Slaby v. Mountain River Estates Residential Ass'n
100 So. 3d 569
| Ala. Civ. App. | 2012Background
- Association sued Slabys for violating a restrictive covenant restricting property use to single family residential purposes and prohibiting commercial use.
- Trial court found short-term rentals to non-family groups violated the covenant and enjoined the Slabys from renting for one week or less to transitory guests and from renting to multi-family/non-family groups.
- Slabys had operated a vacation cabin since 2007, advertising, renting to various groups, and collecting lodging taxes; they claimed the covenant allowed leasing and their use remained residential.
- The cabin was marketed as a vacation rental, with brochures, a dedicated website, and potential guests contacting the Slabys by email/phone; renters stayed in two independent levels or entire cabin.
- Property owners proposed but failed to amend the covenant to expressly allow short-term rentals; the amendment was not adopted.
- On appeal, court addressed whether ‘single family residential purposes only’ restricts occupancy and whether rental use could be residential without being commercial; court reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of single family residential purposes | Slabys: use is residential; short-term rentals to non-family groups fit residential purposes. | Association: use conflicts with single family residential purpose; short-term occupancy by unrelated groups violates covenant. | Covenant does not require permanent occupancy by one nuclear family; short-term rental can be residential use. |
| Commercial use prohibition scope | Renting cabins commercially does not occur on-site; no services provided; revenue does not equal commercial use. | Any rental activity for profit resembles commercial use and is prohibited. | Rental of a residence for short-term occupancy is not per se commercial use under the covenant. |
| Impact of occupancy identity on use | Family-like groups (even if not blood-related) may be considered a family unit for purposes of the covenant. | Family term should be narrowly construed to exclude unrelated groups. | Family is defined broadly; unrelated occupants can still be within single family residential purposes when living together as a domestic/housekeeping unit. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hines v. Heisler, 439 So.2d 4 (Ala. 1988) (restrictive covenants construed in light of parties' intent)
- Waldrop v. Welch, 505 So.2d 325 (Ala. 1987) (restriction on private residence scope; multiple living facilities on one lot)
- Reetz v. Ellis, 279 Ala. 453, 186 So.2d 915 (Ala. 1966) (commercial use implied by farm/dwellings covenant; on-site rental operation analyzed)
- Lowden v. Bosley, 395 Md. 58, 909 A.2d 261 (Md. 2006) (residential use includes short-term rentals; rental income does not defeat residential status)
- Pinehaven Planning Bd. v. Brooks, 138 Idaho 826, 70 P.3d 664 (Idaho 2003) (rental of residential property not necessarily prohibited by covenant language)
- Mullin v. Silvercreek Condo. Owners' Ass'n, 195 S.W.3d 484 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006) (residential use Does not preclude short-term rentals for dwelling purposes)