Chevy Chase Village v. Jaggers, 261 Md. 309 

Court of Appeals of Maryland

1971

Chapter

26

Title

Defenses to Enforcement of Covenants

Page

514

Topic

Office of house used as doctors office

Quick Notes

This action in equity sought to enjoin the doctor from using his property as a principal office for the practice of medicine, alleging that such use was in contravention of the covenants.

Dr. Jaggers and his wife lived on the premises from 1947 to early 1967.  During most of the 20 years he maintained a medical office on the property. In 1954, he applied to the County Board to use his property has both a dwelling and a practice.  A special exception was granted with no objection by any of the residents in Section 1-A.  In 1967, he moved but maintained his practice at the same location.  He rented his house out a physician for residential purposes only.  So, Chevy Chase Village notified Dr. Jaggers that this action would be in violation of the covenant.

The court held that, even though the municipality had acquiesced to a possible violation of the restrictive covenant that the doctor was attempting a new use, and the municipality was NOT bound by the doctrine of laches to permit the doctor to use the property differently than he had before. The court ruled that the equitable doctrine of comparative hardship did NOT warrant relief to the doctor because the harm to his neighbors' homes was not negligible and was not outweighed by the doctor's desire to move to another residential area.

Majority Rule Change in Character (Texas Co. v. Harker)

o         "Most jurisdictions now recognize a change in the character of a neighborhood as a ground for affirmative relief against restrictive covenants by way of cancellation or modification where the change has been so radical as to render perpetuation of the restriction of no substantial benefit to the dominant estate, and to defeat the object or purpose of the restriction."

Rule - Doctrine of comparative hardship

o         It basically provides that a court may decline to issue an injunction where the hardship and inconvenience which would result from the injunction is greatly disproportionate to the harm to be remedied.

Book Name

Fundamentals of Modern Property Law: Rabin; Kwall, Kwall.  ISBN:  978-1-59941-053-1.

Issue

o         Whether there has been a complete or radical change in the neighborhood causing the restrictions to outlive their usefulness?  No.  There are some residential lots being used for nonresidential purposes, BUT these are very minimal deviates and do not show radical change.

o         Whether the waiver, if there was one, was broad enough to permit the doctor to move his residence, rent his home, still maintain his office on the premises, and yet not be in violation of the covenant?  No.  Any waiver that may have existed was limited to the use of the office incidental to his living on the property.

Procedure

Trial

o         The lower court refused to enter the injunction.

Appellant

o         Reversed and remanded

Facts

Discussion

Reasoning

Rules

Pl Chevy Chase Village

Df Jaggers

Description

o         This case involves the effectiveness of a restrictive covenant for a fashionable suburban community called Chevy Chase Village located on Section 1-A Chevy Chase.

o         It was composed on 13 blocks numbered 4 to 16.

Commercial Lots

o         Blocks 6 AND 11 contained 60 lots were set aside for commercial development because of their located on the Northeast corner of the intersection of Wisconsin and Western Avenues.

o         Two lot in or near the section were conveyed as public utilities.

Reserved Blocks and Lots

o         The other blocks were reversed for exclusively residential purposes.

o         Six lots were conveyed to a church.

o         Three lots destroyed by a re-subdivision.

Remaining Residential Lots

o         204 remaining lots of the residential lots.

o         These 204 lots were bound by a series of covenants.

Covenants

o         No objection will be raised for blocks 6 AND 11 known for commercial purposes.

o         Such covenants and agreements run with the land.

o         1. That all houses upon the premises hereby conveyed shall be built and used for residence purposes exclusively, except stables, carriage houses, sheds or other outbuildings, for use in connection with such residences and that no trade, business, manufacture or sales, or nuisance of any kind shall be carried on or permitted upon said premises.

o         5. That a violation of any of the aforesaid covenants and agreements may be enjoined and the same enforced at the suit of The Chevy Chase Land Company, of Montgomery County, Maryland, its successors and assigns (assigns including any person deriving title mediately or immediately from said company to any lot or square, or part of a lot or square in the Section of the Subdivision of which the land hereby conveyed forms a part). [Emphasis added.]

Courts Questions

1.     Was there sufficient evidence to establish a uniform general scheme or plan of development to entitle the appellants to enforcement of the covenants?

2.     Was there an abandonment and failure of the original plan of development and such a change in the general characteristics of the neighborhood as to render the covenants unenforceable?

3.     Were the appellants guilty of laches and therefore estopped from the enforcement of the subject covenants?

4.     Under the doctrine of comparative hardship should the court decline to enforce the restrictive covenants?

Section 1 Discussion   

Dr. Jaggers Arg

o         Insufficient evidence to establish a uniform general plan of developments as would entitle appellants to enforce the covenants.

