SHERRY BELLAMY, et al. * IN THE Plaintiffs * CIRCUIT COURT v. * FOR PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION * ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY OF ARUNDEL ON THE BAY, INC., et al. * Case No.: C-06-115184 IJ Defendants ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES Michael Merrigan, Defendant, by his attorneys, Council, Baradel, Kosmerl & Nolan, P.A., Wayne T. Kosmerl and Susan T. Ford, for answers to the Interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiff, Sherry Bellamy, states as follows: (a) The information supplied in these answers is not based solely upon the knowledge of the executing party, but includes the knowledge of that party's agents, representatives and attorneys, unless privileged. (b) The word usage and sentence structure is that of the attorney who in fact prepared these answers, and does not purport to be the exact language of the executing party. (c) A refusal to answer any of the interrogatories propounded in this matter reflects the legal conclusion of counsel, and is not to be construed as a refusal by the answering party to answer such interrogatories. GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. Defendant objects to each Interrogatory to the extent it is vague, ambiguous or overly broad. 2. Defendant objects to each Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information that is protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, the selfevaluation privilege, the applicable rules, regulations and statutes of the State of Maryland and/or the United States, or that is otherwise immune from discovery. Inadvertent disclosure of any such information shall not constitute a waiver of any applicable privilege or immunity. 3. Defendant objects to each Interrogatory to the extent that it sets forth unsupported legal conclusions or assumes facts not in evidence. 4. Defendant generally objects to Plaintif sinterrogatories to the extent that the information sought is already in the possession, custody, or control of the Plaintiff.
5. Defendant generally objects to Plaintif sinterrogatories to the extent that it seeks information that is a matter of public record, cumulative or duplicative, or is equally obtainable from third parties or from some other source more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive. 6. Defendant generally objects to Plaintif sinterrogatories to the extent that they seek information not relevant to the subject matter of this action, nor are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 7. Defendant generally objects to Plaintif sinterrogatories to the extent that they seek information that is confidential in nature or contain sensitive financial, commercial, proprietary, consumer, trade, or personal information. 8. Defendant generally objects to Plaintif s Interrogatories to the extent that they, in the context of this particular case, purport to impose obligations beyond those contained in the Maryland Rules of Civil Procedure. 9. Defendant generally objects to Plaintif s Interrogatories to the extent that they seek full disclosure of Defendant sbases for specific defenses prior to the completion of its investigation and discovery. 10. Any statement by Defendant that he will produce information shall not be construed as a representation that there is information responsive to a particular Interrogatory, but rather, that Defendant will produce responsive information to the extent that it exists. 11. Defendant makes no admission of any nature, and no admission may be implied by or inferred from these objections and answers. 12. Defendant states that his investigation and the discovery process in this case are ongoing and that additional material information responsive to Plaintif sinterrogatories will be provided to the Plaintiff promptly if it becomes available. Interrogatory No. 1: Identify each person, other than a person intended to be called as an expert witness at trial, having discoverable information that relates to any position that you have taken or intend to take in this action, including any claim for damages, and state the subject matter of the information possessed by that person. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. Without waiving this objection, Defendant states all current and former Association officers and board members 2
potentialy have discoverable information regarding the Asociation s historic and/or curent use and maintenance of the platted streets in Arundel on the Bay. All current and former residents of Arundel on the Bay who participated in any Association, Board and/or general meetings including those involving budgeting, road repair and/or use of the platted streets, and/or who have used any of the platted streets, have personal knowledge regarding the Asociation s policies and practices regarding use, maintenance and control of the streets in Arundel on the Bay. In addition, the witnesses and parties in the Durant and McManus litigation would also possess such information. Current and former County officials involved in administering the A sociation s Erosion Control District and Special Community Benefit Taxing District including Carolyn Kirby, Billie Penley and Jessica Leyes have knowledge regarding the Asociation s control and maintenance of community roads and amenities. Current and/or historical Anne Arundel County officials would have knowledge regarding the installation and/or maintenance of sewer lines in platted streets in Arundel on the Bay. Current and/or former County officials have knowledge regarding the Town and A sociation s conveyance of certain streets and/or easement rights to Anne Arundel County as described in deeds recorded in the land records of Anne Arundel County. Current and former State officialshave knowledge of the Asociation s erosion control projects and permiting and construction of the A sociation s community pier and boat launch ramp. Dr. Lofton, Barbara Nash, Ed Lee Johnson, Maudella Brown, and Dr. Ivy have knowledge regarding the Association s policies and practices regarding the use and control of community owned streets. In addition, Deborah Zeman, Richard and DiAnne Abrams, Milton and Anne Harrod, Oscar and Juanita Boyd, Tim and Cathy Hamilton, Dwight Mackel, Tony Ray, Arend and Lorrain Thomas, Harvey Young, Richard Grigsby, Anthony Suggs, DiAnne Sullivan, 3
