JONATHAN BLOOD, ET AL.
v.
STONERIDGE AT FOUNTAIN GREEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
Circuit Court for Harford County Case No. 12-C-16-003324
Fader,
C.J., Nazarian, Zarnoch, Robert A. (Senior Judge, Specially
Assigned), JJ. [*]
OPINION
NAZARIAN, J.
Don't
let the sun go down on me Although I search myself, it's
always someone else I see I'd just allow a fragment of
your life to wander free But losin' everything is like
the sun goin' down on me[1]
This
case is the first test of a relatively new statute, Maryland
Code (1974, 2015 Repl. Vol.), § 2-119(b) of the Real
Property ("RP") Article, and the extent to which
the pro-solar energy policy it embodies limits the normally
broad power of homeowners' associations to enforce
aesthetic uniformity. Jonathan and Megan Blood, homeowners in
a development called Stoneridge at Fountain Green, installed
solar panels on the roof of their home. Unfortunately, they
failed to get approval from the Stoneridge at Fountain Green
Homeowners Association, Inc. (the "Association")
before beginning installation. The Bloods later asked for the
Association's approval, which was denied, then they
ignored the Association's order directing them to remove
the panels from the front roof of the house.
The
Association brought suit in the Circuit Court for Harford
County, seeking a declaration that the Bloods were in
violation of the Association's declaration of covenants
and an injunction directing them to remove the panels from
the front roof of their house. After a short trial, on
largely stipulated facts, the circuit court entered judgment
for the Association. On appeal, the Bloods argue that the
Association's order places an unreasonable limitation on
their solar installation in violation of RP § 2-119(b)
and that the Association unreasonably withheld its consent to
the system they installed. As we explain, the notion of
reasonableness the Bloods ask us to adopt here misconstrues
the text and purpose of the statute. We hold that the
limitation here was reasonable and enforced reasonably and
affirm.
I.
BACKGROUND
In
April 2015, the Bloods purchased a single-family home in a
subdivision in Bel Air. The property was part of a
development called Stoneridge at Fountain Green and subject
to a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions
(the "Declaration"). Among other things, Article V
of the Declaration required the Bloods to seek approval by
the Association's Board of Directors or architectural
review committee before adding to, changing, or altering the
property:
No building, fence, wall or other structure shall be
commenced, erected or maintained upon the Property, nor shall
any exterior addition to or change or alteration therein be
made (including, without limitation, any structure which
impedes or impairs mowing or lawn maintenance) until the
plans and specification showing the nature, kind, shape,
height, materials and location of the same shall have been
submitted to and approved in writing as to harmony of
external design and location in relation to surrounding
structures and topography by the Board of Directors of the
Association or by an architectural committee composed of
three (3) or more representatives appointed by the Board,
which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld . . . .
A few
months after moving in, on June 19, 2015, the Bloods entered
an agreement with a company called SolarGaines to install a
solar collection system on their roof. The system included
fifteen solar panels on the front roof of the house and
thirty-three solar panels on the rear roof, along with the
equipment, such as an inverter and net meter, needed to
connect the system to the local electric company's
distribution system. The installation was completed
approximately two months later.
The
Bloods don't dispute that the Declaration required them
to seek approval before installing the system or that they
failed to file an application for approval with the
Association's architectural committee until August 6,
2015, when installation was nearly complete. The committee
denied the Bloods' application on August 27, 2015, and
the Bloods didn't appeal the decision to the
Association's Board of Directors at that point or take
the solar system down.
On May
4, 2016, the Association sent the Bloods a letter notifying
them that their solar array violated the Declaration because
it lacked "the mandatory written approval [of the
committee] per Article V [] of the Declaration for Stone
Ridge at Fountain Green." The letter directed the Bloods
to "remove the solar panels within 30 days of the date
of this letter;" the letter didn't qualify this
direction or limit it to the panels on the front roof, but
the "Subject" line of the letter said, "Solar
Panels Removal on Front of House." After receiving the
letter, the Bloods appealed the architectural committee's
August 2015 decision to the Association's Board of
Directors, and the Board denied the appeal on July 25, 2016.
The
Bloods still didn't remove the solar panels from their
front roof, so on December 14, 2016, the Association filed a
two-count complaint in the Circuit Court of Harford County.
Count 1 sought a declaratory judgment stating that the Bloods
were in violation of the Declaration. Count 2 sought an
injunction "DIRECTING the [Bloods] to dismantle and
disassemble their solar system and to remove the same from
the front roof" of the house. The complaint doesn't
quote from the Association's May 4, 2016 violation
letter, but in paragraph 20, characterizes that letter as
directing the Bloods to remove the solar panels only from the
front roof. Similarly, the complaint alleges in paragraph 21
that "[n]otwithstanding the second notification the
[Bloods] failed to remove the solar system from the
front roof and the solar system is still attached to
the front roof of the [Bloods'] residence."
(Emphasis added.) The Association also filed a motion for
summary judgment alongside the complaint, which contended
that the material facts were undisputed-the text of the
Declaration required approval and the solar system remained
on the Bloods' roof without it. For that reason, the
Association argued it was entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.
The
Bloods answered and opposed the Association's motion.
Although they claimed that material facts were in dispute,
they didn't identify any. They emphasized, however (and
correctly), that the Association hadn't stated any
reasons for denying their application, and argued that
requiring them to remove the solar panels from their front
roof imposed an unreasonable limitation on solar
installations that violated RP § 2-119(b). That statute
limits restrictions on land use that interfere unreasonably
with solar energy ...