Prince George's County v. Greenbelt Homes, Inc.
Decision Date | 10 July 1981 |
Docket Number | No. 1595,1595 |
Citation | 49 Md.App. 314,431 A.2d 745 |
Parties | PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, Maryland v. GREENBELT HOMES, INC. |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Robert N. Stokes, Jr., Associate County Atty. for Prince George's County, with whom were Robert B. Ostrom, County Atty. and Michael O. Connaughton, Deputy County Atty. on the brief, for appellant.
Lester B. Seidel, Washington, D. C., with whom were Patrick J. Clancy, and Krooth & Altman, Washington, D. C., on the brief, for appellee.
Argued before MOYLAN, LOWE and MASON, JJ.
Reluctant to plunge into the sea of matrimony, John Hemphill and Lynn Bradley were nonetheless eager to settle upon its shores. They had jointly contracted to purchase the right of "perpetual use and enjoyment" of a dwelling unit in a cooperative housing development known as Greenbelt Homes, Inc., situate in Prince George's County. Because the contract was "subject to an acceptance of the purchaser by Greenbelt Homes, Inc. as members," each applied for membership indicating on his application that they resided together and by the joint contract to purchase, inferentially intended to continue to do so in the dwelling unit described.
Anxious to fulfill its destiny as destroyer of discrimination, the Commission made ready to do battle, apparently to provide surcease for the sensitivities of those whom they clept "Complainants."
It then held that Greenbelt's covenant, so interpreted, contravened a local ordinance against discrimination which proscribed
"acting, or failing to act, or unduly delaying any action regarding any person because of ... marital status ... in such a way that such person is adversely affected in the area(s) of housing...." Prince George's County Code, § 2-186(3).
Caught up in the cause which by now seemingly surpassed its "complainants" (who we empirically note have since married and become ensconced elsewhere), the Commission ordered (among other things):
"That Greenbelt Homes, Inc. revise their (sic) Membership Agreement and their (sic) Mutual Ownership Contract to eliminate any provisions which are contrary to federal, state and/or local laws and/or ordinances."
Our purpose in belaboring how the Commission arrived at its result is to emphasize by its omission that the Commission did not find that a covenant restricting membership to one's immediate "family" as that term is "COMMONLY ACCEPTED" WOULD HAVE BEEN DISCRIMinating because of marital status. It found only that the definition applied by Greenbelt to its covenant was invalid and implicitly should be defined as broadly as any of Webster's alternatives, and at least as broadly as the Zoning Ordinance of which the Commission took "notice."
Pursuant to § 2-197 of its Code, Prince George's County filed suit for declaratory judgment and mandatory injunction in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County in equity to enforce the order of the Commission. Greenbelt Homes, Inc. answered and sought declaratory judgment as to the meaning of the terms "marital status" as used in the code and "family" as used in the Greenbelt covenants. Greenbelt had sought to have the Commission ruling appealed to the Circuit Court for Prince George's County for review; but the case was dismissed, we are told, for want of jurisdiction. The parties here then stipulated that the court record containing the Commission record be made a part of the record of this enforcement proceeding.
is somewhat misleading, we will attempt to clarify the meaning of that term as used in the context of the housing discrimination law before addressing the Commission's erroneous definition of "family" in its even more restrictive context in the covenant. See Md. Rule 1085.
-marital status-
Under the facts presented, we point out that neither complainant (each of whom was "single," "unmarried") was denied membership individually because of his or her individual marital status. While each separately had a marital status, collectively they did not. Only marriage as prescribed by law can change the marital status of an individual to a new legal entity of husband and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smith v. Fair Employment & Housing Com.
...couples. But the cursory opinion offers no real assistance on the issue. A lower court in Maryland (Prince George's County v. Greenbelt Homes, Inc. (1981) 49 Md.App. 314, 431 A.2d 745) did interpret a statutory ban on "marital status" discrimination as not protecting unmarried couples. The ......
-
Tyma v. Montgomery County
...on Human Relations v. Greenbelt Homes, 300 Md. 75, 83-84, 475 A.2d 1192, 1197 (1984) (quoting Prince George's County v. Greenbelt Homes, 49 Md.App. 314, 319-20, 431 A.2d 745, 748 (1981)), in which this Court "Only marriage as prescribed by law can change the marital status of an individual ......
-
Waggoner v. Ace Hardware Corp.
...case. Therefore, the citations to RCW 49.60.180 refer to the statute as applicable in 1985.3 See also Prince George's County v. Greenbelt Homes, Inc., 49 Md.App. 314, 431 A.2d 745 (1981) (Cooperative housing development would not accept a couple because they were not married. The court held......
-
Maryland Com'n on Human Relations v. Greenbelt Homes, Inc.
...Each party moved for summary judgment. The circuit court granted Greenbelt's motion, concluding that Prince George's County v. Greenbelt Homes, 49 Md.App. 314, 431 A.2d 745 (1981), controlled and thus sections 19 and 20 of Article 49B had not been The Commission timely noted an appeal to th......