Maurice Tose, Aris T. Allen, Jr., Roxanne Veal, Fern Underdue, Isam Samaan, Yvonne Leacock, David Delia, Mark and Maureen Donahue, Marcia Stein, Augie Stasio and Diane Ruegg have knowledge regarding the history of the use, maintenance and repair of community owned roads and the historical use of Chesapeake Avenue a/k/a Chesapeake Walk. All individuals and entities in Plaintifs chain of title also have knowledge regarding their titles and/or use of the disputed streets. Stewart Lawn and Landscape, Johnson Lawn & Landscaping, Bay Ridge Lawn & Landscape, Crew Cut Enterprises, Mirales Landscaping, Juan Carlos Equizabal, BruMar Gardens, Lawson Tree Experts, Quality Lawns, Relms, Landcrafters LLC, D& M Landscape, Natures Best Lawn Service, Grow Pro and Mike Graybill each have knowledge regarding landscape services provided regarding the platted streets in Arundel on the Bay. Reliable Contracting, Jeff Graybill, HUCO Builders and Johnson Paving have knowledge regarding road repairs undertaken on platted streets in Arundel on the Bay. Baltimore Gas and Electric and/or Anne Arundel County officials have knowledge regarding the installation of utility lines and/or street lights on platted streets in Arundel on the Bay. In addition, see the documents produced in response to Plaintif s Request for Production of Documents. Interrogatory No. 2: Identify each person who contributed information, documents or property used or provided in your answers to these interrogatories and your responses to Plaintiffs First Request for Production of Documents served simultaneously herewith, specifying as to each such person the information, documents or property used or provided. The Defendants provided the information contained in these responses. Interrogatory No. 3: Describe all communications, whether written or verbal, between yourself and any current or former board member, director and/or officer of defendant Property Owners Association of Arundel on the Bay, Inc. (the Asociation ) regarding the subject mater of the Amended Complaint or the Counterclaim, including in your answer an identification of all documents evidencing, reflecting, setting forth, pertaining to or related to any such communication, and also including. without limitation, an identification or description of: each individual with whom you had each such communication; the substance of each such communication in as verbatim form as possible; the date, time and place of each such 4
communication; any and all witnesses to or persons with personal knowledge of each such communication; and any and all documents which, in whole or part contain, set out, describe, explain or otherwise refer to each such communication. Defendants object to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly burdensome in that they can not recall each and every communication between Board members or directors over the years regarding ownership of the streets in Arundel on the Bay. Defendant further objects to the extent that this Interrogatory can be construed as seeking information which invades the attorney client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. Without waiving this objection, Defendant states that the A sociation spolicies and practices and the communications related theretoregarding the Asociation s ownership, control and use of certain plated streets in Arundel on the Bay are set forth in the documents produced. The fact of the litigation has been communicated to the members of the Association through the newsletter and the Board has been notified about the litigation. The A sociation s insurer also was notified regarding the litigation shortly after the Defendants were served. In addition, see the documents produced in response to Plaintif s Request for Production of Documents. Interrogatory No. 4: Identify all persons you believe have personal knowledge of any matters supporting or relating to your claims and defenses against Plaintiff, stating specifically the paragraph(s) of your pleadings or portions thereof for which each person has knowledge as well as what personal knowledge each such individual possesses, and identify all documents that contain, evidence, describe, refer to or relate to the facts that you contend are within the person s personal knowledge. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it can be construed as invading the attorney client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. Without waiving this objection, Defendant states, see response to Interrogatory number 1. Interrogatory No. 5: For each and every claim and defense set forth in the Counterclaim and in the Answer to Amended Complaint, please identify each document, reproduction, recordation or anything written or recorded which you contend supports the allegations contained therein, or which relates to or refers to the allegations contained therein and for each such 5
document, recordation or reproduction, please identify the person(s), including yourself, who has custody or control over each such document, recordation or reproduction, in accordance with the foregoing instructions. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it can be construed as invading the attorney client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. Without waiving this objection, Defendant states see the documents produced in response to Plaintif s Request for Production of Documents. Interrogatory No. 6: Identify each and every person and/or entity, including, without limitation, governmental bodies/entities or agencies acting under the authority of or on behalf of governmental bodies/entities, to whom you have asserted or otherwise communicated, whether in written or verbal form and whether in your personal capacity or in your capacity as an officer/board member of the Association, that (1) the Association holds title to or otherwise owns the streets in Arundel on the Bay; and/or (2) the Association and/or other property owners in Arundel on the Bay have the right to use the streets in Arundel on the Bay, particularly the streets at issue in this lawsuit; including in your answer, without limitation, an identification or description of: the substance of each such communication in as verbatim form as possible; the date, time and place of each such communication; any and all witnesses to or persons with personal knowledge of each such communication; and any and all documents which, in whole or part contain, set out, describe, explain or otherwise refer to each such communication. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney client privilege and/or work product doctrine. In addition, Defendant objects because it is not possible to recall every communication regarding title or rights of use of streets and thus this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Without waiving this objection, Defendant states that, in general, the Asociation s position regarding ownership of certain platted streets and the right of use of the streets has been disseminated at community meetings, Board meetings, and to government officials in the context of permitting, road maintenance, drainage, and the like for many years. The officers and Board members have communicated with each other and contractors identified in Response 1 regarding community road 6
maintenance and repair issues. In addition, see the documents produced in response to Plaintif s Request for Production of Documents. Interrogatory No. 7: Identify and describe each and every communication between yourself and any person, except your counsel, including but not limited to all Plaintiffs, that relates or refers to any one or more of the allegations and defenses of the Counterclaim and Answer to Amended Complaint, including in your answer, without limitation, an identification or description of: each individual with whom you had each such communication; the substance of each such communication in as verbatim form as possible; the date, time and place of each such communication; any and all witnesses to or persons with personal knowledge of each such communication; and any and all documents which, in whole or part contain, set out, describe, explain or otherwise refer to each such communication. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it can be construed as invading the attorney client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. Defendant further objects as the current and former officers, directors, employees and representatives can not recall every conversation they have ever had regarding the Asociation s ownership, use and/or control of certain streets in Arundel on the Bay and thus the Interrogatory is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Without waiving this objection, Defendant states see Answer No. 3. Interrogatory No. 8: State all facts, and identify all documents, upon which you support the statement, made in the Asociation s September 25, 2004 general meeting minutes, that the land on the east side between the Bellamy house and the Chesapeake Bay is Chesapeake Walk, including in your answer an identification of all persons whom you believe possess personal knowledge regarding the facts supporting such statement. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it takes facts out of context and/or invades the attorney client privilege and/or work product doctrine and based upon the fact that the document is self-explanatory. Without waiving this objection, Defendant states see Answer No. 1 and the documents produced. In addition, Association record plats and deeds, historic surveys, and County utility plats all identify Chesapeake Ave. a/k/a Chesapeake Walk as being located on the east side of the Bellamy/Bumbray property. 7
Interrogatory No. 9: If you presently believe or allege, or have ever believed or alleged, that a utility pole in Plaintiffs yard is community property, is situated on community property, or otherwise constitutes or sits on property which the Association owns or has an easement right over, set forth all facts, and identify all documents, upon which you support such belief or allegation; and include in your answer, without limitation, an identification or description of each individual to whom you have communicated such belief or allegation; the substance of each such communication in as verbatim form as possible; the date, time and place of each such communication; any and all witnesses to or persons with personal knowledge of each such communication; and any and all documents which, in whole or part contain, set out, describe, explain or otherwise refer to each such communication. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as being confusing because the location of the utility pole in question is not identified and the term Plaintif s yard is not defined. Interrogatory No. 10: If you presently believe or allege, or have ever believed or alleged, that (1) the Association possesses fee simple title to the entire rear yard, side yard or waterfront area of Plaintiffs property; (2) the entire rear yard, side yard or waterfront area of Plaintif s property is Chesapeake Walk; and/or (3) you and/or other property owners within Arundel on the Bay have an easement or other right to enter upon the rear yard, side yard or waterfront area of Plaintiffs property, for any reason, set forth all facts, and identify all documents, upon which you support such contention. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as confusing because Plaintiff does not describe or clarify what is meant by Plaintif s rear yard, side yard, Plaintif s property or waterfront area. Without waiving this objection, Defendant states that al residents of Arundel on the Bay have a right of access and use of the area identified on historic Association record plats as Chesapeake Ave., a/k/a Chesapeake Walk. Defendant does not claim and has never claimed the right of use or ownership to the land described in Plaintif s deed known as Lots D and E in Block 3 of Arundel on the Bay. Interrogatory No. 11: If you contend that you never possessed/made one or more of the beliefs/allegations contained in the previous Interrogatory, set forth all facts, and identify all documents, upon which you support such contention. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as confusing and argumentative in that it seeks Defendant to prove a negative. 8
Interrogatory No. 12: Identify all persons and/or entities to whom you have communicated your belief, allegation, contention, idea, etc., that (1) the Association possesses fee simple title to the rear yard, side yard or waterfront area of Plaintiffs property; (2) the rear yard, side yard or waterfront area of Plaintiffs property is Chesapeake Walk; and/or (3) you and/or other property owners within Arundel on the Bay have an easement or other right to enter upon the rear yard, side yard or waterfront area of Plaintiffs property; including in your answer, without limitation, an identification or description of: the substance of each such communication in as verbatim form as possible; the date, time and place of each such communication; any and all witnesses to or persons with personal knowledge of each such communication; an identification of any and all persons whom you have instructed or advised to enter upon Plaintiffs rear yard, side yard or waterfront area, and any and all documents which, in whole or part contain, set out, describe, explain or otherwise refer to each such communication. See response to Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 10. Interrogatory No. 13: Identify each and every person and/or entity, including, without limitation, private and/or public companies and governmental bodies/entities or agencies acting under the authority of or on behalf of governmental bodies/entities, to whom you have asserted or otherwise communicated, whether in written or verbal form and whether in your personal capacity or in your capacity as an officer/board member of the Association, that (1) Chesapeake Walk borders on Plaintiffs lot/property and is Association or community property; (2) any similar statement; and/or (3) any statement that could be interpreted by the person/entity to whom such statement was directed as meaning that the Association owned Plaintiffs rear yard, side yard, or waterfront area, whether or not such interpretation was intended; including in your answer, without limitation, an identification or description of: the substance of each such communication in as verbatim form as possible; the date, time and place of each such communication; any- and all witnesses to or persons with personal knowledge of each such communication; and any and all documents that were exchanged before, during or following each such communication and/or which, in whole or part contain, set out, describe, explain or otherwise refer to each such communication. See response to Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 10. Interrogatory No. 14: Identify all documents, including drafts of such documents, that set forth, reflect, evidence, describe, pertain to or relate to the community map of Arundel on the Bay, including, without limitation, changes to the same, including in your answer (1) the dates of all such changes; (2) an identification of all persons who participated in any such changes; and (3) a detailed description of the reason for such changes. Defendant has no knowledge of changes to map. Interrogatory No. 15: State all facts, and identify all documents, upon which you support your alegation in paragraph 13 of the Counterclaim that The validity of the 1951 Deed remained unchallenged for over fifty (50) years. 9
The validity of the 1951 deed was not challenged in court until suit was filed in the instant matter, more than 50 years after it was recorded. Interrogatory No. 16: State all facts, and identify all documents, upon which you support your alegation in paragraph 15 of the Counterclaim that The Asociation, at various times based upon the needs of the community, has maintained and improved the portions of the deeded streets at isue, including in your answer a detailed descriptionof all improvements, repairs and/or maintenance you claim that either you or the Asociation has undertaken to the disputed streets at isue, and also including the nature of the improvement, repair and/or maintenance, when it was undertaken, by whom, the cost of such improvement, repair and/or maintenance, and who paid for such improvements, repairs, and/or maintenance. The Association has built, repaired and maintained the bulkheads that protect Chesapeake Ave. as shown on the historical record plats, a/k/a Chesapeake Walk. In addition, the Association has mowed, landscaped, and maintained access for vehicles including for Dr. Lofton. Walnut Ave. has been repaired a number of times throughout the years, including in approximately 2003, when the Association paid for engineering and construction costs to install drainage, stone, swales and landscaping. The individuals and entities listed in Interrogatory Response No. 1 have provided landscaping and/or road maintenance services as needed to the platted streets in Arundel on the Bay. In addition, see responsive documents produced in response to Plaintif s request for production of documents. Interrogatory No. 17: State all facts, and identify all documents, upon which you support the relevance of your allegation in paragraph 16 of the Counterclaim, including in your answer a detailed description of all actions that you contend or otherwise believe you and/or the A sociation can take in connection with maintenance of the aleged non-county owned roads. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks a legal conclusion regarding relevance of the stated facts. Without waiving this objection, Defendant states that the facts set forth in paragraph 16 speak for themselves. The Association has historically undertaken activities such as landscaping, mowing, gravelling, paving, snow removal, erecting 10