Court Response

o         Even if such a plan were absent it would not necessarily defeat their enforcement.

Rogers v. State Roads Comm.,

o         There need not be any general plan of development in order to make a restrictive covenant enforceable, if it is imposed by a grantor on a single tract conveyed by him for the benefit of adjacent property retained by him.

Court In this case (General plan is not necessary, when there is deed language)

o         In the present case we need not decide whether there was a uniform general plan of development, though the evidence may well support such a finding.

o         The covenants are enforceable in any event because of the specific language used in the deeds.

o         Covenants are clearly binding.

o         Expressed provision that the covenants runs with the land.

o         Explicitly states that the covenants are binding upon the grantee her heirs and assigns and enforceable by the grantor, its successors and assigns.

Section 2 Discussion   

Dr. Jaggers Arg Abandonment and failure of the original plan

o         There has been an abandonment and failure of the original plan of development and a substantial change in the general characteristics of the neighborhood so as to render the covenants unenforceable.

Court Does not have a problem with the argument, but thinks it is inapplicable to the facts of this case

Majority Rule Change in Character (Texas Co. v. Harker)

o         "Most jurisdictions now recognize a change in the character of a neighborhood as a ground for affirmative relief against restrictive covenants by way of cancellation or modification where the change has been so radical as to render perpetuation of the restriction of no substantial benefit to the dominant estate, and to defeat the object or purpose of the restriction."

Court Question to ask

o         Whether there has been a complete or radical change in the neighborhood causing the restrictions to outlive their usefulness?

o         There are some residential lots being used for nonresidential purposes.

o         BUT, these are very minimal deviates and do not show radical change.

Dr. Jaggers Arg Trial Court was correct in looking beyond section 1-A for change

Court An Aerial photograph shows nearby surroundings are similarly unaffected.

Section 3 Discussion   

Dr. Jaggers Arg The appellants have been guilty of laches and should therefore be estopped from seeking enforcement of the covenants.

o         Three other doctors in the subdivision are using their homes for their principal practice.

o         Dr. Jaggers had used his property for the practice of medicine for nearly twenty years without objection.

Court Combined use is okay

o         Appellants do not have objections to a combined office-home use.

Court Question to ask

o         Whether the waiver, if there was one, was broad enough to permit the doctor to move his residence, rent his home, still maintain his office on the premises, and yet not be in violation of the covenant?

o         We hold the possible waiver did not go this far.

o         Any waiver that may have existed was limited to the use of the office incidental to his living on the property.

o         Once appellees moved, however, such use ceased to be incidental and the appellants could still assert their rights to enforce the restrictions.

Dr. Jaggers Arg No one from Section 1-A objected when the Montgomery County Board of Appeals granted the Jaggers' request for a special exception to use their premises for the practice of medicine

Court Question to ask

• Contractual restrictions are neither abrogated [abolished] nor enlarged by zoning restrictions.
• We point out that even if this silence were relevant on the question, the proceeding before the zoning board would only be indicative of the neighbors' acquiescence in the combined use of the property as a home and as an office, not as an office and rental property without the owner living on the premises.

Section 4 Discussion   

Dr. Jaggers Arg If he returns to his former home or remove his office, he will suffer a great hardship, when he has only caused negligible harm to his neighbors.

Three other doctors in the subdivision are using their homes

Court  - He invokes Doctrine of comparative hardship

o         He invokes the equitable doctrine of comparative hardship to avoid this result.

Rule - Doctrine of comparative hardship

o         It basically provides that a court may decline to issue an injunction where the hardship and inconvenience which would result from the injunction is greatly disproportionate to the harm to be remedied.

Court He should have been aware of the limits on the use of his property

o         [The neighbors] interest in preserving the residential integrity of their community is simply not outweighed by his desire to move to another fashionable and exclusively residential area.

Court - Holding

o         On remand we direct that the appellees be enjoined from using their property in Chevy Chase Village for the practice of medicine unless they actually reside on the premises.

Rules

Majority Rule Change in Character (Texas Co. v. Harker)

o         "Most jurisdictions now recognize a change in the character of a neighborhood as a ground for affirmative relief against restrictive covenants by way of cancellation or modification where the change has been so radical as to render perpetuation of the restriction of no substantial benefit to the dominant estate, and to defeat the object or purpose of the restriction."

Rule - Doctrine of comparative hardship

It basically provides that a court may decline to issue an injunction where the hardship and inconvenience which would result from the injunction is greatly disproportionate to the harm to be remedied.

Class Notes