Opinion ID: 2179752
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ill Dec.ision of Committee

Text: In respect to whether the Committee actions were reasonable, we said in one of our relatively early cases, Kirkley v. Seipelt, 212 Md. 127, 133, 128 A.2d 430, 434 (1957), in reference to covenants regulating the manner and design of structures, that [t]he language used in the covenants ... makes plain the desire to regulate the construction of the dwellings in such a manner as to create an attractive and desirable neighborhood. We think the parties had a right voluntarily to make this kind of contract between themselves; and the covenant does not create any interference with the fee of the property that would require it to be stricken down as against public policy. It does not prevent the owner from conveying the property or impose any unlawful restraint of trade, but affects only its method of use. We hold that any refusal to approve the external design or location ... would have to be based upon a reason that bears some relation to the other buildings or the general plan of development; and this refusal would have to be a reasonable determination made in good faith, and not high-handed, whimsical or captious in manner. The trial judge in the instant case relied in large part on the testimony of James Meale, a member of the Committee, which we have repeated, supra, in addressing the issue of whether the Committee's decision was reasonable. [9] The court credited Mr. Meale's testimony as we have indicated previously. The trial court noted that Mr. Meale had believed the observations of his neighbors; that Mr. Meale found their information credible. The trial court found Mr. Meale's testimony, that we have heretofore set out, to be particularly persuasive, finding that the decision of the Committee had been based on trash, noise, parking, traffic, sewage and health concerns. It determined that [i]n sum, the decision of the Committee was a reasonable, good faith exercise of discretion, based upon legitimate concerns regarding the impact of the facility upon the surrounding neighborhood. We perceive no error in the trial court's findings as to reasonableness and its issuance of an injunction to enforce the restrictive covenant. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; COSTS TO BE PAID BY APPELLANT.