The Oklahoma Supreme Court has upheld a lower court ruling against an Edmond homeowner who used his property for short-term rentals, finding that the practice violated the Silverhawk community’s restrictive covenants. The decision closes a dispute that began in 2019, when the man started renting out his home to guests, contrary to the homeowners’ association (HOA) rules. In a decision on 11 November, the court upheld the injunction barring short-term rentals and the $8,528 in fines imposed by the association.
Turning his home into short-term rentals
The man bought the house in the Silverhawk neighbourhood of Edmond, Oklahoma, in 2015. A few years later, he began renting it to short-term guests through platforms such as Airbnb. The man claims he consulted the board before renting out the property. In October 2019, he contacted the neighbourhood association about renting out the house. ‘I don’t see anything that stops you from doing that,’ one board member reportedly told him. That, however, was not an approval. The man argues that he did not interpret the response as a refusal. ‘But I didn’t feel her response was explicit enough to tell me that, so that’s why I took my next step.’ He emailed the group’s secretary, who replied that the association did not restrict rentals. The man therefore took that as the answer he needed.
The neighbourhood rule said ‘business’
The HOA’s rules were clear in some respects. They stated that the lots ‘shall be used for private residence purposes only’. They also specified that ‘no store or business’ could be built or maintained on any lot. However, nothing in the wording specifically mentioned renting to visitors for a few nights. The association argued that renting a property for money to a rotating group of guests constituted a business. The man argued that the term was too vague to be enforced against him.
Noise complaints and more
When the dispute went to trial, a neighbour who lives directly behind the house described weekend groups using the backyard grill, some as large as fourteen people. She said the noise could reach her bedrooms as late as two or three in the morning. Another neighbour described large parties and more cars than a typical family would own. The man questioned both witnesses and pointed out that neither had complained to him directly or contacted the police. The trial court weighed their testimony, and the Supreme Court later said it would not second-guess that judgement.The Oklahoma County District Court heard the case in a five-day bench trial. The judge ruled that the rentals breached the covenant. The court issued an injunction against the business, awarded the association fines and assessments, and rejected the man’s claim that the association had breached its contract with him. He represented himself.Unhappy with the decision, the man appealed. The Court of Civil Appeals, in a divided ruling, reversed much of that decision. The HOA took the matter to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Five justices joined the majority opinion by Justice Edmondson, which vacated the appeals court’s decision and affirmed the trial court’s judgement. The majority said the covenant’s language was clear and that the ordinary meaning of ‘business’ applied to property rules just as it did to contracts and tax law.Four justices dissented. They argued that the word ‘business’ describes what a building is used for, not how people occupy it. The dissent said guests who sleep, cook and grill at a house are living there as a home, even for a short time, and that the court should not add a rule that the covenant never states.The court also declined to review the attorney’s fee award because the man had not raised the issue in the proper manner. This means the trial court’s decision on fees remains in place.However, the homeowner’s frustration has not faded following the ruling. ‘Over five exhausting years, the very institutions meant to protect homeowners betrayed me,’ he told NonDoc, a local news outlet that covered the case. He said he had to file for bankruptcy to protect his home.