Breard v. Homeland Ass'n
| Decision Date | 15 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 735,735 |
| Parties | THOMAS G. BREARD, ET UX. v. HOMELAND ASSOCIATION, INC. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Circuit Court for Baltimore City
Case No: 24C19005635
UNREPORTED
Opinion by Wells, J.
*This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.
Appellee, Homeland Association Incorporated ("the Association"), the homeowners' association for the residential development known as "Homeland," recorded a "Statement of Covenant Violations" ("the Statement") within the land records of Baltimore City. The Statement was designed to put future purchasers of the residence owned by appellants, Thomas Breard and his wife, Elizabeth Herbst ("the homeowners"), on notice that the homeowners' property was allegedly in violation of the Association's covenants.
Concerned that the Statement would inhibit the sale of the property, the homeowners sued the Association in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City seeking a declaratory judgment and other relief. Later, the homeowners moved for partial summary judgment. The Association responded and filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. After a hearing, in a written memorandum of factual findings and an order, the court granted summary judgment in the Association's favor. In its ruling, the court concluded that the Association had the authority to record the Statement, that the homeowners' due process rights were not violated in so doing, and that neither laches nor limitations barred the Association from filing the Statement.
On appeal, the homeowners present the following questions for our review, which we have only slightly altered:
In its cross-appeal, the Association poses three questions, two of which essentially reprise the same questions the homeowners asked. The third question, which we rephrase, is: Did the circuit court err in finding that the Association would be time-barred from enforcing the Covenants against the homeowners?1
For the reasons to be discussed, we shall affirm the judgment. We hold that the language of the Deed and Agreement grants the Association the authority to record the Statement. Further, the Association is not required to provide due process to the homeowners because the Association is not a state actor and state action was not involved in the filing of the Statement. Finally, we decline to address the Association's separate question because although the circuit court suggested that the Association would be time-barred from enforcing the Covenants against the homeowners or future purchasers, that issue was not before the court. Therefore, we decline to address it on appeal.
Homeland is a neighborhood located in the north-central section of Baltimore City. It was developed in the 1920s by the Roland Park Company, which also developed the nearby neighborhoods of Guilford and Roland Park. A cursory review of the Homeland Association's website reveals older, tastefully preserved homes of "Norman, Tudor, French country and Early American styling," lining streets named after "good Anglican saints and English hamlets."2
The Homeland Association (hereafter, "the Association") is the homeowner's association tasked with administering and enforcing the restrictive covenants found in the Roland Park Homeland Company Deed and Agreement ("the Covenants"), dated October 10, 1924, and recorded among the land records of Baltimore City. Of significance to this appeal, the Covenants prohibit homeowners within Homeland from making changes to the exterior of the properties without the Association's expressed permission. The Association's enforcement powers are derived from a later Deed and Agreement, dated October 14, 1948, which is also recorded in the City's land records.
In 1984, Thomas Breard and his wife, Elizabeth Herbst, (hereafter, "the homeowners") purchased 5203 Putney Way ("the Property"), located within the confines of Homeland. Two years later, just as the homeowners were beginning exterior work to the Property, the Association sent them a letter dated December 12, 1986. The letter informed them that exterior modifications had to be approved by the Association's Architectural Committee, which, in this case, the homeowners had not done. The letter cites the applicable section of the Covenants, which states that the homeowners may obtain an application from the Association's office to request an architectural modification. The homeowners responded to this letter with one of their own, dated February 17, 1987, in which they stated they will submit drawings for the Architectural Committee's approval.
From 1986 to 2002, the homeowners made several changes to the exterior of the Property, sometimes seeking the Association's approval, sometimes not, but, making alterations to the Property, in any case. For example, in September 1992, the homeowners sought to "apply siding and paint and repair windows and shutters." The Association denied the request, but, according to the Association's documentation, the homeowners applied the siding anyway. This was but one of several allegedly unapproved modifications the homeowners undertook. Although in 1986 the Association expressed its "concern" with the homeowners' unapproved exterior modifications, it took no immediate action against them. Twice during 1997, in March and August, again, the Association requested the homeowners bring the Property into compliance with the Covenants and threatened legal recourse. But neither side took any action.
In 2001, the homeowners requested approval for the construction of three additions to the Property. For thirteen reasons, the Association denied the request via a letter, dated June 4, 2001. In the letter, the Association also reminded the homeowners that their use of siding had never been approved. Despite this, the homeowners allegedly made several changes to the exterior of the Property, such as the use of vinyl siding on a garage and the installation of a fence, which, according to the Association, had not been approved. Letters flowed back and forth between the parties throughout 2002, but the Association took no legal action against the homeowners to bring them into compliance with alleged violations of the Covenants.
In May 2016, the homeowners listed the Property for sale. According to the Association, its agents visually inspected the Property and then sent the homeowners a letter, dated May 18, 2016, listing ten "violations of architectural standards." The "violations" included: the installation of fixed, rather than operable shutters, the use of vinyl siding, the use of railroad ties as a retaining wall, and the installation of aluminum "K" rather than rounded copper gutters. The letter stated that these "unapproved" modifications and others should be remedied before the house was transferred.
Then, on April 2, 2018, the Association recorded among the City's land records a document titled "Statement of Covenant Violations" ("the Statement") which announced that "the Property is currently in violation of the Deed and Agreement," and listed the "violations" found in the May 18, 2016 letter. The Statement urged prospective buyers to contact the Association "to confirm the status of the foregoing violations and their required correction."
As a result of this filing, the homeowners sued the Association. They alleged that the Statement was filed "decades after the alleged violations and without any notice or due process whatsoever." In four separate counts they sought: (1) a declaratory judgment that the Association had no authority to record the Statement, (2) an injunction directing the Association to file another statement to the effect that the Statement was filed in error and that the Property was not in violation of the Covenants, (3) an order quieting title, and (4) damages for "slander of title."
The Association answered, essentially stating that it had a duty to enforce the Covenants and, therefore, the Association was well within its rights to file the Statement. The homeowners, the Association averred, were not denied due process.
Both parties moved for summary judgment: the homeowners as to all but the slander count and the Association on all counts. The circuit court set the matter for a hearing on May 15, 2020. After the hearing, the court rendered a written memorandum opinion, filed August 26, 2020, in which it denied the homeowners' motion but granted summary judgment in the Association's favor.
The circuit court first found that under Maryland Code , Real Property Article ("RP") § 3-102(a), the Statement constituted "any other instrument" affecting real property. Further, the court reasoned that the Statement was "consonant with the basic purpose of recording to give constructive notice, as provided in RP § 3-102(a)(3), and with the more specific requirements of the Homeowners Association Act to ensure that property purchasers are informed of restrictions and claimed violations of those restrictions." The court found that recording the Statement was a remedy available to the Association under the Deed and Agreement.
The court rejected the homeowners' due process argument. The court concluded that the relationship between the Association and the homeowners was entirely a private one. Despite how "tempting" it might be to find that the Association was operating in a quasi-governmental capacity, the Association's authority derived solely from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial