## Facts

- An unmarried couple jointly contracted to purchase cooperative rights to occupy a dwelling unit, subject to the cooperative’s acceptance of them as members.
- The cooperative’s board denied joint membership because the applicants were not married, though it indicated other qualifications were acceptable.
- The cooperative’s bylaws allowed only one member per unit, except that “a husband and wife” or others specifically authorized by the board could hold joint membership.
- The cooperative’s occupancy covenant required the member to occupy the unit as a private dwelling for the member and the member’s “immediate family.”
- The county Human Relations Commission concluded the denial violated a county ordinance barring housing discrimination based on “marital status,” treating “family” broadly (including unrelated persons living together) and citing zoning rules permitting unrelated occupants.
- The Commission ordered the cooperative to cease the practice and accept the couple.
- The county sued in circuit court to enforce the order; the circuit court granted summary judgment for the cooperative.
- The county appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a county prohibition on housing discrimination based on “marital status” required a private housing cooperative to extend joint membership and occupancy rights to an unmarried cohabiting couple on the same terms as a married couple.
2. Whether the Commission could construe “family” and “immediate family” in the cooperative’s governing documents to compel acceptance of an unmarried couple as joint members.

## Decision

- The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed summary judgment for the cooperative.
- The court held the county’s “marital status” provision protected an individual’s legal status (e.g., single, married, divorced), not an unmarried couple’s cohabiting relationship as a protected category.
- The court rejected the Commission’s broad, household-based definition of “family” for purposes of the cooperative’s occupancy covenant.
- The court concluded the Commission exceeded interpretive limits by effectively expanding statutory coverage and rewriting the cooperative’s contractual scheme without clear legislative authorization.

## Legal Principles

- “Marital status” in housing anti-discrimination law refers to an individual’s legal condition (single, married, separated, divorced, widowed), not the nature of a cohabiting relationship.
- Contractual and statutory terms such as “family” and “immediate family” are context-dependent and should be read in light of the purpose and structure of the instrument in which they appear.
- In a cooperative housing setting, “immediate family” may be construed to mean persons with legally recognized familial ties to the member, rather than unrelated co-occupants.
- An administrative agency may not, under the guise of interpretation, expand an ordinance beyond its intended scope or invalidate private covenants absent clear authority.

## Conclusion

The appellate court held that the county’s marital-status discrimination ban did not obligate the cooperative to grant joint membership to an unmarried cohabiting couple and that the Commission’s expansive definitions of “marital status” and “family” could not be used to compel admission contrary to the cooperative’s governing documents.


Prince George’s Cnty. v. Greenbelt Homes, Inc., 49 Md. App. 314, 431 A.2d 745 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1981)