Garfink v. Cloisters

• Decision Date: 13 April 2006
• Docket Number: No. 79, September Term, 2005.,79, September Term, 2005.
• Citation: 897 A.2d 206,392 Md. 374
• Parties: Danetta GARFINK v. The CLOISTERS AT CHARLES, INC.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Page 206

897 A.2d 206

392 Md. 374

Danetta GARFINK v. The CLOISTERS AT CHARLES, INC.

No. 79, September Term, 2005.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

April 13, 2006.

Reconsideration Denied May 31, 2006.

James E. Carbine (James E. Carbine, P.C., Baltimore, on brief), for petitioner.

John M. Oliveri (Oliveri & Associates, LLC, Annapolis, on brief), for respondent.

Argued before BELL, C.J., WILNER, CATHELL, HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, GREENE and JOHN C. ELDRIDGE (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.

CATHELL, J.

This case arises from a dispute concerning the installation of a dryer exhaust vent by Danetta Garfink ("Petitioner") on the exterior of her condominium unit. Petitioner's condominium unit is located in Baltimore County at the condominium regime known as The Cloister's at Charles Condominium ("Condominium"). The Cloisters at Charles, Inc. ("Respondent" or "Council") is a duly organized corporation, serving as the Condominium's council of owners. Petitioner asserts that the Condominium's Declaration gives her the right via an express grant of easement to install the exterior vent. In opposition to that argument, respondent contends that such installation of an exterior vent is a violation of the Condominium's Bylaws' prohibition against alteration of the exterior facade of the condominium units.

On July 1, 2003, respondent filed a Complaint for Permanent Injunction in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County against petitioner, seeking a court order for removal of the exterior dryer exhaust vent in question. On June 28, 2004, petitioner filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, which was denied. The Circuit Court found in favor of respondent and on August 18, 2004, issued a Memorandum Decision and Order entering a declaratory judgment and a mandatory injunction compelling petitioner to remove the aforementioned exhaust vent. On September 8, 2004, petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Special Appeals. In response, on September 9, 2004, the Circuit Court stayed the injunction pending resolution of the appeal.

The Court of Special Appeals, in an unreported opinion, affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court. Petitioner filed a petition for writ of certiorari, which we granted. Garfink v. The Cloisters, 389 Md. 398, 885 A.2d 823 (2005). We are presented three questions:

"1. Did the Court of Special Appeals err when it ruled that `traditional easement law' does not apply to easements granted in condominium documents?

"2. Did the Court of Special Appeals err when it affirmed the Trial Court's judgment that the easement contained in the condominium's declaration did not allow Petitioner, without the prior approval of Respondent, to repair a defect in her dryer vent system by relocating the vent to the exterior of her house?

"3. Did the Court of Special Appeals err when it affirmed the Trial Court's judgment that the by-laws of the condominium required Petitioner to obtain the prior approval of Respondent before she could repair a defect in her dryer vent system by relocating the vent to the exterior of her house?"

We find that traditional easement law applies to easements granted in condominium documents and, therefore, the Court of Special Appeals erred in its holding that the easement did not apply. In addition, under the particular factual circumstances extant in this case and due to our resolution in regards to the easement, we find that petitioner was within the bounds of the express grant of the easement to install the exterior dryer exhaust vent without the prior approval of respondent and, under the limited circumstances here present, was not subject to the "prior approval" provision contained within the Condominium's Bylaws and, in any event, because it came under an exception contained in the Bylaws, petitioner's actions did not violate the Bylaws' provisions.

I. Facts

We quote from the unreported opinion of the Court of Special Appeals:

"[Petitioner] is the owner of a condominium unit at the regime known as The Cloisters at Charles Condominiums, in Baltimore County. [Respondent] is the duly organized corporation which serves as the council of condominium unit owners. As such, [respondent] is obligated to provide maintenance and to enforce the declaration, rules, and regulations of the regime.

