City of Bowie v. MIE Properties, Inc. case brief summary
922 A.2d 509 (2007)
CASE FACTS
The parties to a recorded set of restrictive covenants encumbering a property were the city, an original covenantee, and the owner, a successor covenantor. The owner's predecessor in title agreed with the city to a declaration of covenants which limited the development of the property to permissible uses. Contemporaneously, an annexation agreement was executed with the city, bringing the affected parcel, then undeveloped, within the city's corporate limits. The agreement contemplated the development in association with a university of a science and technology, research, and office park on the property. After the city objected to a tenant's use of a leased space on the property as not being a permitted use, the owner challenged the continuing vitality of the covenants.
DISCUSSION
The judgment of the intermediate appellate court was reversed, and the case was remanded with directions to affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
922 A.2d 509 (2007)
CASE SYNOPSIS
The city and the property owner
petitioned the circuit court for a declaratory judgment on the
continuing validity of restrictive covenants. The circuit court
upheld the continuing validity of the covenants. The Court of Special
Appeals of Maryland reversed the judgment, ruling that the trial
judge applied the wrong standard for determining the ongoing validity
of the restrictive covenants. The parties petitioned for a writ of
certiorari.CASE FACTS
The parties to a recorded set of restrictive covenants encumbering a property were the city, an original covenantee, and the owner, a successor covenantor. The owner's predecessor in title agreed with the city to a declaration of covenants which limited the development of the property to permissible uses. Contemporaneously, an annexation agreement was executed with the city, bringing the affected parcel, then undeveloped, within the city's corporate limits. The agreement contemplated the development in association with a university of a science and technology, research, and office park on the property. After the city objected to a tenant's use of a leased space on the property as not being a permitted use, the owner challenged the continuing vitality of the covenants.
DISCUSSION
- The reviewing court found that the covenants' purpose was not obviated by either the absence of the university from participation in the project or surrounding physical changes to the neighborhood.
- Thus, the covenants remained valid and enforceable.
- Additionally, the enforcement of the covenants by the city did not constitute illegal contract zoning, and the city did not waive the covenants.
The judgment of the intermediate appellate court was reversed, and the case was remanded with directions to affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
No comments:
Post a Comment