Roper v. Camuso, 376 Md. 240

Summary

The Maryland Court of Appeals considered whether a property owner whose deed did not expressly incorporate subdivision restrictive covenants could invoke the doctrine of implied negative reciprocal covenants to enforce those covenants against another lot owner. The court held that the lower courts erred in rejecting the owner's claims for lack of standing and remanded for further proceedings concerning whether her lot was intended to be part of the subdivision's general development scheme.

Holdings

1. A property owner whose land is not expressly subject to restrictive covenants may invoke the doctrine of implied negative reciprocal covenants to establish threshold standing to enforce the covenants against another grantee whose land is expressly burdened, provided the doctrine's requirements are satisfied.
2. The evidence was sufficient to establish that Spring Meadows was developed under a unified common plan and that Roper's lot was intended to be included in that plan and subject to the covenants.
3. The circuit court erred by dismissing Roper's declaratory and injunctive claims solely for lack of standing; Roper had threshold standing, and the case had to be remanded for consideration of whether the unclean-hands doctrine or other equitable principles barred relief.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a property owner whose land is not expressly subject to restrictive covenants may invoke the doctrine of implied negative reciprocal covenants to enforce those covenants against a neighboring owner whose land is expressly subject to them.
2. What evidence is sufficient to establish that land not expressly burdened by restrictive covenants was intended to be part of the common development scheme.
3. Whether Roper's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief should be remanded for consideration of Camuso's unclean-hands defense.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded