Wayne County  - An STR Win against HOA ban of short term rentals

Poconos VRO Forum on this topic: https://poconosvro.wildapricot.org/Members-Forum/13369411

Re: Ruffed Grouse Ridge Owners’ Association vs Charles Hura

- The association passed a By-Law restriction that now prohibits a member to rent their home for less than 30 days.  

Opinion filed by HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge on May 31, 2024:

After reviewing the law governing the interpretation of restrictive covenants, the Trial Court determined:

[T]he language of the restrictive covenant is as follows: “The above- described premises shall not be subdivided, and any building to be erected thereon, shall not at any time be used for commercial purposes, but the use of the same shall be limited strictly to private residential purposes only.” When considering the language in accordance with the aforementioned [legal] standards, the [Trial] Court finds that: the residential use of [Mr. Hura’s] property is not restricted to owner- occupied residential use; the rental of the property is not prohibited; and no distinction is made between short-term and long-term rentals. The [Trial] Court finds that the plain language of the restrictive covenant is unambiguous in these respects.

Based upon the facts presented, [Mr. Hura’s Property is being used for residential purposes. The [Trial] Court rejects [the Association’s] argument that it should instead focus on [Mr. Hura’s] business uses. The inhabitants of the Property, whether it be [Mr. Hura], [his] family and friends, or renters, are using the Property in its entirety to sleep, eat, bathe and generally reside for a short-term period.

Lastly, the Trial Court concluded that the Association’s 2021 By-Law amendment was void ab initio, finding that the Association “did not have the authority, pursuant to the Nonprofit . . . Law . . . , to amend its [B]y[-L]aws and alter property owners’ rights without all of their consents” and that the “amendment implemented specific use restrictions beyond the terms of the restrictive covenant.” Id. at 7-8.

Finally, we conclude that the Association’s reliance on dicta in Slice of Life, LLC v. Hamilton Township Zoning Hearing Board, 207 A.3d 886 (Pa. 2019), to support its position is misplaced. In Slice of Life, our Supreme Court held that the operation of “a transient lodging business,” such as an AirBnB, was impermissible in a residential zoning district. The Court’s decision, however, was based on its interpretation of specific terms and phrases in the applicable zoning ordinance, including “family” and “single housekeeping unit,” none of which are at issue here. For this reason, we conclude that Slice of Life is inapposite.7

Applying the ordinary meaning of the language of the restrictive covenant at issue in this case, we conclude that Mr. Hura’s rental of the Property to private individuals who use the Property exclusively for residential purposes is not a “plain disregard” of the covenant’s terms.8 Accordingly, we affirm the Trial Court’s Order.

Read the full Opinion here: 

https://law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/commonwealth-court/2024/968-c-d-2023.html