66 A.3d 1132
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2013Background
- Reiners own a home in the Avenel community governed by a homeowners association.
- Reiners requested approval to install an asphalt roof; the Association denied it as asphalt roofs are not permitted.
- Reiners filed a declaratory judgment action naming the Association and 16 individual homeowners as defendants.
- Circuit Court dismissed the complaint as to individuals and granted summary judgment for the Association.
- Reiners moved to alter or amend; the court denied; this appeal followed.
- The court held that the Association’s decision was protected by the business judgment rule, and that the 2006 Roof Specifications were adequately adopted and compliant with the Fire Code.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment for the HOA. | Reiners argued the governing relationship is a trust, not subject to the business judgment rule; questioned the 2006 specs. | Association contends the business judgment rule applies and the record supports dismissal/s Summary judgment. | Summary judgment for the HOA was proper. |
| Whether the complaint was properly dismissed as to the individual homeowners. | Individuals were proper parties under the declaratory judgment action. | CJP§5-422 limits actions to the governing body; individuals cannot be sued absent exceptions. | Dismissal of individual homeowners was proper. |
| Whether the denial of the motion to alter or amend judgment was an abuse of discretion. | 2006 Roof Specifications may have been improperly adopted, affecting enforceability. | Record supported presumptive validity of the specifications; new affidavits were insufficient to amend the judgment. | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Black v. Fox Hills North Cmty. Ass’n, 90 Md. App. 75 ( Md. 1992) (business judgment rule; court won’t override ordinary decisions absent fraud or bad faith)
- Broadwater v. State, 303 Md. 461 ( Md. 1985) (declaratory judgment: use of dismiss motion to challenge remedy availability)
- Ashton v. Brown, 339 Md. 70 ( Md. 1995) (written judgment necessary to declare rights in declaratory actions)
- Markey v. Wolf, 92 Md. App. 137 ( Md. 1992) (restrictive covenants; review applicable; reasonableness and good faith required)
- Kirkley v. Seipelt, 212 Md. 127 ( Md. 1957) (reasonableness/good faith standard for developer refusals under covenants)
- Oakhampton Ass’n v. Reeve, 99 Md. App. 428 ( Md. 1994) (scope of property interest in easement; distinguishable from HOA context)