RDC Melanie Dr. v. Eppard

RDC Melanie Drive, LLC v. Mark R. Eppard, et al., No. 48, September Term 2020. Opinion by Hotten, J. CIVIL PROCEDURE – RES JUDICATA – COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL The Court of Appeals held that the issue of whether restrictive covenants prohibited a commercial golf driving range on any lot within a residential subdivision was neither barred by res judicata nor collateral estoppel. Res judicata did not apply because the issues litigated in a previous matter and the current matter were distinct. The former concerned a zoning variance and the latter concerned the application of a restrictive covenant.

Collateral estoppel did not apply because a zoning board in the first matter expressly declined to consider the issue of restrictive covenants, which prevented the issue from being “actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment[.]” Cosby v. Dep’t of Hum. Res., 425 Md. 629, 639 , 42 A.3d 596, 602 (2012). PROPERTY LAW – RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS – CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION The Court of Appeals held that a restrictive covenant unambiguously intended to preserve the residential character of a small, single-family home community by applying a “reasonable construction” of a restrictive covenant as first articulated by the Court in Belleview Construction Co. v. Rugby Hall Community Ass’n, 321 Md. 152, 158 , 582 A.2d 493, 496 (1990) (citation and internal quotation omitted). The Court also concluded that a majority of homeowners within the residential community validly amended the restrictive covenant by prohibiting a commercial golf driving range on any of the lots within the community.

The amendment clarified a preexisting and uniform restriction on all of the lots that prevented offensive or noxious trades or activities and any activity that may become an annoyance or nuisance. PROPERTY LAW – RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS – CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION The Court of Appeals held that a restrictive covenant unambiguously permitted the realignment of a lot boundary line. A restrictive covenant prohibited the creation of new lots through subdivision but expressly permitted the “adjustment or realignment of boundary lines[.]” A property owner permissibly realigned the boundary of their property pursuant to the plain language of the restrictive covenant. Circuit Court for Talbot County Case No. C-20-CV-18-000079 Argued: May 6, 2021 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 48 September Term, 2020 __________________________________ RDC MELANIE DRIVE, LLC v. MARK EPPARD, ET AL. __________________________________ Barbera, C.J., McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Getty, Booth, Biran, JJ. __________________________________ Opinion by Hotten, J. __________________________________ Filed: July 15, 2021 Pursuant to Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document is authentic. 2021-07-15 11:08-04:00 Suzanne C. Johnson, Clerk The parties in this appeal own property in the Swan Point Subdivision (“Swan Point”), located in Talbot County, Maryland.1 Swan Point consists of six lots, reflected in the tax record as Lots A, B, C, D, 5, and 6.

Petitioner, RDC Melanie Drive, LLC (“RDC”) owns a nearby golf course, now known as the Links, and purchased Lot 6 in 2015. The present dispute arises from an effort by RDC to convert Lot 6 into a commercial golf driving range (“a driving range” or “the driving range”). Respondent, Mark Eppard, et al. (“Homeowners”), represent four of the other five property owners in Swan Point who oppose RDC’s proposed plan to construct a driving range on Lot 6.2 On August 21, 2017, RDC applied for zoning variances and exceptions from the Talbot County Board of Appeals (“the Board”) to modify the boundaries of Lot 6 and to construct the driving range. The Homeowners opposed the variance, contending that a restrictive covenant, applicable to all lots within Swan Point, prevented the construction of the driving range.

The Board did not address the issue of the restrictive covenant, but granted the zoning variance for RDC. In response, the Homeowners amended the restrictive covenant to specifically prohibit a driving range on any lot within Swan Point. The Homeowners sought judicial review of the Board’s determination in the Circuit Court for Talbot County. Following a hearing on May 16, 2018, the circuit court found 1 “Swan Point [] is part of a larger subdivision that was created by a subdivision plat, . . . prepared by William W. Ludlow Jr., dated November 28, 1987 . . . and recorded among the Plat Records of Talbot County[,] Maryland in Plat Book 79[,] Folio 76.” Eppard v. RDC Melanie Drive, LLC, C-20-CV-18-000079, slip. op. at 2 (Md. Cir. Ct. July 12, 2019) (memorandum opinion and declaratory judgment). 2 The sixth property owner, Old Martingham LLC, declined to participate in any of the proceedings. that most of the decisions of the Board were supported by substantial evidence and following a remand to the Board for additional findings, affirmed the decisions of the Board on November 19, 2018.

