SDC v. London Towne Property Owners Ass’n, No. 94 (Md. Nov. 9, 2006)
The Maryland Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, has ruled that the purchaser of a parcel of land did not violate a restrictive covenant, which required the land to remain undeveloped other than for educational facilities "in conjunction with" the local school board, when it constructed a building on the land to be used by a private college. The court concluded the school board was not required to be involved in the planning, design, or construction of the educational facilities but only in their use. The purchaser entered into an agreement with the college to construct an educational center on the land and lease it to the college. The agreement provided that the land and building "shall be used for higher education and related activities" and that the college’s "use of the Premises is subject to the covenants and special exception conditions to educational uses in conjunction with Anne Arundel County Board of Education." The board entered into an agreement with the college to provide field training for student teachers in exchange for its own use of the facility.
The London Towne Property Owners Association (LTPOA), one of the parties to the covenant, filed suit in state court, alleging that the use violated the covenant because "although the Board of Education may utilize some of the facilities to be erected on the site, the primary use of the Property shall be college educational programs operated by a private entity independent of the Anne Arundel County Board of Education." The trial court ruled there was no violation, because the proposed building constituted an educational facility and was "in conjunction with" the school board. The state’s intermediate appeals court reversed, concluding the school board was required to have been involved in the planning, design, or construction.
The Maryland Court of Appeals, in turn, reversed the intermediate court, finding that the plain language of the covenant did not require this. The agreement between the college and school board fully satisfied the clause providing an exception for use "in conjunction with" the board, the high court found. The court rejected LTPOA’s suggestion that it read the word "developed" into the clause, holding that "it is not the province of this Court to supply a missing word or phrase in a restrictive covenant." LTPOA’s interpretation did not comport with common sense and could lead to unreasonable consequences, the court concluded, such as the school board being in violation of the covenant if it eventually took over sole use of the facilities.
SDC v. London Towne Property Owners Ass’n, No. 94 (Md. Nov. 9, 2006)
[Full opinion]