a promise to preserve Blandair Farm by conveying it and her personal estate to a foundation, and that she inadvertently broke that promise by her death. These were issues of contract law. The chief remedy sought in the suit was for the Court to impose a resulting or constructive trust upon the estate and upon Blandair Farm, and to instruct the trustees to convey to the Foundation the assets of the estate and Blandair Farm.

The major legal issue to be met was the statute of frauds. The statute of frauds requires that some transactions be formalized through a signed document. The transfer of real estate was one such transaction of importance, here. The deed to the farm was not transferred to the Foundation through a document signed by Elizabeth Smith.

To meet the statute of frauds in the case of a promise, as in this case, there were two fundamental factual hurdles to be overcome through evidence presented by the Foundation at trial. The first was that of consideration: that someone gave something of value to Miss Smith in exchange for her promise. The second was that of partial performance: that one or more concrete actions were taken by someone for no other reason than to fulfill the promise. The Foundation had evidence, in the form of private and public records and testimony of witnesses, ready to present at trial to address both of these issues.

By winning this suit, the Foundation would succeed in applying existing law in Maryland. It was optimistic about its chances because of the evidence it would have presented at trial.

Before continuing with the chronology of the suit, one more complicating factor must be explained. The assets involved were held in two different legal entities: the personal estate of Elizabeth C. Smith and the life estate of her father, Henry E. Smith. Elizabeth Smith had full power of appointment over the assets of the life estate, and she was to exercise that power in the documents she was to sign. Contained in the life estate were Blandair Farm, a large block of stock, and unclaimed funds from the State of Maryland held in an escrow account. As far as was known, all other assets were contained in the personal estate.

To review, the suit was filed on June 29, 1998 in the Circuit Court for Howard County. The case was assigned to Judge James B. Dudley.

On August 10, 1998, Howard County, which had been after the farm for many years to use it as an active recreational park, closed on Blandair Farm, but it could not take full title until the suit was resolved, and the purchase funds were deposited in an escrow account.

On November 13, 1998, a court hearing was held on the motion to dismiss the suit against the personal estate because it was filed after the deadline set by law.

On December 17, 1998, a court hearing was held on the other motions to dismiss the suit, affecting the title to the farm and other items held in the life estate set up by Henry E. Smith.

On December 22, 1998, Judge Dudley published his rulings. The motion to dismiss the suit against the estate because it was filed after the deadline set by law was granted. The other motions to dismiss the suit were denied. The trial was set to begin on April 13, 1999.

The Clerk of Court's Office mistakenly dropped the trial from the calendar. The trial was rescheduled for July 27, 1999.

On January 6, 1999, the caretaker of the farm gave his deposition, testifying that he was party to many conversations between Miss Smith and her personal attorney in which her estate plans were discussed.

On April 12, 1999, Judge Dudley ruled that Elizabeth Smith had relinquished her attorney-client privilege with her personal attorney, giving the Foundation access to her testimony and Elizabeth Smith's estate planning documents. Based on those documents, the name of the Foundation was changed to the Blandair Foundation. On June 24, 1999, at the request of Howard County, Judge Dudley recused himself. Judge Raymond J. Kane was assigned the case, and trial was rescheduled for December 7, 1999.

On December 7, 1999, Judge Kane asked the attorneys to argue the Motion for Summary Judgement filed on November 12 by attorneys for the heirs. Mr. Worrall had already submitted a summary of the factual evidence the Foundation planned to present at trial, to which he called the Court's attention in his arguments. After hearing the arguments, Judge Kane announced that he needed more time to study the law to be certain his decision was right. Pending Judge Kane's decision on the motion, the trial was rescheduled for November 13, 2000.

On June 23, 2000, Judge Kane issued an opinion in which he granted the defendants' motion for summary judgement. There were errors of law and of fact in this decision on which the Foundation could base an appeal. The Foundation filed a notice of appeal.

Mr. Hall thought it would be helpful if he took a more hands-on approach to the suit, so he decided to represent himself for the appeal. For strictly financial reasons, the Foundation hired Mr. Thomas E. Dernoga to represent it in the appeal. The appeal briefs, which were filed on December 11, 2000, are linked below. The appeal encompassed both the June 23, 2000 decision of Judge Kane and the December 22, 1998 decision of Judge Dudley.

The hearing before the Court of Special Appeals was held on March 5, 2001. The major legal points that need to be decided or clarified by the Court are:

Would the Court permit part performance by the promisor to be the deciding factor in a case? (We had found two cases in Maryland and one in Idaho which state that acts by the promisor may constitute part performance, and we had found a case in New York in which part performance by the promisor was the deciding factor.)
What is the proper methodology to use in evaluating acts of part performance?
What is the distinction between a claim to an estate (as in our case) and a claim against an estate?

On July 31, 2001, the Court of Special Appeals issued its opinion, upholding the decisions of the Circuit Court. In its opinion, the Court did not address the legal points the Foundation and Mr. Hall had raised in the appeal. Therefore, the logic of the opinion was flawed, resulting in invalid conclusions. To justify its conclusions, the Court resorted to the logical fallacies of red herrings and a straw man.

The Board of Directors of the Blandair Foundation voted unanimously to appeal the decision of the Court of Spacial Appeals to the highest court in Maryland, the Court of Appeals. On September 14, 2001, the Foundation and Mr. Hall filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (Appendix A16) with the Court of Appeals. The same day they issued a news release. On October 12, 2001, the Court of Appeals issued an order in which review by certiorari was denied. The lawsuit was at an end. Howard County received clear title to the farm, and the relatives received the money from the sale of the farm and the assets from Miss Smith's estate.

Additional Information

You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view the briefs.

Home About News Archive Shop Join Now!

Please call (888) 845-8974 for more information.
You may also e-mail Byron Hall, Chairman of the Foundation.