Donald Dunn v. Jason Aamodt
695 F.3d 797
8th Cir.2012Background
- Appellants own property in Phase A of River Ridge Park Subdivision, Norfork, Arkansas, and sue Aamodts for alleged covenant violations by renting as a vacation home.
- Aamodts purchased the subject Lots 23-24 in Phase A in 2009 as a second home and rent it when not in use.
- Property is subject to Restrictive Covenants, including Section 6, which designates building sites and residential vs. commercial uses.
- Appellants seek a declaration that short-term rental violates Section 6 and request injunctive relief.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Aamodts; the appellate court reviews de novo and applies Arkansas law due to diversity removal.
- Court affirms the district court, holding Section 6 language ambiguous regarding short-term rentals and enforcing strict construction in favor of unfettered use of land.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Section 6 ambiguous about short-term rentals within residential purposes? | Appellants contend 'residential purposes' is unambiguous and bans rentals for nonresidential use. | Aamodts contend Section 6 does not expressly prohibit renting and is not clearly nonresidential. | Section 6 is ambiguous as to short-term rentals. |
| Does Arkansas law’s strict construction favor unfettered use when ambiguity exists? | Appellants rely on unfettered-use rule to prohibit rental. | Aamodts claim ambiguity prevents a plain reading that bans rental. | Yes; strict construction favors unfettered use, supporting affirmance of district court. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hutchens v. Bella Vista Village Prop. Owners' Ass'n, Inc., 110 S.W.3d 325 (Ark. Ct. App. 2003) (defines restrictive covenants and their limited weight)
- Forrest Constr., Inc. v. Milam, 43 S.W.3d 140 (Ark. 2001) (strict construction favors unfettered land use)
- Casebeer v. Beacon Realty, Inc., 449 S.W.2d 701 (Ark. 1970) (language governs interpretation of covenants)
- Scott v. Walker, 645 S.E.2d 278 (Va. 2007) (ambiguity in 'residential purposes' as to short-term rentals)
- Yogman v. Parrott, 937 P.2d 1019 (Or. 1997) (ambiguity in 'residential' vs 'commercial' used to permit rentals)