## Facts

- A 1953 Declaration of Covenants governed 45 “estate lots” in the Brock Hall subdivision in Prince George’s County, Maryland.
- The Declaration stated purposes including protecting lot values, ensuring uniform development, and ensuring the restrictions “apply uniformly to all the lots” in the subdivision.
- Paragraph 13 prohibited any further subdivision of lots.
- Paragraph 14 provided the covenants would automatically extend unless a majority of lot owners recorded an instrument “agreeing to change said covenants in whole or in part.”
- Samuel and Helen Walton owned Lot 26 (about four acres) on Plat 2; a ravine divided the property into two roughly two-acre areas.
- The Waltons sought to subdivide Lot 26 into two lots and obtained signatures from a majority of owners to record an amended covenant exempting Lot 26 from the no-subdivision restriction.
- The Waltons also obtained preliminary county planning approval for the subdivision, subject to stormwater-management conditions.
- Other lot owners, including Edmund Jaskiewicz, filed a declaratory judgment action seeking to invalidate the amendment and enjoin the resubdivision.

## Issues

1. Whether a majority of lot owners may amend restrictive covenants to exempt a single lot from a general restriction when the declaration states the restrictions must apply uniformly to all lots.
2. Whether the amendment power to “change said covenants in whole or in part” permits a non-uniform, lot-specific exception inconsistent with the subdivision’s general plan.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Maryland held the amendment exempting only Lot 26 from the no-subdivision restriction was invalid.
- The court concluded the declaration’s express requirement and intent of uniform application limited the majority’s amendment power.
- The court affirmed the intermediate appellate court’s determination that the amendment was void, reversing the trial court’s ruling upholding it.

## Legal Principles

- An amendment clause allowing a majority to change restrictive covenants is constrained by the declaration’s express terms and the subdivision’s general plan.
- Where a declaration states restrictions must apply uniformly to all lots, an amendment that singles out one lot for preferential treatment violates the uniformity requirement and is unauthorized.
- Lot owners’ mutual burdens and benefits under a common scheme may not be altered by a majority through a special exemption that removes one lot from a shared restriction.
- Governmental subdivision approvals do not validate a private covenant amendment that is otherwise beyond the authority granted by the declaration.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated a majority-approved covenant amendment that created a one-lot exception to a no-subdivision restriction because the declaration required uniform application of restrictions across the subdivision, limiting the scope of permissible amendments.


Walton v. Jaskiewicz, 317 Md. 264, 563 A.2d 382 (Md. 1989)