The Homeowners sought a declaratory judgment in the circuit court for a determination that the original Swan Point restrictive covenant, the Homeowners’ amendment to the original Swan Point restrictive covenant, and a restrictive covenant specifically applicable to Lot 6—recorded in 2008 by former owners Vladimir D. Zajic and Etta K. Zajic (“Zajic Declaration”)—prohibited the driving range. RDC filed a counter complaint, contending that the development of a driving range and a realignment of the property boundaries of Lot 6 was not prohibited by the restrictive covenants. The circuit court entered a declaratory judgment, concluding that the Homeowners’ amended restrictive covenant validly prohibited the construction of a driving range on Lot 6, and the original Swan Point restrictive covenant permitted the realignment of Lot 6 property boundaries. The circuit court also declared that the controversy surrounding the Zajic Declaration was moot by virtue of the other declarations.

The parties cross-appealed the decision of the circuit court to the Court of Special Appeals, which affirmed. The Court of Special Appeals consolidated the questions presented and held that the determination of whether the original Swan Point restrictive covenant prohibited a driving range was not precluded by collateral estoppel and that the Homeowners’ amended restrictive covenant validly prohibited a driving range on Lot 6. The Court of Special Appeals further held that the circuit court did not err when it declared the Zajic Declaration moot and that the circuit court correctly determined that it was 2 permissible under the original Swan Point restrictive covenant for RDC to realign the boundaries of Lot 6. RDC timely appealed to this Court and the Homeowners filed a cross-petition.

We granted the petition for certiorari and the cross-petition on January 6, 2021, RDC Melanie Drive, LLC v. Eppard, 472 Md. 4 , 243 A.3d 1198 (2021), which resolve into the following five questions: 1. Whether the factual issue of whether a driving range constitutes a “noxious or offensive trade or activity” or causes any “annoyance or nuisance” is precluded by res judicata or collateral estoppel. 2. Whether the Original Declaration unambiguously restricts various activities to preserve the residential character of a small community of single-family homes? 3. Whether the Amended Declaration validly clarified the terms of the Original Declaration by prohibiting a commercial driving range on any lot within Swan Point? 4.

Whether Article III, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph (k) of the Original Declaration permits the revision of existing lot lines? 5. Whether the controversy regarding the Zajic Declaration is moot?3 3 We rephrased and reordered the questions presented for analytical consistency and clarity. RDC’s petition for certiorari presented the following seven questions for review: I. Whether, as a matter of first impression under Maryland law, the Amended Declaration is enforceable against RDC where the Amended Declaration adds new restrictions prohibiting golf course uses and driving ranges, and the language of the amendment clause of the Original Declaration does not expressly permit changes which add new restrictions?

II

Whether the [c]ircuit [c]ourt and the Court of Special Appeals erred in (continued . . .) 3 (. . . continued) ruling that the Amended Declaration does not add additional restrictions to Lot 6, where the Amended Declaration plainly adds new restrictions prohibiting golf course uses and driving ranges?

III

Whether the enforcement of the restrictions prohibiting any “noxious or offensive trade or activity” or any use that “may become an annoyance or nuisance,” or any amendment thereto, is subject to review on an objective standard?

IV

Whether Respondents’ claims that the use of Lot 6 as driving range will be “noxious or offensive” or cause “annoyance or nuisance” have been fully litigated before the Board of Appeals and those issues and claims are precluded by the doctrines of [collateral estoppel] and res judicata? And if not, whether RDC is entitled to trial on those issues and claims? V. Whether the restrictions prohibiting any “noxious or offensive trade or activity” or any use that “may become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood or other owners” are too vague to be enforced?

VI

Whether the Original Declaration prohibits golf course uses, driving ranges, or other commercial activity under uniform plan of development?

