Garrett v. Sympson, 523 S.W.3d 862

William and Lanetta Garrett bought a lake house in a restricted subdivision governed by covenants limiting use to "single family residence purposes" and prohibiting commercial use, while permitting for-rent signs up to five square feet.
The Garretts listed the house on VRBO in Feb. 2016 and had rented it for roughly 100 nights by Nov. 2016; they expected substantial rental income and required a single renter (age 25+) per booking.
Nearby owners (Appellees) sued for declaratory relief and sought a temporary and permanent injunction, claiming short-term rentals violate the covenants (they urged a one-year minimum lease as permissible).
The trial court granted a temporary injunction prohibiting commercial/business use and transient or short-term rentals; the Garretts appealed the interlocutory injunction.
The appellate court reviewed the covenant language de novo, found the phrase "single family residence purposes" ambiguous, and concluded ambiguities must be resolved against the party seeking enforcement.
The court reversed the temporary injunction and ordered it dissolved, holding the covenants did not clearly bar short-term vacation rentals as written.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the covenant’s phrase "single family residence purposes" bars short-term/vacation rentals	Short-term rentals are "transient" and not residence purposes; advertising/booking via VRBO shows commercial character	Covenants allow rentals (permit rental signs) and do not specify duration; short-term occupancy for eating/sleeping is residential, not commercial	The phrase is ambiguous; ambiguity construed against enforcer. Short-term rentals are not clearly barred; injunction reversed
Whether short-term rentals constitute a "commercial" use prohibited by the covenants	Transient rentals via VRBO are commercial activity and thus prohibited	Receipt of rental income and advertising does not change the residential nature of tenants' use; courts treat vacation occupancy for residential functions as noncommercial	Court held the commercial-use prohibition was not shown to bar the Garretts’ short-term rentals
Whether the plaintiffs met burden to enforce the restriction and justify a temporary injunction	Plaintiffs must show the restriction is enforceable as written and that injunction factors are met	Defendants argued the covenants are ambiguous and raised equitable defenses	Plaintiffs failed to prove the restrictions unambiguously prohibited short-term rentals; trial court abused its discretion in granting injunction

Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. 2002) (standard of review for temporary injunctions)
City of Garland v. Dallas Morning News, 22 S.W.3d 351 (Tex. 2000) (de novo review of statutory construction)
Pilarcik v. Emmons, 966 S.W.2d 474 (Tex. 1998) (restrictive covenants construed like contracts)
Wilmoth v. Wilcox, 734 S.W.2d 656 (Tex. 1987) (ambiguities in covenants resolved against enforcer)
Dyegard Land P’ship v. Hoover, 39 S.W.3d 300 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001) (restrictive covenant interpretation principles)
Gillebaard v. Bayview Acres Ass’n, 263 S.W.3d 342 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007) (burden on enforcer to prove restriction enforceable)
Martinez v. Bynum, 461 U.S. 321 (U.S. 1983) (two-part definition of residence discussed but not adopted here)
Wilkinson v. Chiwawa Cmtys. Ass’n, 327 P.3d 614 (Wash. 2014) (vacation rentals characterized as residential use despite short duration)