## Facts

- J.J.M. Partnership developed a Howard County, Maryland subdivision called Chapel Woods II, and John (Eric J.) Mikolasko was a principal involved in the development.
- The recorded subdivision plat showed 25 lots, including Lots 6 and 7 near the end of the subdivision road.
- Mikolasko recorded a “Declaration of Covenants, Easements, Conditions, and Restrictions” for Chapel Woods II.
- The Declaration imposed restrictions on Lots 1–5 and 8–25, including residential-use limits and a one-dwelling-per-lot limitation.
- Lots 6 and 7 were not included in the Declaration’s list of lots subject to the covenants.
- Each contract of sale for the 23 lots covered by the Declaration referenced the Declaration and contained an integration clause stating that no other promises or representations had been made outside the written agreement.
- Mikolasko retained ownership of Lot 7 and later decided to further subdivide Lot 7.
- Seven couples who bought lots in Chapel Woods II sued Mikolasko and related developer parties, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to stop development of Lot 7.
- The homeowners claimed Mikolasko and the real estate broker told them Lot 7 would be part of the same community plan and subject to the same restrictions.
- The Circuit Court for Howard County found a “common scheme” and applied the doctrine of implied negative reciprocal easement to impose the Declaration’s covenants on Lot 7.
- Mikolasko appealed; the Court of Special Appeals reversed; the Court of Appeals granted certiorari.

## Issues

1. Whether a lot shown on the recorded subdivision plat but omitted from a recorded declaration of restrictive covenants may nonetheless be burdened by those covenants under the doctrine of implied negative reciprocal easement based on an alleged common scheme and extrinsic statements to purchasers.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Maryland held the circuit court erred in applying implied negative reciprocal easement to Lot 7.
- The court affirmed the Court of Special Appeals, which had reversed the circuit court.
- Because the recorded Declaration specifically named the lots bound and omitted Lot 7, the court applied a strong presumption that Lot 7 was not subject to the Declaration’s covenants.
- The homeowners’ reliance on alleged oral assurances did not overcome the weight given to the recorded instruments and the integrated sales contracts.
- Lot 7 remained unburdened by the Declaration’s restrictive covenants.

## Legal Principles

- Maryland recognizes implied negative reciprocal easements in some common-scheme subdivision settings, allowing restrictions to be implied in limited circumstances to carry out a developer’s plan.
- When a developer uses a recorded declaration that expressly identifies which lots are subject to restrictions, courts apply a strong presumption that lots omitted from that declaration are not burdened by those restrictions.
- Recorded plats and recorded declarations are primary evidence of the developer’s intent and are central to stable land-title records; courts are cautious about adding burdens not apparent from the record.
- Integration clauses in sale contracts and written references to a recorded declaration weaken attempts to expand recorded restrictions through alleged oral statements or other extrinsic evidence.
- Inclusion of a parcel on a subdivision plat, without inclusion in the declaration’s lot list, is not by itself enough to subject that parcel to the declaration’s covenants.

## Conclusion

Schovee v. Mikolasko holds that where a developer recorded a declaration that restricts specified lots but omits another platted lot, Maryland courts will presume the omitted lot is not restricted and will not impose the declaration’s covenants by implication under a common-scheme theory absent evidence strong enough to overcome the primacy of the recorded instruments.


Schovee v. Mikolasko, 737 A.2d 578 (1999)