No objection will be raised for blocks 6 AND 11 known for
Such covenants and agreements run with the land.
1. That all houses upon the
premises hereby conveyed shall be built and used for residence
purposes exclusively, except stables, carriage
houses, sheds or other outbuildings, for use in connection with
such residences and that no trade, business, manufacture or
sales, or nuisance of any kind shall be carried on or permitted
upon said premises.
5. That a violation of any of the aforesaid covenants and
agreements may be enjoined
and the same enforced at the suit of The Chevy Chase
Land Company, of Montgomery County, Maryland, its successors and
assigns (assigns including any person deriving title mediately
or immediately from said company to any lot or square, or part
of a lot or square in the Section of the Subdivision of which
the land hereby conveyed forms a part). [Emphasis added.]
Was there sufficient evidence to establish a uniform general
scheme or plan of development to
entitle the appellants to enforcement
of the covenants?
Was there an abandonment and failure of the original plan of
development and such a change in the general characteristics
of the neighborhood as to render the
Were the appellants guilty of laches and therefore estopped
from the enforcement of the subject covenants?
Under the doctrine of comparative hardship should the court
decline to enforce the restrictive covenants?
Section 1 Discussion
Dr. Jaggers Arg
Insufficient evidence to establish a uniform general plan of
developments as would entitle appellants to enforce the
Even if such a plan were absent it would not necessarily defeat
Rogers v. State Roads Comm.,
There need not be any
general plan of development in order to make a restrictive
covenant enforceable, if it is imposed by a grantor
on a single tract conveyed by him for the benefit of adjacent
property retained by him.
In this case (General plan is not necessary, when there is
In the present case we need
not decide whether there was a uniform general plan of
development, though the evidence may well support
such a finding.
The covenants are enforceable
in any event because of the specific
language used in the
Covenants are clearly binding.
Expressed provision that the covenants runs with the land.
Explicitly states that the covenants are binding upon the
grantee her heirs and assigns and enforceable by the grantor,
its successors and assigns.
Section 2 Discussion
Dr. Jaggers Arg Abandonment and failure of the original plan
There has been an abandonment and failure of the original plan
of development and a substantial change in the general
characteristics of the neighborhood so as to render the
Does not have a problem with the argument, but thinks it is
inapplicable to the facts of this case
Majority Rule Change in Character (Texas Co. v. Harker)
"Most jurisdictions now recognize a
change in the character of a neighborhood as a
ground for affirmative relief
against restrictive covenants by way of
modification where the
change has been so radical as
to render perpetuation of the restriction of no substantial
benefit to the dominant estate, and to defeat the
object or purpose of the restriction."
Question to ask
Whether there has been a complete or radical change in the
neighborhood causing the restrictions to outlive their
There are some residential lots being used for nonresidential
BUT, these are very minimal deviates and do not show radical
Dr. Jaggers Arg Trial Court was correct in looking beyond
section 1-A for change
An Aerial photograph shows nearby surroundings are similarly
Section 3 Discussion
Dr. Jaggers Arg The appellants have been guilty of laches and
should therefore be estopped from seeking enforcement of the
Three other doctors in the subdivision are using their homes for
their principal practice.
Dr. Jaggers had used his property for the practice of medicine
for nearly twenty years without objection.
Combined use is okay
Appellants do not have objections to a combined office-home use.
Question to ask
Whether the waiver, if there was one, was broad enough to permit
the doctor to move his residence, rent his home, still maintain
his office on the premises, and yet not be in violation of the
We hold the possible waiver did not go this far.
Any waiver that may have
existed was limited to the use of the office incidental to his
living on the property.
Once appellees moved, however, such use ceased to be incidental
and the appellants could still assert their rights to enforce
Dr. Jaggers Arg No one from Section 1-A objected when the
Montgomery County Board of Appeals granted the Jaggers' request
for a special exception to use their premises for the practice
Question to ask
Contractual restrictions are neither abrogated [abolished]
nor enlarged by zoning restrictions.
We point out that even if this silence were relevant on the
question, the proceeding before the zoning board would only
be indicative of the neighbors' acquiescence in the combined
use of the property as a home and as an office,
not as an office and rental
property without the owner living on the premises.
Section 4 Discussion
Dr. Jaggers Arg If he returns to his former home or remove
his office, he will suffer a great hardship, when he has only
caused negligible harm to his neighbors.
Three other doctors in the subdivision are using their homes
- He invokes Doctrine of comparative hardship
He invokes the equitable doctrine of comparative hardship to
avoid this result.
- Doctrine of comparative hardship
It basically provides that a court may decline to issue an
injunction where the hardship and inconvenience which would
result from the injunction is greatly disproportionate to the
harm to be remedied.
He should have been aware of the limits on the use of his
[The neighbors] interest in preserving the residential
integrity of their community is simply not outweighed by his
desire to move to another fashionable and exclusively
On remand we direct that the appellees be enjoined from using
their property in Chevy Chase Village for the practice of
medicine unless they actually reside on the premises.