#547-O, Ramsay v. Bel Pre Recreational Association (December 11, 2002) (Panel: Reilly, Leeds, Perkins)

The homeowner (HO) filed a complaint with the Commission challenging a decision of the board of directors of his homeowner association (HOA) to close down its basketball courts.

The evidence at the hearing showed that for several years the HOA had received complaints from its members about the disruptive conduct of the people who used its basketball courts, and the board periodically removed the basketball hoops after the summer seasons.A vote of the members to reinstall the hoops in 1997 failed to attract a majority vote, and in late 1997 the board conducted a membership survey which showed that two-thirds of those responding wanted the basketball courts closed permanently, and the board decided to leave the hoops down.

The hearing panel found that "the issue before the commission is a simple one�did the [HOA] have the authority to remove the basketball hoops, and was [its] decision arbitrary and capricious."The panel noted that although the HOA had the duty to maintain the common areas in good condition and operate them according to high standards, it also had the duty to ensure the health and safety of the residents.In addition the panel noted that over several years the HOA had attempted to find other solutions to the problem and had sought community input on the issue.The panel found that the HOA had the right to make a difficult choice under the "business judgment rule" of Black v. Fox Hills North Community Association, 90 Md. App 75 (1992), and that without proof of bad faith or incompetence, such choices will be upheld by the law.There was no such proof in this case, and therefore the panel denied the relief requested in the complaint.