255 A.3d 119
Md.2021Background
- Swan Point is a six‑lot residential subdivision; RDC Melanie Drive, LLC owns Lot 6 and an adjacent golf course (the Links). RDC sought to realign Lot 6’s boundary and convert part of it into a commercial driving range.
- RDC obtained zoning variances from the Talbot County Board of Appeals; the Board expressly declined to decide private restrictive covenant issues.
- In response, the other lot owners (Homeowners) recorded an Amended Declaration expressly prohibiting conversion of any Swan Point lot to commercial golf or a driving range.
- The Homeowners sued for a declaratory judgment; the circuit court held the Amended Declaration validly prohibited a driving range and that the Original Declaration permitted boundary realignment under its lot‑line provision; the Zajic Declaration issue was declared moot.
- The Court of Special Appeals affirmed, and the Court of Appeals likewise affirmed on certiorari: (1) preclusion defenses (res judicata/collateral estoppel) did not apply; (2) the Original Declaration unambiguously preserved a residential single‑family character; (3) the Amended Declaration validly clarified and prohibited driving ranges; and (4) the Original Declaration allowed lot‑line adjustments that did not create new lots.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (RDC) | Defendant's Argument (Homeowners) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata or collateral estoppel bars relitigation of whether a driving range is a “noxious or offensive trade or activity” or causes an “annoyance or nuisance” | Board decision on zoning disposed issue; RDC argues preclusion should prevent relitigation | Homeowners: Board explicitly declined to decide covenants; restrictive‑covenant scope was not litigated | Not barred. Res judicata inapplicable (different causes); collateral estoppel inapplicable because the Board did not actually decide covenants. |
| Whether the Original Declaration unambiguously restricts uses to preserve a residential, single‑family community | Original Declaration’s silence about golf/driving ranges means such uses are not prohibited; language is ambiguous and requires objective proof/trial | Original Declaration’s text and enumerated prohibitions reflect an intent to preserve quiet single‑family residential character; broad nuisance/annoyance language supports restriction | Held unambiguous (when read in context): the Declaration’s purpose is to preserve residential character and to restrict activities that would be offensive, noxious, annoying, or a nuisance. |
| Whether the Amended Declaration validly amended/clarified the Original Declaration by prohibiting commercial golf/driving ranges on all lots | Amendment adds a new restriction not present in the Original and thus is invalid (cites Walton) | Amendment is a clarification of an existing, uniform, broad restriction against offensive/noxious/annoying activities and preserves the Original intent | Valid. The majority properly clarified the preexisting uniform restriction; amendment did not improperly single out one lot and is consistent with Original intent. |
| Whether Article III ¶1(k) permits boundary line adjustment (Minor Revision Plat) | Realignment here facilitates golf uses and RDC contends the Original should be read to prohibit changes that enable such non‑residential conversion | Homeowners accept that paragraph (k) permits boundary realignment so long as no new lot is created | Held permitted. Paragraph (k) expressly allows adjustment/realignment of boundary lines provided no additional lot is created; Minor Revision Plat lawful. |
Key Cases Cited
- Belleview Constr. Co. v. Rugby Hall Cmty. Ass'n, 321 Md. 152 (1990) (adopts "reasonable construction" approach to restrictive covenants; courts infer intent from instrument and circumstances)
- City of Bowie v. MIE Props., Inc., 398 Md. 657 (2007) (restrictive‑covenant interpretation guided by overall purpose; may consult surrounding circumstances)
- Cosby v. Dep't of Human Res., 425 Md. 629 (2012) (issue preclusion requires an issue to have been actually litigated and essential to prior judgment)
- MPC, Inc. v. Kenny, 279 Md. 29 (1977) (distinguishes res judicata and collateral estoppel; res judicata bars same cause, collateral estoppel bars relitigation of actually litigated facts)
- Walton v. Jaskiewicz, 317 Md. 264 (1989) (amendment that defeats the original covenant's uniform application may be invalid)
- Dumbarton Imp. Ass'n v. Druid Ridge Cemetery Co., 434 Md. 37 (2013) (restrictive covenant interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo; contract principles apply)