Wilkinson v. Chiwawa Communities Ass'n, 180 Wash. 2d 241

Chiwawa River Pines is a mixed residential and vacation community in Chelan County with covenants from Pope & Talbot and later consolidated 1988/1992 covenants; those covenants allowed rentals and did not set a duration limit, and included a single-family residential use requirement, nuisance/offensive-use prohibitions, and signage rules.
The covenants expressly allowed some rental activity (e.g., signage for rent) and anticipated rentals, but did not specify a durational cap on rentals.
In 2007 the Association surveyed members about barring nightly rentals; in 2008 it voted to bar rentals of less than six months as a prohibited commercial use, which was challenged by Wilkinsons in superior court and in a Court of Appeals ruling.
In 2011 the Association amended the covenants to prohibit rentals for less than 30 days; Wilkinsons again challenged this 2011 amendment in superior court, and both sides moved for summary judgment with Wilkinson moving to strike portions of the Association’s evidence.
The trial court granted Wilkinson’s motions and held the 2011 amendment invalid as it was not consistent with the general plan and not related to an existing covenant; this Court reviews de novo and affirms in part, reversing in part with respect to evidentiary rulings and holding the 2011 amendment invalid.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether short-term vacation rentals violate covenants prohibiting commercial use or restricting to single-family use	Wilkinsons: rentals are commercial use and/or violate single-family use	Association: rentals are residential and consistent with covenants	Rentals are residential and consistent with single-family restrictions; not per se commercial; 2011 ban invalid as unrelated to existing covenants
Whether the 2011 amendment to prohibit rentals under 30 days was valid under the general plan of development	Wilkinsons: amendment not within power; related to general plan and notice	Association: majority can amend covenants to limit rentals if consistent with general plan	Amendment was invalid because it was not reasonably related to an existing covenant and not authorized by the general plan
Whether the trial court properly excluded certain survey and declaration evidence	Wilkinsons: survey and declarations should be admitted	Association: these were inadmissible or untrustworthy	Trial court correctly excluded the 2007 survey comments as hearsay and struck improper affidavits; evidentiary rulings affirmed

Riss v. Angel, 131 Wn.2d 612 (1997) (covenant interpretation; protect homeowners’ collective interests)
Hollis v. Garwall, Inc., 137 Wn.2d 683 (1999) (extrinsic evidence to illuminate written covenants; not to alter written terms)
Mains Farm Homeowners Ass’n v. Worthington, 121 Wn.2d 810 (1993) (covenant interpretation; considering purpose and use restrictions)
Ross v. Bennett, 148 Wn. App. 40 (2008) (short-term rentals can be residential if use remains residential in nature)
Shafer v. Bd. of Trs. of Sandy Hook Yacht Club Estates, Inc., 76 Wn. App. 267 (1994) (majority’s power to amend covenants must be consistent with general plan of development)
Meresse v. Stelma, 100 Wn. App. 857 (2000) (amendments must be consistent with general plan; relation to existing covenants considered)
Ebel v. Fairwood Park II Homeowners’ Ass’n, 136 Wn. App. 787 (2007) (consistency with general plan; allowance of extrinsic evidence when appropriate)