Elvaton Towne Condominium Regime II, Inc. v. Rose, 162 A.3d 1027

Background

Elvaton Towne Condominium Board adopted a “suspension-of-privileges” rule barring unit owners more than 45 days delinquent on assessments from overnight parking and pool use.
The Roses were notified of the rule after Elvaton recorded a lien and sued in District Court to collect alleged back assessments; Roses filed a parallel action in circuit court seeking declaratory relief (and obtained a stay in District Court).
Circuit court: declined to decide the validity of the alleged debt (left to District Court) but held the suspension rule invalid because the Declaration did not authorize restricting owners’ access to general common elements to collect debts.
Court of Special Appeals affirmed both rulings; both parties appealed to the Maryland Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals held: the Maryland Condominium Act permits restriction of access to general common elements to enforce fees only if the declaration authorizes such restrictions; Elvaton’s rule, enacted by board majority as a rule (not by amendment to the declaration), was invalid.
The Court also upheld the circuit court’s refusal to issue declaratory relief on the debt while the identical issue was pending in District Court absent unusual and compelling circumstances.

Issues

Issue	Roses' Argument	Elvaton's Argument	Held
Whether suspension-of-privileges rule (no parking/pool) is an unlawful taking of owners’ property rights in general common elements	The Rule improperly deprives owners of their percentage interest in common elements and thus effects a taking not authorized by the Declaration or Act	The restriction is temporary (ends on payment) and is a permissible use regulation to enforce assessments	Rule is a taking (or unauthorized interference) because it disparately removes appurtenant rights in general common elements; such restrictions must be authorized by the Declaration under §11-108(a) and §11-107(c) principles
Whether the Declaration/By‑Laws authorized the Board to adopt the suspension rule	Declaration/By‑Laws do not contain an express grant permitting suspension of access to general common elements to collect debts	Board has broad power to adopt rules, regulate parking, and enforce assessments; Rule is within that authority	Declaration lacks an explicit exception authorizing temporary deprivation of access to general common elements for debt collection; a board-adopted rule cannot validly effect that taking
Whether the circuit court abused discretion by refusing declaratory judgment on the debt while District Court case was pending	Circuit court should decide lien/debt and related declarations despite District Court action	Circuit court properly declined because identical issues were already pending in another tribunal	Circuit court’s refusal was within its discretion; declaratory relief is disfavored where identical issues are pending in another tribunal absent unusual and compelling circumstances

Key Cases Cited

Ridgely Condo. Ass’n v. Smyrnioudis, 343 Md. 357 (1996) (distinguishes permissible equal-use regulations from impermissible changes to owners’ percentage interests in common elements)
Reichs Ford Rd. Joint Venture v. State Rds. Comm’n, 388 Md. 500 (2005) (recognizes temporary takings principles relevant to property interference)
Kimball Laundry Co. v. United States, 338 U.S. 1 (1949) (discusses compensation for temporary takings)
Jarvis v. Stage Neck Owners’ Ass’n, 464 A.2d 952 (Me. 1983) (articulates the distinction between exclusive-use takings and reasonable, equal regulations of common areas)
Andrews v. City of Greenbelt, 293 Md. 69 (1982) (describes condominium owners’ hybrid property interest and limits on use restrictions)