Use of Residential Lot as Driveway for Adjoining Subdivision Violated Covenants

The restrictive covenants in the Beaufort Park subdivision, Howard County, Maryland limited the use of lots to a single family dwelling and to residential purposes.  The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland recently held that it was a violation of the covenants for the owner of a lot in Beaufort Park to construct a road across his lot to serve adjacent property owned by him which he had subdivided into 9 lots.

Beaufort Park is a residential subdivision in Howard County, Maryland.  The lots in Beaufort Park are subject to a Declaration of Covenants which provides, in pertinent part,

             “No lot shall be used except for residential purposes, . . . . No residence other than one single-family dwelling shall be erected on any one lot in said subdivision.”

In 1989, Namleb Corporation purchased Lot 20 in Beaufort Park.  This lot was improved by a dwelling and was located on a cul-de-sac accessed by Penelope Court.  On the same day, Namleb purchased a large tract of land adjacent to the Beaufort Park subdivision.

In 1990, Namleb recorded a subdivision plat showing a subdivision of Lot 20 and the adjacent tract into 9 lots to be known as Beaufort Estates.  Part of Lot 20, including the dwelling, was designated as Lot 1 in the new subdivision.  The remaining portion of Lot 20 was subdivided into “pipe stems” to provide access across the former Lot 20 to 6 undeveloped lots in the new Beaufort Estates to Penelope Court.

Two lot owners in Beaufort Park filed suit against Namleb (and other owners to whom Namleb had conveyed some of the lots in Beaufort Estates) alleging that the construction of access driveways across Lot 20 to serve property outside the subdivision violated Beaufort Park’s restrictive covenant limiting the use of lots to single family lots for residential use only.  They alleged that the road across Lot 20 was for the commercial development of Beaufort Estates and not for the residential use of Lot 20.

After a hearing, the trial court decided that the road across Lot 20 did violate the covenants, and it enjoined Namleb and the other defendants from using Lot 20 in Beaufort Park as a road or drive to serve property outside of Beaufort Park.  Namleb and the other defendants appealed.

The Court of Special Appeals reviewed the decisions of other states that have addressed whether an access way over restricted property is a violation of the restriction and found that courts have split on the issue.  The court stated:  “If we were writing on a clean slate, we might agree with appellants [Namleb].  We are not, however, and we regard Eisenstadt as controlling.”

The court was referring to Eisenstadt v. Barron, 252 Md. 358, decided in 1969.  In that case, Eisenstadt purchase a parcel of land from Barron.  The land was bound by a restrictive covenant requiring that it be used only for residential purposes and contain only a single family dwelling.  Eisenstadt also owned an apartment building adjacent to this parcel and he constructed a driveway over the parcel to access the apartment building.  The court in Eisenstadt held that because the driveway was to serve more than one residence, “the use of the property as a means of access to an apartment house or apartment houses on adjoining land not within the subdivision is not a use permitted under the restriction.”

Namleb argued that Eisenstadt was distinguishable because it involved an apartment building, not homes.  The court disagreed, stating, “Whether for apartments or multiple homes, the proposed road in Eisenstadt and the proposed road in this case were intended to serve multiple residences and, in both instances, outside of the subdivision.”

The trial court rejected the claims of the new subdivision owners about the hardship they would face if they were precluded from using the driveways across Lot 20.  Noting that the developer had been aware of the restrictive covenant, and that the adjoining parcel was not landlocked before the subdivision, the court refused to grant an easement of necessity.

The decision of the trial court was affirmed.

Namleb Corporation v. Garrett, No. 283, September Term, 2002, in the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, filed December 30, 2002.

[Return to Real Estate Update]