## Facts

- Richard F. Wicks (and wife) and P. Steele Howard owned adjoining upland parcels on the Sassafras River, a Maryland tidal waterway.
- The shorefront lots were oriented at an angle to the river’s main navigable channel, so a dock built straight outward from the shore would not necessarily reach deep water while staying within the projection of the owner’s frontage.
- About 16 years before Wicks bought his parcel, Howard built a dock extending from his property toward navigable water.
- Because of the shoreline’s geometry, Howard’s dock extended outward from the shore and then turned toward the channel, forming an obtuse angle.
- Howard’s dock was located entirely in the water area directly in front of Howard’s upland property.
- After purchasing the neighboring parcel, Wicks planned a dock in a straight line from his shoreline to the navigable part of the river.
- As proposed, Wicks’s straight-line dock would intersect Howard’s existing dock and would extend into water in front of Howard’s shorefront rather than remaining solely in front of Wicks’s property.
- Wicks sued Howard in circuit court, claiming a riparian right to wharf out to navigable water on the straightest possible line and seeking removal of Howard’s dock or compensation for interference with that claimed right.
- The circuit court ruled for Howard, concluding Wicks’s wharf-out right was limited to construction in front of Wicks’s own property and did not guarantee the straightest route to navigable water.
- Wicks appealed to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

## Issues

1. Whether a Maryland riparian owner has a right to construct a dock on the straightest line to navigable water when that line extends into the water area in front of an adjoining owner’s property.
2. Whether an adjoining owner must remove or pay damages for a dock that lies in front of the adjoining owner’s own property but blocks another owner’s preferred straight-line dock design.

## Decision

- The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed the judgment for Howard.
- The court held that Wicks’s right to build a dock to reach navigable water was limited to construction in front of Wicks’s own upland property, not along a path that would occupy waters in front of Howard’s property.
- The court rejected Wicks’s claim that riparian rights include a guaranteed straight-line route to the channel.
- Because Howard’s dock remained in front of Howard’s property, Wicks had no basis to compel removal or obtain compensation.

## Legal Principles

- In Maryland, the State holds title to navigable tidal waters and the soil below the mean high-water mark unless the State has made a valid grant transferring that title.
- Riparian ownership carries a common-law right of access to and use of the water, but the right to place fixed improvements (such as wharves and piers) into navigable waters exists by statute, not by common law alone.
- The statutory permission to build improvements is limited to the area “in front of” the riparian owner’s land; it does not authorize a structure that extends into waters in front of a neighbor’s frontage.
- A riparian owner’s access right does not guarantee the shortest or straightest line to the navigable channel when that route would intrude into another owner’s frontage.
- A dock located in front of the builder’s own property does not become wrongful merely because it prevents a neighbor from building a preferred straight-line dock that would otherwise cross the builder’s frontage.

## Conclusion

Wicks v. Howard holds that a Maryland riparian owner may build a dock only within the water area in front of the owner’s upland property and has no right to insist on a straight-line route to navigable water when that route would cross into the area in front of a neighbor’s shorefront; therefore, Howard’s dock, built in front of Howard’s property, could not be removed or treated as compensable interference simply because it obstructed Wicks’s desired straight-line design.


Wicks v. Howard, 388 A.2d 1250 (1978)