VII

Whether RDC is entitled to summary judgment on the Respondents’ Claims arising from Article III, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph (m) of the Original Declaration and from the Zajic Declaration? The Homeowner’s conditional cross-petition presented the following five questions for review: I. In this declaratory judgment action, were the lower courts obliged as a matter of law to review each provision of the applicable covenants addressed by the parties in the pleadings, and to declare the rights and obligations of parties based upon the language of the instruments, read together in accordance with their express terms and the intent thereof as stated in the instruments?

II

Did the lower courts err as a matter of law, by failing to render an analysis whether the Original Covenants, by their terms, intended only a residential and agricultural use subdivision? (continued . . .) 4 We answer the first question in the negative, the second, third, and fourth questions in the affirmative and accordingly shall affirm the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals. We need not reach the fifth question presented. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Underlying Incident The Links, formerly known as the Harbourtowne Golf Course, is a golf course located in St. Michaels, Maryland.

The Links was originally developed in the 1970s and (. . . continued) III. Did the lower courts err in failing to address the express provision of the Original Declaration, in Article III, ¶ 1 (m), [] prohibiting any excavations on any Lot within the subdivision except in connection with permitted buildings; and did they erroneously fail to integrate that provision with the Zajic [Declaration], approved and accepted by all the parties or their predecessors, that specifically prohibits the construction of any buildings on the agricultural portion of Lot 6? Alternatively stated, were the trial court and the Court of Special Appeals clearly in error by declaring that the issues arising under the Zajic [Declaration] were moot under the circumstances of this case?

IV

Did the lower courts err as a matter of law in their interpretation that the Original Declaration, Article III, ¶ (k), permits a boundary line adjustment with a non-subdivision lot for the purpose of permitting resort and golf course uses on land intended for only residential and agricultural use? V. Did the trial court err as a matter of law by failing to address Cross- Petitioners’ request for injunctive relief, and in the case of the Court of Special Appeals, did it likewise err in failing to remand this case to the trial court (as requested in the Homeowners’ briefs in the Court of Special Appeals) to address the question of ancillary injunctive relief in light of both courts’ conclusions that the Amended Declaration is a valid prohibition of driving range development? 5 is now part of the Perry Cabin resort. Swan Point was developed in 1988 and is adjacent to and contiguous with the Links. Swan Point contains six lots: A, B, C, D, 5, and 6.4 Each lot at Swan Point is subject to the covenants and restrictions described in the “DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS, COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS SWAN POINT” (“the Original Declaration”).

In pertinent part, the Original Declaration provided: WHEREAS, the Declarants desire to provide for the preservation of the values and amenities in the community comprised of their collective properties; and to this end, desire to impose upon the Property [i.e., Swan Point] the covenants, restrictions, easements and equitable servitudes, hereinafter set forth, each and all of which are for the benefit of the Property and the owners thereof. . . . [A]ll of which are declared and agreed to be in aid of a plan for the improvement of the Property . . . and shall inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by the Declarants, their successors and assigns, and any person acquiring or owning an interest in the Property, including, without limitation, any person, group of persons, . . . or other legal entity. . . . ARTICLE I *** (a) “Declarant” shall mean and refer to the Declarants hereinabove identified in the preamble to this Declaration, and their successors and assigns. . . . (b) “Dwelling” shall mean and refer to any building or portion of a building situated upon the Property and designed and intended for use and occupancy as a residence by a single person or family. *** ARTICLE III 1. Prohibited Uses and Nuisances.

Except for the activities of the Declarant during the construction or development of the community: (a) No noxious or offensive trade or activity shall be carried on upon any Lot or within any dwelling, nor shall anything be done therein or 4 At the time of the present dispute, Albert G. Boyce and Kim T. Boyce own Lot B; Mark R. Eppard and Patricia A. Eppard own Lot C; Norman S. Hastings and Lily S. Hastings own Lot D; and Madeline C. Holmes owns Lot 5. Old Martingham, LLC owns Lot A, but has not participated in proceedings. RDC owns Lot 6. See infra page 9. 6 thereon, which may be or become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood or other Owners.

Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, no speaker, horn, whistle, siren, bell, amplifier or other sound device, except such devices as may be used exclusively for security purposes, shall be located, installed or maintained upon the exterior of any dwelling or upon the exterior of any other improvements constructed upon any Lot. No snowmobiles, go-carts, motor bikes, trail bikes or other loud engine recreational vehicles shall be run or operated upon any Lot or upon the roads serving the Property. *** (b) The maintenance, keeping, boarding or raising of animals, livestock, or poultry of any kind, regardless of number, shall be and is hereby prohibited on any Lot or within any dwelling, except that this provision shall not prohibit the keeping of horses, dogs, cats or customary household animals, provided that such animals are not a source of annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood or other Owners and do not roam at-large. *** (f) No structure of a temporary character shall be erected, used or maintained on any Lot at any time. (g) Except for entrance signs, directional signs, signs for traffic control or safety and such promotional sign or signs as may be maintained by the Declarant, no signs or advertising devices of any character shall be erected, posted or displayed upon, in or about any Lot or dwelling; provided, however, that one temporary real estate sign not exceeding four (4) square feet in area, may be erected upon any Lot placed upon the market for sale or rent. . . . *** (k) No Lot shall be subdivided; provided, however, that this restriction shall not be construed to prohibit the adjustment or realignment of boundary lines between Lots as long as such adjustment or realignment shall not create an additional Lot. *** (m) No excavation shall be made on any Lot except for the purpose of building thereon at the same time when the building operations are commenced, and no earth or sand shall be removed from any Lot except as a part of such operations; provided, however, that this restriction shall not be construed to prohibit the construction of swimming pools or ponds. *** (q) Not more than one (1) dwelling shall be erected on any one (1) Lot within the Property, said dwelling being restricted to a single family dwelling. . . . *** 7 ARTICLE VI 1. Amendment.

This Declaration may be amended by an instrument executed and acknowledged by two-thirds (2/3) of the Owners of the Lots within the community, which instrument shall be recorded among the Land Records of Talbot County, Maryland. Unless a later date is specified in any such instrument, any amendment to this Declaration shall become effective on the date of recording. Except as required by the appropriate zoning authorities of Talbot County, while Declarant owns any Lot, no substantial change shall be made in this Declaration without the written consent appended to the amending instrument of all Owners, including Declarant. 2. Duration.

Unless amended in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 1 of this Article and the other requirements of this Declaration, and except where permanent easements or other permanent rights or interests are herein created, the covenants and restrictions of this Declaration shall run with and bind the land, and shall inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by the Owner of any Lot subject to this Declaration, their respective legal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns, for a term of thirty (30) years from the date of the recordation of this Declaration, after which the said covenants shall be automatically be extended until terminated by a vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the Owners of the Lots. 3. Construction and Enforcement. The provisions hereof shall be liberally construed to effectuate the purpose of creating a uniform plan for the development and operation of the Property. . . . *** (Emphasis added). In 2008, the former owners of Lot 6, Vladimir D. Zajic and Etta K. Zajic executed the Zajic Declaration, recorded among the land records of Talbot County at MAS Liber 1649, folio 503.5 The Zajic Declaration provided in pertinent part: 5 The Zajic Declaration was not recorded solely for the benefit of the Zajic family.

The preamble to the Zajic Declaration also names Paul D. Haines and Ann N. Haines, Marsha E. Jewett, Mark R. Eppard and Patricia A. Eppard, and Norman S. Hastings and Lilly S. Hastings as “Benefited Owners[.]” At the time that the Zajic Declaration was recorded, these individuals owned Lots 5, B, C, and D, respectively. Only Lot A, now owned by Old Martingham LLC, was not named as a Benefited Owner. 8 1. Prohibited Structures. Commencing upon the Effective Date as hereinafter defined, no structure, habitation or other building may be constructed on the Property.

This Declaration shall not prohibit, limit, restrict or otherwise impair the Declarants’ rights, in their sole discretion, to use, maintain, repair, replace or improve the driveway located on the Property. *** 4. Construction and Enforcement. The provisions hereof shall be liberally construed to effectuate the purpose of the preservation of the natural values and amenities of the Property. . . . (Emphasis added).

In 2015, RDC purchased the Links. As part of its redevelopment and operation of the Links, RDC sought to relocate the driving range to a waterfront property at 9599 Melanie Drive, St. Michaels. This property is designated as Lot 6 of Swan Point. 6 RDC also intended to expand its existing golf course onto a portion of Lot 6. On July 21, 2016, David W. Rattner, on behalf of RDC, sent a letter to all the Swan Point property owners, communicating RDC’s intention to convert the southern portion of Lot 6 into a driving range.

The letter provided in pertinent part: This plan enables us to lengthen the driving range and expand the 1st and 18th holes; moreover, relocating the driving range will allow us to significantly reduce the number of golf balls flying on to Martingham Drive. We hope Harbourtowne members agree that this will provide a much- improved golfing experience, and that residents will feel safer traveling along Martingham Drive. To this end, we recently proposed a zoning change to Talbot County, which would allow us to incorporate this piece of the lot [into] the golf course. 6 Lot 6 was 29.711 acres before its conveyance and subsequent boundary modification by RDC. The proposed driving range would occupy approximately thirteen acres of the northern portion of the property.

Lot 6 had been used as a spray field for the treated effluent from the nearby Martingham subdivision until the subdivision gained public sewer access. Lot 6 is partially located in a Critical Area on lands designated as a Resource Conservation Area. See RDC Melanie Drive, 2020 WL 5989518 , at ³. 9 On July 29, 2016, the Zajic’s conveyed their interest in Lot 6 to RDC. On or about May 12, 2017, RDC submitted a Critical Area Variance and Special Exception Application for the driving range to the Board, which held evidentiary hearings concerning RDC’s Application on August 7 and 21, 2017.

Mark R. Eppard, Patricia A. Eppard, and Madeline C. Holmes appeared at the hearings, and through counsel, submitted a memorandum of law in opposition to RDC’s Application. On November 17, 2017, the Board voted to approve RDC’s requested variances, which included an expansion of the existing golf course onto a portion of Lot 6 to accommodate the relocated driving range and an associated access path and drainage. The Board determined that it lacked the authority “to consider the effects of or to enforce any private restrictive covenants that may impact the subject property.” On September 11, 2017, the Homeowners recorded an “AMENDED DECLARATION AND REAFFIRMATION OF RESTRICTIONS, COVENANTS, AND CONDITIONS FOR SWAN POINT SUBDIVISION” (“Amended Declaration”). The Amended Declaration provided in pertinent part: (u) No Lot within the Property, nor any portion thereof, shall be converted from residential or agricultural use into a commercial or private golf course use, nor shall any Lot be utilized as or in connection with a driving range or similar commercial use in connection with a golf course, it being the intent of the subscribers hereto that the Swan Point subdivision retain its character as a residential, single family dwelling community, and not be converted into a commercial resort property for use by members of the public, golf course members, or resort hotel guests.

(Emphasis added). 10 In January 2018, RDC recorded a plat entitled “MINOR REVISION PLAT ON THE LANDS OF RDC HARBOURTOWNE LLC AND MELANIE DRIVE, LLC[,]” among the Plat Records of Talbot County in Plat Book MAS 86/04, pages 4 and 5 (“Minor Revision Plat”), that adjusted the boundary line between Lot 6 and the neighboring golf course.7 The boundary revision incorporated 12.811 acres of Lot 6 within the boundaries of the adjacent and contiguous golf course. Legal Proceedings A. The Circuit Court The Homeowners petitioned the Circuit Court for Talbot County to review the Board’s decision.8 On May 16, 2018, the circuit court found that there was substantial evidence to support most of the findings, but remanded the case to the Board for additional factual determinations.9 Following additional findings by the Board on remand, the Homeowners sought judicial review of the Board’s decision a second time, which was affirmed again by the circuit court on May 6, 2019. 7 The record indicates several contradictory titles for the Minor Revision Plat. We provide the title of the Minor Revision Plat as originally recorded in the county plat records. 8 Pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Land Use § 4-401 (a), “[a]ny of the following persons may file a request for judicial review of a decision of a board of appeals or a zoning action of a legislative body by the circuit court of the county: (1) a person aggrieved by the decision or action[.] . . .” 9 The additional factual determinations included whether the lot’s proposed use would affect marine, pedestrian, and vehicle traffic, existing agricultural uses, other permitted or nonconforming property uses, or exceed “the minimum adjustment necessary to relieve the unwarranted hardship.” 11 The Homeowners sought declaratory judgment10 in the circuit court that the applicable covenants prohibited the conversion of Lot 6 into a driving range. The Homeowners filed a motion for summary judgment and RDC filed a motion to dismiss or in the alternative a motion for summary judgment.

