## Facts

- Randall and Orna Reiner owned a home in a subdivision subject to recorded restrictive covenants and an architectural-control scheme administered through the homeowners association.
- The covenants restricted roofing materials and prohibited asphalt roofing unless the association granted a variance.
- The covenants gave the association discretionary authority to approve or deny variance requests from architectural restrictions.
- The Reiners applied to the association for a variance to install an asphalt roof.
- The association denied the variance request and maintained that the roof restriction applied as written.
- The Reiners filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment and related relief against the association and multiple individuals, including Clifford Ehrlich and other codefendants associated with the subdivision’s governance.
- The Reiners’ requested relief was not limited to their roof dispute; they also sought relief from subdivision-wide architectural restrictions.
- The trial court dismissed the individual defendants and entered summary judgment in favor of the association.
- The Reiners appealed to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment to the homeowners association on the Reiners’ challenge to the association’s denial of a variance from the roofing restriction.
2. Whether the trial court properly dismissed the individual codefendants from the declaratory-judgment action where the challenged conduct arose from enforcement of the subdivision covenants through the association.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment entered for the homeowners association.
- The appellate court affirmed dismissal of the individual codefendants.

## Legal Principles

- Restrictive covenants recorded against subdivision property are enforceable according to their terms, and courts generally give effect to the covenants’ plain language when it is clear.
- When covenants grant a homeowners association discretionary authority to grant or deny variances, judicial review focuses on whether the association acted within the scope of that authority and in a manner consistent with the governing documents, rather than reweighing the merits of the architectural decision.
- Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on the governing covenants and the record.
- Where the relief sought is directed at enforcing, interpreting, or obtaining broad relief from subdivision covenants administered by the association, the association is the proper party to defend the action; individual homeowners or participants in association governance are not necessary defendants absent a distinct basis for individual liability.

## Conclusion

Reiner v. Ehrlich affirmed judgment for the homeowners association after the association denied the Reiners’ request for a variance to install an asphalt roof prohibited by the subdivision’s restrictive covenants. Because the covenants gave the association discretion over variances and the record supported enforcement of the restriction as written, the court upheld summary judgment for the association and also affirmed dismissal of the individual defendants from the declaratory-judgment suit seeking broader relief from the subdivision’s architectural controls.


Reiner v. Ehrlich, 66 A.3d 1132 (2013)