Adams v. Kimberley One Townhouse Owner's Ass'n, 352 P.3d 492

Kimberley One’s original 1980 Declaration (CC&Rs) allowed lots for single-family residential use "on an ownership, rental or lease basis" and included a provision allowing amendment by a supermajority of owners; the amendment-vote threshold was later reduced to two-thirds.
Virgil Adams purchased a unit in 2003 subject to the CC&Rs and began short-term vacation rentals in 2012, which prompted neighbor complaints about noise, parking, and conduct.
The homeowners association proposed and the owners voted (≈89%) to adopt a 2013 Amendment restricting rentals: written leases approved by the board, board-approved advertising, no rentals under six months, no subleasing, contact info to board, and board discretion for exceptions and rules.
Adams continued short-term rentals, was fined under adopted house rules, and sued for declaratory relief seeking to invalidate the 2013 Amendment; the Association sought enforcement and fees.
The district court granted summary judgment for the Association, denied Adams’s cross-motion, and awarded attorney fees; the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of 2013 Amendment restricting short-term rentals	Adams: amendment is an invalid restraint on free use of land because CC&Rs originally permitted rentals and the general "amend" clause shouldn’t authorize new burdens	Association: amendment is within the plain language of the Declaration’s amendment power and may add or modify restrictions when adopted per procedure	Court: Amendment valid — owners are bound by the Declaration including its amendment clause; adding a rental restriction was permissible and did not produce unconscionable harm
Entitlement to attorney fees	Adams: this declaratory action is not an "enforcement" suit under CC&R fee provision, so fees are inappropriate	Association: action sought to prevent enforcement and thus falls within the Declaration’s fee provision for suits to enforce CC&Rs	Court: Fees properly awarded to Association at trial and on appeal under the CC&R contractual fee provision

Jacklin Land Co. v. Blue Dog RV, Inc., 151 Idaho 242 (2011) (restrictive covenants are enforceable but restraints on use of land must be clearly expressed)
Sky Canyon Props. v. Golf Club at Black Rock, LLC, 155 Idaho 604 (2013) (apply contract principles to interpret covenants; ambiguities resolved in favor of free use of land)
Shawver v. Huckleberry Estates, 140 Idaho 354 (2004) (parties bound by CC&R amendment provisions in their agreement; equity will not rewrite such bargains absent unconscionable harm)
Best Hill Coal. v. Halko, LLC, 144 Idaho 813 (2007) (upholding an amendment that added a new restriction under a general amendment clause)
Nordstrom v. Guindon, 135 Idaho 343 (2000) (discussed in Best Hill regarding amendment provisions and owner voting)