Lexplug logoLexplug

Reiner v. Ehrlich

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
66 A.3d 1132, 212 Md. App. 142, 2013 WL 2338476 (2013)
ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

The business judgment rule precludes judicial review of a homeowners association's internal decisions regarding property alterations absent a showing of fraud or bad faith. Additionally, under Maryland law, a claimant challenging association actions must sue the governing body itself, not individual officers or members, unless specific tortious conduct is alleged.


Facts:

  • Appellants Randall and Orna Reiner owned a home in the 'Player's Gate' village of the Avenel community for 18 years.
  • The Avenel community is governed by the Avenel Community Association, Inc., which enforces bylaws and architectural standards.
  • The Association's bylaws and the '2006 Roof Specifications' expressly prohibited the use of asphalt roofing materials in the Reiners' specific village.
  • In 2010, the Reiners submitted a request to the Association to replace their original cedar shake roof with an asphalt roof.
  • The Association denied the request based on the prohibition in the bylaws.
  • Despite the denial, the Reiners signed a contract to install the asphalt shingles anyway.
  • The Association issued a 'cease and desist' notice warning the Reiners against the installation.
  • The Reiners contended that the Association was merely a 'straw-man' and that a common law trust relationship existed, imposing higher fiduciary duties on the homeowners acting for the Association.

Procedural Posture:

  • The Reiners filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County against the Association and sixteen individual homeowners.
  • The Reiners moved for a temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction, which the Circuit Court denied.
  • The individual homeowners filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
  • The Association filed a motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment.
  • The Circuit Court held a hearing, granted the motion to dismiss regarding the individual homeowners, and granted summary judgment in favor of the Association.
  • The Reiners filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment.
  • The Circuit Court denied the motion to alter or amend without a hearing.
  • The Reiners appealed the judgment to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

Locked

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 the business judgment rule shield a homeowners association's decision to deny a architectural modification request from judicial review when the homeowners assert no fraud or bad faith?


Opinions:

Majority - Judge Berger

Yes, the business judgment rule applies to homeowners associations, preventing courts from interfering with their legitimate internal decisions absent a showing of fraud or bad faith. The Court affirmed the lower court's grant of summary judgment. The Court rejected the Reiners' argument that the Association was a 'trust' or 'straw-man' subject to different fiduciary standards. Relying on Black v. Fox Hills North Cmty. Ass'n, the Court held that because the Reiners admitted they were not alleging fraud or bad faith, the Association's decision to enforce its ban on asphalt roofs fell within its legitimate discretion and was immune from judicial review. Furthermore, the Court found that the bylaws did not violate county fire codes, as compliant fire-rated materials were available on the approved list. Finally, the Court affirmed the dismissal of the individual homeowners from the suit, noting that Maryland statute requires plaintiffs to sue the governing entity, not individuals, unless those individuals acted with gross negligence or outside the scope of their duties.



Analysis:

This case reinforces the strength of the business judgment rule in the context of common ownership communities. It confirms that Maryland courts will not act as a 'super-board' to second-guess the architectural decisions of HOAs provided those decisions are made within the scope of the association's authority and without malice. This decision provides significant protection to HOA boards and their members, limiting their liability and preventing disgruntled homeowners from dragging individual neighbors into litigation over policy disputes. It shifts the burden heavily onto plaintiffs to prove actual malfeasance rather than just a disagreement over rule interpretation.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Reiner v. Ehrlich (2013)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"