The circuit court granted the Homeowners’ motion for summary judgment, agreeing with the Board that the interpretation and enforcement of covenants “lay beyond the capacity of the Talbot County Board of Appeals[.]” (Citation omitted). Therefore, according to the circuit court, the Homeowners did not have an opportunity to be heard on the issue.11 As a preliminary issue, the circuit court granted RDC’s motion for summary judgment regarding the Minor Revision Plat. According to the circuit court, the plain language of Article III, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph (k) of the Original Declaration restricted the creation of new lots, but permitted the adjustment or realignment of boundary lines. RDC’s Minor Revision Plat only provided for a lot line revision, and therefore was not prohibited by the Original Declaration.

Md. Code Ann., Courts and Judicial Proceedings (“Cts. & Jud. Proc.”) §§ 3- 10 401–415 governs declaratory judgments. Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-406 states: Any person interested under deed, will, trust, land patent, written contract, or other writing constituting contract, or whose rights, status, or other legal relations are affected by statute, municipal ordinance, administrative rule or regulation, contract, or franchise, may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument, statute, ordinance, administrative rule or regulation, land patent, contract, or franchise and obtain declaration of rights, status, or other legal relations under it. 11 The circuit court also noted that because RDC successfully argued to the Board that the Original Declaration was beyond the jurisdiction of the Board, it negated its collateral estoppel argument. 12 With respect to the interpretation of the Amended Declaration, the circuit court concluded that “the Amended Declaration is consistent with the terms and purpose of the Original Declaration, and the [c]ourt will enter a declaratory judgment to that effect[.]” Article VI of the Original Declaration authorized the Homeowners to make amendments, and the circuit court declared that the Amended Declaration, which prohibited the construction of a driving range, “is a valid restriction on all of the lots in [] Swan Point [] and that it is appropriately applied to Lot 6. . . .” The circuit court also concluded that its findings rendered moot the issue of whether the proposed driving range would violate the Zajic Declaration.

B. The Court of Special Appeals The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the circuit court in an unreported opinion. RDC Melanie Drive, LLC v. Eppard, No. 1146, Sept. Term, 2019, 2020 WL 5989518 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Oct. 9, 2020). The Court began its analysis by noting that the purpose of the Original Declaration was to “provide for the preservation of the values and amenities in the community comprised of their collective properties.” Id. at ⁶.

According to the Court, “the Swan Point lots were purely residential, unlike the bordering Martingham subdivision.” Id. at ⁷. The Court of Special Appeals agreed with the circuit court that the Amended Declaration was consistent with the Original Declaration, and the Amended Declaration supported a uniform plan for the development of Swan Point as a residential community. Id. at ⁷. The Court found no persuasive authority in Maryland for RDC’s contention that a new restriction to Lot 6 would invalidate the Amended Declaration.

Id. According to 13 the Court, the out-of-state cases cited by RDC were misplaced because the facts “differ vastly” from the case at bar. Id. The Amended Declaration, unlike any of the cases cited by RDC, did not create new restrictions, burdens, or covenants.

Id. at ⁸. The Amended Declaration “simply clarified the terms of the Original Declaration by giving a definition to residential or agricultural land use that may become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood or other Owners.” Id. (internal quotation and footnote omitted). The Court of Special Appeals also rejected RDC’s argument that the restriction in Article III, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph (a) of the Original Declaration is void for vagueness, because the out-of-state cases cited by RDC were “readily distinguishable” on the facts.

