Opinion ID: 2318744
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Construction of Real Covenants

Text: Prior to 1955, when construing the meaning of covenants a strict construction standard was applicable to promote the free alienability of land. See Turner v. Brocato, 206 Md. 336, 345-46, 111 A.2d 855, 860 (1955). [17] This being so, the principle that doubt must be resolved in favor of the alienability of land, free and unfettered, was modified and does not always control; [t]his rule of construction bows always to the more fundamental rule that wherever possible effect will be given to an ascertained intention of the parties. Turner 206 Md. at 352, 111 A.2d at 864. In Gnau v. Kinlein, 217 Md. 43, 48, 141 A.2d 492, 495 (1958), we addressed restrictive covenants when we stated: Whether a restrictive covenant is personal to a grantee or a grantor, or to both, or binds their respective successors in title, and so the land by whomever owned from time to time, as well as whether a grantor intended to bind land retained by him, is a question of intention, which may be ascertained from the language of the conveyances alone or from that language together with other evidence of intent. In Belleview Construction Company v. Rugby Hall Community Assoc., 321 Md. 152, 158, 582 A.2d 493, 495 (1990), we examined the next step in reviewing restrictive covenants if the intent of the parties is not clear. We said, If an ambiguity is present, and if that ambiguity is not clearly resolved by resort to extrinsic evidence, the general rule in favor of the unrestricted use of property will prevail and the ambiguity in a restriction will be resolved against the party seeking its enforcement. Judge Davidson, writing for the Court of Special Appeals, clearly recognized our holdings in the restriction case of Metius v. Julio, 27 Md.App. 491, 498, 342 A.2d 348, 353 (1975), saying: In construing the meaning of a restriction on the use of land, the court must determine the intent and purpose of the parties at the time the agreement was made, which is a question of fact. In making that determination the court must consider the language of the instrument itself, giving the words their ordinary and generally understood meaning unless it plainly appears from the context that the parties intended to use them in a different sense, or that they have acquired a peculiar or special meaning in respect to a particular subject matter. Where the language used... is ambiguous, the court must also consider the circumstances and conditions affecting the parties and the property at the time the agreement was made. [Emphasis added.] [Footnotes omitted.] See Belleview Constr. Co. v. Rugby Hall Community Assoc., 321 Md. at 157-59, 582 A.2d at 495-96; Harbor View Improvement Ass'n, Inc. v. Downey, 270 Md. 365, 371, 311 A.2d 422, 425 (1973); Yorkway Apts., Inc. v. Dundalk Co., 180 Md. 647, 650, 26 A.2d 398, 399-400 (1942); Whitmarsh v. Richmond, 179 Md. 523, 527, 20 A.2d 161, 163 (1941); McKenrick v. Savings Bank of Baltimore, 174 Md. 118, 128, 197 A. 580, 584-85 (1938); see also Markey v. Wolf, 92 Md.App. 137, 152-53, 607 A.2d 82, 88, 89-90 (1992). As alluded to, in more recent years, a `reasonableness rule'(termed a modern rule in some foreign jurisdictions) has been engrafted upon the general rule. Markey, 92 Md.App. at 150, 607 A.2d at 88. Currently, Maryland courts no longer apply a pure strict interpretation or construction, but apply rather, a reasonably strict construction when construing covenants. In Markey, the Court of Special Appeals, interpreting the position of this Court, adhered to the reasonableness rule when it considered the restrictive covenant at issue in that case. That court stated: In interpreting words used to create restrictions, the court should endeavor to ascertain the real purpose and intention of the parties and to discover the purpose from the surrounding circumstances at the time of the creation of the restriction, as well as from the words used. In endeavoring to arrive at the intention, the words used should be taken in their ordinary and popular sense, unless it plainly appears from the context that the parties intended to use them in a different sense, or that they have acquired a peculiar or special meaning in respect to the particular subject-matter. Id. at 153, 607 A.2d at 90.