"In 1991, [petitioner] purchased her condominium unit [one of the model units] at The Cloisters during the development and construction phase of the project. The original construction included installed household appliances in each unit, a clothes dryer among them. As originally installed, the clothes dryer was connected and vented into the furnace room, rather than to the outside of the building, contrary to the terms of the construction contract, and in violation of prevailing building codes and regulations.¹ The venting system ran from the clothes dryer through the kitchen floor and into the basement furnace room. During the normal operation of the clothes dryer, the vent system would carry and discharge the dryer's exhaust, heat, lint, and moisture into the furnace room. The furnace room contained two furnaces and a hot water heater, each of which were fired by gas burners. This potentially hazardous mixture of elements was extant for approximately nine years.

"In 2000, the clothes dryer fell ill and [petitioner], in response, purchased a replacement from Sears, Roebuck & Co. After viewing the existing vent system, however, Sears refused to install the replacement because a `fire hazzard [sic] was identified.'

"With the discovery that the vent system posed a fire hazard, and upon refusal of Sears to install the new dryer to that system, [petitioner] took it upon herself to [have] the venting system [re-routed]. The new system was routed from the dryer through the wall of the laundry room into the adjoining garage, then through the garage and through the exterior wall. A standard vent appliance, which discharged the dryer exhaust and lint to the outside, was installed into the exterior of the garage wall. [Petitioner] concedes that she neither sought nor obtained permission of the [respondent] to install the exterior vent.

"In short time, the new venting system created novel problems for [petitioner] and her immediate neighbor, Dr. Oscar Kantt. The new vent was within 17 feet of the front door of Dr. Kantt's residence. Objecting on various grounds to the placement of the vent, Dr. Kantt complained to the [respondent] about the discharge. [Petitioner], Dr. Kantt, and the [respondent] were unable to resolve the matter amicably; consequently, this litigation ensued.

"By virtue of her purchase of the condominium unit, [petitioner] agreed, as did all other purchasers, to the terms of the Condominium Declaration and By-Laws.²" [Footnote omitted.]

On July 1, 2003, respondent filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County requesting a permanent injunction in which petitioner would be required to immediately remove the exterior dryer exhaust vent and then make an application to respondent for permission to install an exterior dryer exhaust vent.

The absence of an exhaust vent for the dryer resulted from an inherently defective installation of the appliance. The builder apparently simply forgot to install the vent.

The parties conceded that the Baltimore County Building Code³ requires the venting of clothes dryer exhaust outside of a building and that, if application were made, respondent would have to authorize the installation of an exterior dryer exhaust vent in some shape or form. The trial court first stayed the proceedings in order to afford an opportunity to the parties to negotiate a resolution. The parties apparently could not agree on the placement of the vent. Some of the suggestions of the respondent would have further violated the building code. On July 28, 2004, after negotiations had failed in reaching an independent resolution, the Circuit Court conducted a one-day trial. As stated, the Circuit Court found in favor of respondent and issued a Memorandum Decision and Order on August 18, 2004. The order stated:

"ORDERED that the [respondent's] Motion for Injunctive Relief is GRANTED, to take effect sixty (60) days from the date of this Order and furthermore, until the effective date of said Injunction, [petitioner] may, in compliance with the rules and Bylaws of the condominium, seek approval from [respondent] in order to find a reasonable resolution to the location of the dryer vent."

The Circuit Court based its decision upon an analysis of the Condominium's Declaration and Bylaws and, in the accompanying memorandum decision, discussed its reasoning, stating in pertinent part:

"Viewed as a whole, including the pertinent sections of the Declaration and the Bylaws, they are not in conflict but rather compliment each other. Neither the Declaration nor the Bylaws authorize a unit owner to make any changes to the exterior of the unit such as those made by the [petitioner]. The Court does not interpret the easement contained in section 15.2 of the Declaration to grant a unit owner the right to independently alter the exterior of her unit, especially when the easement is considered along with the prohibition on unapproved exterior alterations expressly identified in the Bylaws. After reviewing the relevant portions of the condominium documents, the Court finds that it was the intention of the Unit Owners to permit individual unit owners to maintain the services to their units in a manner that does not alter the exterior appearance of their unit. In the event that some alterations are necessary, the unit owners must adhere to the proper procedures as outlined in the Bylaws. [Footnote omitted.]

...

"[Petitioner] neither notified nor obtained consent from the [respondent] concerning her plans to install a dryer vent on the outside wall of her condominium unit. Upon learning of the unauthorized installation, the [respondent] notified [petitioner] that it did not approve of the vent...