The firm’s Nicole R. Kurtz authored an article that appeared as a “Board of Contributors” guest column in today’s edition of the Daily Business Review, South Florida’s exclusive business daily and official court newspaper. The article, which was titled “Short-Term Rentals Not a Violation of Rules Against Business, Non-Residential Uses,” focuses on the ramifications of a recent ruling by the First District Court of Appeal that found short-term rentals do not constitute a violation of association rules prohibiting business uses of residences. Her article reads:
In the case of Santa Monica Beach Property Owners Association v. David Acord, the association appealed a lower court’s order dismissing its action against the homeowners who rented their homes on a short-term basis. The association’s argument in both the lower court and the appellate court was that such short-term rentals constituted a violation of the community’s occupancy restrictions, which required that the homes be used for residential, non-business uses. Specifically, the association’s argument hinged on the community’s occupancy restrictions, which provided that the plots “shall be used only for residential purposes … nor shall any building on said land be used as a hospital, tenement house, sanitarium, charitable institution, or for business or manufacturing purposes nor as a dance hall or other place of public assemblage.”
The association’s complaint for declaratory judgment alleged that the Acords’ two homes in the beachfront community were being used for a “business purpose” not permitted by the association’s occupancy restrictions, as the owners offered the homes for rent on the home-sharing site VRBO.com, received income for renting the properties on a short-term basis, were required to collect and remit state and local sales and bed taxes, and had obtained a license to operate their properties as transient public lodging establishments under the name “Acord Rental.”
The Acords responded by contending that the association’s complaint failed to state a cause of action, and that the short-term rental use of the homes did not violate the restrictive covenants. They argued that because the short-term tenants were using the homes for residential purposes, regardless of the fact that they were paying for their stays, the homes were being used in accordance with the community’s occupancy restrictions.
The trial court agreed with the Acords and dismissed the association’s complaint. It reasoned that the proper focus in making a determination as to whether the short-term rental of the homes was in violation of the association’s occupancy restrictions was to determine the actual use undertaken at the properties. The trial court found that the nature of the homes’ use was not transformed from residential to business simply because the owners were subject to regulations that required licensure and they earned rental income. The court also noted that because the restrictive covenants were silent on the issue of short-term rentals, and failed to provide for a minimum lease term, any ambiguity as to whether short-term use was permitted must be resolved in favor of the homeowners’ free and unencumbered use of their properties.