A Georgia court has ruled that residents of extended stay hotels should be classified as tenants with the protections granted by landlord-tenant law. That means they can be removed only by court eviction procedures rather than self-help. Efficiency Lodge, Inc. v. Neason, 870 S.E.2d 549 (Ga. 2022).
Extended stay hotel residents are tenants Read More »
The Texas Supreme Court has held that covenants that prohibit all restrictions on leasing cannot prohibit short term rentals, finding that a lease is still a lease if it only lasts for one day. JBrice Holdings, LLC v. Wilcrest Walk Townhomes Ass’n, Inc., 2022 WL 1194364 (Tex. 2022). In addition, short-term rentals were held not to be “commercial” or “non-residential uses.” The court noted that the covenants provided that they could be retroactively amended through a 75% vote of the owners.
Covenants that prohibit all leasing restrictions include short-term rentals Read More »
The Arizona Supreme Court has limited the powers of homeowners associations to amend covenants retroactively when those amendments would unfairly surprise buyers who were not on notice of them when they bought their properties. Kalway v. Calabria Ranch HOA, LLC, 506 P.3d 18 (Ariz. 2022). In this case, the homeowners association adopted new restrictions on owners’ abilities to convey or subdivide their lots, restricted the size and number buildings permitted on each lot, and reduced the maximum number of livestock permitted on each lot. The court held that the original declaration must give “sufficient notice of the possibility of a future amendment; that is, amendments must be reasonable and foreseeable.” Thus owners cannot be retroactively forced to join a community club if not put on notice of that possibility in the declaration. Here, most of the amendments created “new affirmative obligations” such as limiting garage space to 40% of the dwelling,
Construing a state statute, Wash. Stat. §49.60.227, the Washington Supreme Court held that racial covenants cannot be completely excised from public records. The court determined that the statute allowed a court order to be filed with the recorded title voiding the covenant but did not authorize excising the covenant from the public records entirely. This result occurred despite the fact that the statute provided that courts should “strik[e] the void provisions from the public records.” Wash. Stat. §49.60.227(1)(b). The statute did provide that the original record “shall be separately maintained in the county’s records.” This meant that the public title would note the illegality of the limitation but public records would continue to document the historical existence of the covenant. The court explained that “future generations [should] have access to these documents because, although the covenants are morally repugnant, they are part of a documented history of disenfranchisement of a
In a demonstration of the broken nature of our foreclosure system, the Alaska Supreme Court held in Thomas v. Joseph P. Casteel Trust, 496 P.3d 403 (Alaska 2021), that a foreclosure was lawful even though the buyer at foreclosure paid a mere nine percent (9%) of the fair market value of the property. Only if there were procedural irregularities could the foreclosure be set aside. This type of case makes the owner’s equity vanish into thin air and is inconsistent with the historical policies that limited strict foreclosure.
The Florida Supreme Court has held that cities cannot be compelled to enforce zoning laws. In City of West Palm Beach v. Haver, 2021 Fla. LEXIS 1572 (Fla. 2021), a neighbor sought a court order to force the city to enforce a zoning prohibition on a group home. The court ruled that it would exceed the legitimate role of the courts to order city officials to comply with local zoning laws when the decision in question is one that has traditionally been discretionary on the part of public officials. The court would not interfere with “administrative enforcement decisions of a kind that traditionally have been considered discretionary and that embody value-laden judgments about the proper allocation of scarce governmental resources.”
Neighbor cannot compel city to enforce zoning ordinance Read More »
The Massachusetts Land Court has reaffirmed a traditional rule of law that parties to a real estate contract involving the sale of land have the right to demand specific performance. In this case, that meant that, once a land sales contract is signed by both parties, the buyer is entitled to a judgment ordering the seller to go through with the sale; the seller has no right to change their mind and refuse to sell. The court noted that this rule applies equally to buyers and sellers. Niziak v. Daniels, 2021 WL 6013961, at *7 (Mass. Land Ct. 2021).
Real estate sellers cannot change their minds once a contract is signed Read More »
With continued disagreement among courts in the U.S., the Kentucky Supreme Court has weighed in on the side of finding short term rentals of property to be more like hotels than home ownership or residential leasing and so does not qualify as a “residential” use prohibited by a covenant that prohibits nonresidential uses of the land.. Hensley v. Gadd, 560 S.W.3d 516 (Ky. 2018). In contrast, the Arkansas Supreme Court rules that short-term rentals in a residential subdivisin die not violate a restrictive covenant that prohibited commercial uses. Vera Lee Angel Revocable Tr. v. Jim O’Bryant & Kay O’Bryant Joint Revocable Tr., 537 S.W.3d 254 (Ark. 2018).
Courts split on whether short term rentals are a nonresidential use Read More »
The Alabama Supreme Court has reaffirmed the traditional rule that changes nearby but outside a restricted neighborhood are not sufficient to come within the changed conditions doctrine that would make existing restrictive covenants unenforceable. Capitol Farmers Market, Inc. v. Ingram, 2021 WL 5752352 (Ala. 2021). Covenants remain enforceable unless changes inside the neighborhood subject to the covenants have made it impossible for them to achieve their original purposes. In this case, changes within a mile-one radius of the restricted properties were not enough to conclude that the covenants could not achieve their purposes, especially because properties on several sides were still being used in a manner consistent with the covenants.
The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that a state statute that prohibits landlords from refusing to rent to housing voucher (Section 8) recipients does not violate the due process or equal protection clauses of the Minnesota Constitution. Fletcher Properties, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis, 947 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2020). While federal law does not require landlords to rent to tenants whose rent is subsidized by housing vouchers, some states do impose this obligation on landlords. Some landlords object to the Section 8 program because it imposes procedures and costs on such landlords and some substantive terms such as prohibiting eviction without good cause. The court held that the law did not deprive landlords of due process of law because the legislature could reasonably believe that it served the public purpose of enabling voucher holders to find housing. And the fact that some landlords were exempt from the statutory obligations did not violate
Probation on discriminating against Section 8 recipients does not violate due process Read More »
