Chevy Chase Village v. Jaggers
275 A.2d 167, 261 Md. 309 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party's acquiescence to a partial or incidental violation of a restrictive covenant does not constitute a waiver of the right to enforce that covenant against a subsequent, more significant violation that alters the nature of the use.
Facts:
- In 1927, the Chevy Chase Land Company subdivided a property and placed restrictive covenants on residential lots, requiring they be used for 'residence purposes exclusively.'
- In 1947, Dr. Frank Y. Jaggers and his wife purchased a lot in the subdivision.
- For approximately 20 years, from 1947 to 1967, Dr. Jaggers lived on the property and also maintained his medical office there.
- During this period, Dr. Jaggers made significant investments in 1948 and 1959 to convert and expand his garage into office space.
- In 1954, Dr. Jaggers obtained a special zoning exception to practice medicine on the premises, and no residents objected.
- Three other doctors in the subdivision also maintained principal offices in their homes.
- In 1967, the Jaggers moved to a new home in another town but Dr. Jaggers continued to operate his medical practice at the Chevy Chase property.
- After moving, the Jaggers rented the dwelling portion of the Chevy Chase property to another physician for residential use only.
Procedural Posture:
- Chevy Chase Village and resident homeowners (plaintiffs) filed an action in equity in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland (a trial court), against Dr. Frank Y. Jaggers, Jr. and his wife (defendants).
- The plaintiffs sought an injunction to prohibit the Jaggers from using their property as a medical office in violation of a restrictive covenant.
- The trial court denied the injunction and found in favor of the Jaggers.
- The plaintiffs (now appellants) appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a neighborhood association's long-standing acquiescence to a homeowner's combined residential and professional use of a property waive its right to enforce a 'residence only' restrictive covenant when the homeowner ceases to reside on the property but continues to use it exclusively for professional purposes?
Opinions:
Majority - Digges, J.
No. The neighborhood association's prior acquiescence does not waive its right to enforce the covenant under the changed circumstances. While the community may have tolerated the incidental use of the property as a medical office when the doctor also resided there, this waiver does not extend to a situation where the property is no longer the owner's residence. The court reasoned that the covenants were explicitly written to run with the land and were therefore enforceable by subsequent owners within the subdivision. The court rejected the argument that the neighborhood had changed so radically as to render the covenant obsolete, finding that minor deviations like a few other home offices did not defeat the overall residential character and purpose of the restrictions. The central holding on the issue of laches and waiver is that the failure to object to the combined home-office use did not prevent the appellants from enforcing the covenant once the circumstances changed. When Dr. Jaggers moved his residence, his use of the property for his practice ceased to be incidental and became a primary commercial use, which was a new and distinct violation against which the appellants could assert their rights in a timely manner. Finally, the court dismissed the comparative hardship argument, stating that the doctor's inconvenience did not outweigh the community's substantial interest in preserving its residential integrity.
Analysis:
This case provides a significant clarification on the doctrines of waiver and laches in the context of restrictive covenants. It establishes that a waiver is not all-or-nothing; acquiescing to a minor or specific type of violation does not create a blanket waiver for all future, more substantial violations. This precedent allows property owners and associations to tolerate small infractions without forfeiting their right to enforce the covenant's original purpose against larger deviations. The decision reinforces the durability of restrictive covenants and limits the effectiveness of the 'changed conditions' and 'waiver' defenses, thereby protecting the stability and character of planned residential communities.
Unlock the full brief for Chevy Chase Village v. Jaggers