## Facts

- Anthony and Roseanne Souza bought Lot 243 in a Columbia, Maryland planned community subject to recorded Hickory Ridge Village covenants.
- The covenants prohibited splitting or subdividing a lot without prior written approval from an Architectural Committee.
- The Souzas sought to subdivide their lot into four parcels; the Architectural Committee denied approval, and the Hickory Ridge Appeals Board affirmed.
- The Souzas nonetheless obtained county subdivision approval and recorded a subdivision plat.
- The community association sued to enforce the covenant and obtained an injunction requiring the Souzas to rejoin the parcels and restore the original lot configuration.
- The Souzas argued the covenant was unenforceable for lacking explicit approval standards and that the denial was arbitrary; they also challenged alleged ex parte contact involving Appeals Board members.

## Issues

1. Whether a restrictive covenant requiring architectural committee approval to subdivide is unenforceable because it contains no explicit decision criteria.
2. Whether the committee/board denial of subdivision approval was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, making enforcement improper.
3. Whether alleged ex parte contact with members of a private appeals board invalidated the board’s decision.

## Decision

- The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed the injunction enforcing the covenant.
- The court held the architectural-approval covenant was valid despite the absence of detailed standards.
- The court held the denial was not arbitrary or unreasonable because it was tied to the community’s general plan and related environmental and reliance considerations.
- The court rejected the ex parte challenge for lack of authority barring such contacts in the context of a private, non-governmental board.
- County subdivision approval did not supersede the lot owners’ obligations under private restrictive covenants.

## Legal Principles

- Recorded restrictive covenants in planned communities may be enforced as part of a common development scheme.
- An architectural-control covenant is not void merely because it grants discretion without enumerating specific standards; the discretion must be exercised in good faith and reasonably in relation to the community’s general plan.
- Courts generally review architectural committee/appeals board decisions for reasonableness, upholding decisions tied to legitimate planning, environmental, and reliance interests and rejecting decisions that are arbitrary or discriminatory.
- Governmental subdivision approval establishes compliance with public regulation but does not negate enforceable private covenants.
- Alleged ex parte communications do not invalidate a private association decision absent a legal prohibition or a sufficient showing of unfair prejudice.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the covenant requiring architectural approval for subdivision, upheld the committee and board’s denial as reasonable and consistent with the planned community’s development scheme, and affirmed injunctive relief requiring the owners to restore the lot despite county subdivision approval.


Souza v. Columbia Park & Recreation Ass’n, Inc., 70 Md. App. 655, 522 A.2d 1376 (Ct. Spec. App. 1987)