Id. The Court held that the Amended Declaration was legally enforceable against Lot 6. Id. at ⁶. The Court of Special Appeals next dismissed RDC’s contention that collateral estoppel bars the Homeowners from relitigating the issue of whether the driving range constitutes a “noxious or offensive trade or activity” or causes any “annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood or other owners[.]” Id. at ⁹.

According to the Court, the substance of the Original Declaration had yet to be litigated, which meant the Homeowners were not precluded from being heard on the issue. Id. The Court of Special Appeals agreed with the circuit court that because the Amended Declaration had been determined valid and enforceable against Lot 6, the controversy regarding the Zajic Declaration became moot. Id.

The Court also agreed with the circuit court that the Original Declaration permitted the realignment of Lot 6 boundary 14 lines under the Minor Revision Plat because the plain meaning of the Original Declaration prohibited the creation of additional lots, not a line revision. Id. at ¹⁰. DISCUSSION Standard of Review The standard of review for a grant of summary judgment is “whether the [circuit court] was legally correct.” Sadler v. Dimensions Healthcare Corp., 378 Md. 509, 533 , 836 A.2d 655, 669 (2003) (citation omitted). Upon review, this Court must consider the facts in a light most favorable to the non-moving parties, and “if those facts are susceptible to inferences supporting the position of the party opposing summary judgment, then a grant of summary judgment is improper.” Ashton v. Brown, 339 Md. 70, 79 , 660 A.2d 447, 452 (1995) (citation omitted).

We review a circuit court’s decision whether to grant or deny declaratory relief under an abuse of discretion standard. Converge Servs. Grp., LLC v. Curran, 383 Md. 462, 477 , 860 A.2d 871 , 879–80 (2004); Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-409 (a) (“Except as provided in subsection (d) of this section, a court may grant a declaratory judgment or decree in a civil case, if it will serve to terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the proceeding[.]”).

We have stated that “the interpretation of a restrictive covenant, including a determination of its continuing vitality, is subject to [a] de novo [standard of] review as a legal question.” Dumbarton Imp. Ass’n v. Druid Ridge Cemetery Co., 434 Md. 37 , 55–56, 73 A.3d 224, 235 (2013) (quoting City of Bowie v. MIE Props., Inc., 398 Md. 657, 677 , 922 A.2d 509, 521 (2007)). Principles of contract interpretation govern our review of a restrictive covenant. City of Bowie, 398 Md. at 677 , 922 A.2d at 521 .

We look to the 15 objective intent of the original parties as it “appears or is implied from the [restrictive covenant] itself.” Dumbarton, 434 Md. at 52 , 73 A.3d at 233 (quoting Balt. Butchers Abattoir & Live Stock Co. v. Union Rendering Co., 179 Md, 117, 122, 17 A.2d 130, 133 (1941)). Contentions of the Parties RDC contends that the Amended Declaration is not enforceable because it imposes a new restriction—the prohibition of a driving range—that was not included in the Original Declaration. According to RDC, the circuit court and Court of Special Appeals erred by ruling that the Amended Declaration was merely a clarification of the Original Declaration.

RDC argues that the Original Declaration never indicated whether a driving range was prohibited, so the Amended Declaration did not merely clarify the Original Declaration, but added a new wholesale restriction. In support of its argument, RDC cites Walton v. Jaskiewicz, 317 Md. 264 , 563 A.2d 382 (1989), for the proposition that when the original declaration “does not expressly authorize the type of change sought to be made . . . the purported amendment is not valid.” According to RDC, interpreting the Amended Declaration as a mere clarification would give the Homeowners unfettered discretion in prohibiting any activity that they deemed an annoyance or a nuisance. RDC also argues that the circuit court and the Court of Special Appeals erred in its application of the “uniform plan of development” doctrine. According to RDC, the Original Declaration “does not provide that ‘[] Swan Point [] be used uniformly for residential development[,]’” because the plain language of the Original Declaration