signage, fixing holes, erosion control, tree trimming, tree removal, and similar activities on non- County owned roads in the community. In addition, see responsive documents produced in response to Plaintif s request for production of documents. Interrogatory No. 18: Describe in detail al methods of use, including, without limitation, ingress/egress, repair, improvement and/or maintenance, that you contend or otherwise believe you and/or other property owners in Arundel on the Bay are entitled to by virtue of the prescriptive easement alegedly recognized by the Court in Property Owners Association of Arundel on the Bay, Inc. v. Durant, Cir. Ct. Anne Arundel County, Case No. C- 95-24605, and identify all documents supporting such belief or contention and all persons whom you believe possess personal knowledge regarding the same. Defendant states that the Court s opinion in the Durant suit speaks for itself regarding the scope of the prescriptive easement described by Judge Loney. In addition, see the individuals listed in Response No. 1. Interrogatory No. 19: State all facts, and identify all documents, upon which you support your alegation in paragraph 18 of the Counterclaim that The property owners in Arundel on the Bay, including the Association, currently use, and historically have used, the disputed streets for vehicular and/or pedestrian access and/or passive recreational uses such as walking, fishing, watching fireworks, or observing maritime and marine life on or about the Chesapeake Bay, and describe and provide dates for al instances of such use that you poses any knowledge of. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly burdensome in that it is not possible for Defendant to list every use of the disputed streets by every resident in Arundel on the Bay and/or their guests for over 100 years. Without waiving this objection, Defendant states the residents of Arundel on the Bay have used the disputed streets as alleged on a regular basis for many years for walking, bird watching, recreation, enjoying views of the water, fishing and other similar related uses. In addition, the disputed streets have been used for vehicular access. See responsive documents produced in response to Plaintif s Request for Production of Documents. Interrogatory No. 20: State all facts, and identify all documents, upon which you support your allegation in paragraph 32 of the Counterclaim that The Asociation and the individual 11
property owners of Arundel on the Bay have made use of the disputed streets without permission, exclusively, and without interuption for over twenty (20) years, and describe and provide dates for al instances of such use that you poses any knowledge of. See response No. 19. In addition, Defendant states that at no time did he request permission of the Plaintiffs to use the disputed streets, they were used under a claim of right. Interrogatory No. 21: State all facts, and identify all documents, upon which you support your alegation in paragraph 33 of the Counterclaim that Both the Asociation, as a property owner within Arundel on the Bay, and the individual property owners in Arundel on the Bay have an implied and/or prescriptive easement over the disputed streets to reach the community waterfront areas and the waters of the Chesapeake Bay and/or Fishing Creek, including in your answer a description of al rights of use that you contend or otherwise believe yourself and/or other property owners in Arundel on the Bay are entitled to pursuant to such implied and/or prescriptive easement. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it can be construed as invading the attorney client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. Without waiving this objection, Defendant states that Arundel on the Bay is a water-privileged community and as such, property owners have a right of use of the platted streets to get about and to reach waterfront areas for the uses historically made of those areas and any others consistent with Maryland common law. In addition, see paragraph 18 of the Counterclaim and the documents produced in response to Plaintif s request for production of documents. Interrogatory No. 22: State all facts, and identify all documents, upon which you support your alegation in paragraph 34 of the Counterclaim that As the holders of an implied/and or prescriptive easement over the disputed streets, the Association and/or the individual property owners have the right to construct improvements in, on and to the disputed streets to preserve their right of use and enjoyment of the easement, including in your answer a description of all such improvements you contend or otherwise believe yourself and/or other property owners in Arundel on the Bay are entitled to construct pursuant to such implied and/or prescriptive easement. 12
Defendant objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it can be construed as invading the attorney client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. Without waiving this objection, Defendant states that the easement holders have all rights as allowed by Maryland statutory and/or common law to protect their easement rights. In addition, see Answer 17 and the documents produced. Interrogatory No. 23: State all facts, and identify all documents, not already set forth or identified in response to the above Interrogatories which support any claim, defense or allegation of the Counterclaim and Answer to Amended Complaint. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it can be construed as invading the attorney client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. In addition, as discovery is on-going, Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response. Without waiving this objection, Defendant states see the documents produced in response to Plaintif s Request for Production of Documents. 13
I SOLEMNLY AFFIRM under the penalties of perjury that these interrogatory answers are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Date: Michael Merrigan COUNCIL, BARADEL, KOSMERL & NOLAN, P.A. By: Wayne T. Kosmerl Susan T. Ford 125 West Street, 4 th Floor P. O. Box 2289 Annapolis, MD 21404-2289 (410) 268-6600 Attorneys for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the day of March, 2007, a copy of the foregoing Answers to Interrogatories was mailed first class, postage prepaid, to: Ava E. Lias-Booker, Esquire Robert T. Johnson, Esquire McGuireWoods, LLP 7 Saint Paul Street, Suite 1000 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 Eileen E. Powers, Esquire Blumenthal, Delavan & William, P.A. 170 Jennifer Road, Suite 240 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 Susan T. Ford 14