This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Plaintiff sought to enjoin the Defendant from renting his cabin in a residential subdivision on a short-term basis, arguing that such rentals violated deed restrictions limiting property use to "dwelling purposes only" and prohibiting "business or commercial purposes." The Defendant, a Texas resident, used the cabin as a vacation home and rented it out for 66 days in one year, generating $12,625 in gross receipts. The Defendant managed the rentals through a property management company (paras 1-3).
Procedural History
- District Court, Lincoln County: Granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant, holding that the short-term rental of the property did not violate the deed restrictions (para 5).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff: Argued that the Defendant's short-term rental activity constituted a business or commercial use, violating the deed restrictions (para 3).
- Defendant: Contended that the deed restrictions did not preclude short-term rentals for dwelling purposes and that the Plaintiff lacked standing to enforce the restrictions. The Defendant also argued that the quitclaim deed extinguished any enforcement rights (para 4).
Legal Issues
- Whether the Defendant’s short-term rental of his cabin constituted a use of the property for business or commercial purposes, in violation of the deed restrictions (para 6).
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the Defendant’s short-term rental of the property for dwelling purposes did not violate the deed restrictions (para 16).
Reasons
Per Sutin J. (Robles and Garcia JJ. concurring):
The Court held that the deed restrictions, when strictly and reasonably construed, did not prohibit short-term rentals for dwelling purposes. The Court emphasized that deed restrictions should be interpreted to favor the free enjoyment of property unless the prohibited use is plainly within the restriction's language. The Defendant’s short-term rental activity, while involving economic gain, was not a business or commercial use but rather a use for dwelling purposes, as the property was rented as a shelter for living (paras 9-10, 14).
The Court distinguished this case from others cited by the Plaintiff, noting that the restrictions in this case did not require permanency or a specific length of stay to qualify as a dwelling purpose. The Court also relied on dictionary definitions of "dwelling" and "abode" to support its interpretation (paras 12-13).
The Court concluded that if deed restrictions are intended to prohibit short-term rentals, they must be more specific. The restrictions in this case did not demonstrate an intent to preclude such rentals (para 15).