South Kaywood Community Ass'n v. Long
56 A.3d 365
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2012Background
- A restrictive covenant from 1961 governs the South Kaywood subdivision in Salisbury, Maryland, restricting to single family residences.
- The central legal question is whether 'single family' means only households related by blood, marriage, or adoption, or may include unrelated occupants.
- The circuit court granted declaratory relief that 'single family' did not require such relatedness and allowed rental to unrelated occupants, based on the covenant and zoning.
- Weimers (the Longs) owned two homes: one leased to a married couple with two children; the other to three unrelated female college students.
- The Association argued the covenant was unambiguous and prohibited renting to unrelated occupants; the circuit court considered extrinsic evidence and ambiguity.
- On appeal, the Maryland Court of Appeals held the covenant ambiguous, vacated related declarations, and affirmed that Longs could rent to unrelated individuals; other declarations were vacated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the covenant's 'single family' term ambiguous? | Longs: term not limited to related individuals. | Association: term unambiguous; restricts to related individuals. | Ambiguous; construed against Association. |
| Does 'single family' restrict occupancy to relatives by blood, marriage, or adoption? | Longs: covenants do not require familial relation. | Association: covenants restrict to related individuals only. | Ambiguity prevents strict enforcement against unrelated tenants. |
| Did the trial court have authority to declare uses beyond what was pleaded? | Longs sought declaration about unrelated occupancy; trial court correctly addressed it. | Root pleadings did not include those declarations. | Trial court erred in declarations beyond the pleaded scope; some declarations vacated. |
| What interpretive standard applies when a covenant is ambiguous? | Longs rely on broader definitions of 'family' from various jurisdictions. | Association urges narrow, related-by-blood definition. | Reasonably strict construction; ambiguity resolved in favor of unrestricted use if reasonably possible. |
| Should extrinsic evidence be considered to resolve ambiguity? | Extrinsic evidence may illuminate the drafter's intent. | Extrinsic evidence not binding where language is clear; limited in ambiguity. | Extrinsic evidence insufficient to resolve a clear ambiguity; the ambiguity remains. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Bay City Property Owners Ass’n, 393 Md. 620 (Md. 2006) (interpretation of covenants; language controls unless ambiguity exists)
- Belleview v. Rugby Hall, 321 Md. 152 (Md. 1990) (reasonably strict construction; consider surrounding circumstances)
- Lowden v. Bosley, 395 Md. 58 (Md. 2006) (ambiguous covenants; extrinsic evidence limited)
- Armstrong v. Baltimore, 410 Md. 426 (Md. 2009) (single housekeeping unit; context for 'family' definition)
- Hill v. The Community of Damien of Molokai, 121 N.M. 353 (N.M. 1996) (family term not limited to consanguinity; public policy favors broad use)