Mark Slaby and Maria Slaby v. Mountain River Estates Residential Association, Inc.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL:
03/30/2012
Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance
s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s ,
Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s ,
300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1
((334)
2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made
b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r .
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012
2100498
Mark Slaby and Maria Slaby
v.
Mountain R i v e r E s t a t e s R e s i d e n t i a l A s s o c i a t i o n , Inc.
Appeal from DeKalb C i r c u i t
(CV-09-171)
Court
On A p p l i c a t i o n f o r R e h e a r i n g
MOORE, J u d g e .
This
and
court's
opinion
o f October
7, 2 0 1 1 , i s w i t h d r a w n ,
the following i s s u b s t i t u t e d therefor.
2100498
Mark
judgment
Slaby
of
and
the
DeKalb
enjoining
the
property,
a l o t on
Slabys
determination
restrictive
his
wife,
Maria
Circuit
from
the
Court
short-term
from
trial
court")
rental
of
a
their
i s s i t u a t e d , b a s e d on i t s
r e n t a l s are
covenant burdening
appeal
("the
short-term
which a cabin
that
Slaby,
p r o h i b i t e d by
their property.
We
a
reverse.
Procedural History
On
June
19,
Association,
against
2009,
Mountain
Inc.
Slabys
the
("the
in
burdening
in
Estates Residential
Association"), filed
the
a s s e r t e d t h a t the Slabys
River
trial
court.
a
The
complaint
Association
had v i o l a t e d a r e s t r i c t i v e
covenant
the l o t s i n the Mountain R i v e r E s t a t e s s u b d i v i s i o n
DeKalb County, which s t a t e s :
"The s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y i s r e s t r i c t e d t o s i n g l e f a m i l y
residential
purposes
only.
No
commercial,
a g r i c u l t u r a l o r i n d u s t r i a l use s h a l l be p e r m i t t e d . "
Specifically,
been
the
renting their
Association asserted
property
subdivision
to
various
members o f
the
Slabys
their
property
restrictive
in
persons
and,
the
Mountain
who
are
thus,
that
f o r commercial purposes
covenant.
The
that
not
they
the
had
River
Estates
related
family
had
been
in violation
A s s o c i a t i o n requested
2
Slabys
using
of
the
a permanent
2100498
injunction enjoining
t h e S l a b y s from u s i n g
purposes
as a s i n g l e - f a m i l y
using
other
than
their property f o r
residence
and from
t h e i r p r o p e r t y f o r commercial purposes.
The
S l a b y s f i l e d an answer t o t h e A s s o c i a t i o n ' s
on A u g u s t 1 1 , 2009.
A trial
both the A s s o c i a t i o n
and t h e S l a b y s f i l e d b r i e f s i n t h e t r i a l
court
was h e l d
on A p r i l
complaint
12, 2 0 1 0 , a n d
upon t h e c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l .
On J a n u a r y 18, 2 0 1 1 , t h e t r i a l
which s t a t e s ,
i n pertinent
"Single-family
court
e n t e r e d a judgment,
part:
R e s i d e n t i a l Purposes Only
"The c o v e n a n t r e s t r i c t s t h e u s e o f t h e s u b j e c t
property t o s i n g l e - f a m i l y r e s i d e n t i a l purposes only.
A s i n g l e - f a m i l y r e s i d e n c e has been
appropriately
d e f i n e d as a h o u s e o c c u p i e d b y one f a m i l y .
See
H o o k e r v . A l e x a n d e r , 129 Conn. 433, 29 A . 2 d 308
(1942).
I t f o l l o w s t h a t t h e term s i n g l e - f a m i l y
r e s i d e n t i a l p u r p o s e m a n i f e s t s an i n t e n t t h a t a
r e s i d e n c e n o t be u s e d f o r r e s i d e n t i a l p u r p o s e s b y
m u l t i - f a m i l y or non-family groups.
f
o
l
l
o
w
s
"Construing
t h e term
residential
purposes
e m p l o y i n g t h e common a n d o r d i n a r y m e a n i n g o f t h e
words u s e d , i t d e n o t e s t h e o c c u p y i n g o f a p r e m i s e s
f o r t h e purpose o f making i t one's u s u a l p l a c e o f
abode.
I t does n o t mean o c c u p y i n g a p r e m i s e s f o r
vacation or t r a n s i e n t purposes.
"The T e x a s C o u r t o f A p p e a l s h a s h e l d t h a t a d e e d
r e s t r i c t i o n p r o v i d i n g t h a t no l o t i n a s u b d i v i s i o n
c o u l d be u s e d e x c e p t f o r ' s i n g l e - f a m i l y r e s i d e n c e
p u r p o s e s ' p r o h i b i t e d t h e homeowners f r o m r e n t i n g
t h e i r p r o p e r t y on a w e e k l y a n d / o r weekend b a s i s ,
3
2100498
though the r e s t r i c t i o n d i d not p r o h i b i t a l l r e n t a l
o f p r o p e r t y . B e n a r d v. Humble, 990 S.W.2d 929 (Texas
C t . App. 1 9 9 9 ) .
"The c o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e use o f t h e
Slabys'
p r o p e r t y by m u l t i - f a m i l y and n o n - f a m i l y g r o u p s on an
o n g o i n g b a s i s f o r v a c a t i o n and t r a n s i e n t p u r p o s e s
c l e a r l y v i o l a t e s the i n t e n t of the r e s t r i c t i o n t h a t
limits
its
use
to
single-family
residential
purposes.
"Commercial
the
Use
"The c o v e n a n t a l s o p r o h i b i t s c o m m e r c i a l use
subject property.
of
"The
word
commercial
i s commonly u s e d
to
describe
a
wide
array
of
business
and
trade
e n t e r p r i s e s t h a t i n v o l v e t h e e x c h a n g e o f goods o r
services
f o r money.
Here,
the
[Slabys]
are
p r o v i d i n g p e r s o n s t h e use o f t h e i r h o u s e i n e x c h a n g e
f o r money.
They p r o v i d e
short-term
lodging
to
t r a n s i t o r y o c c u p a n t s , much l i k e t h e l o d g i n g p r o v i d e d
by a m o t e l o r a b e d and b r e a k f a s t .
L i k e a motel or
a b e d and b r e a k f a s t , t h e y a l s o c o l l e c t and
pay
l o d g i n g taxes to the S t a t e .
The [ S l a b y s ] a d v e r t i s e
e x t e n s i v e l y and p r o m o t e t h e r e n t a l o f t h e i r h o u s e i n
a
manner
that
i s consistent
with
that
of
a
commercial or business endeavor.
"The D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f F l o r i d a has h e l d t h a t a
covenant
that
permitted
r e n t a l of
residential
p r o p e r t y b u t t h a t p r o h i b i t e d i t s use f o r b u s i n e s s o r
commercial
purposes
precluded
the
use
of
the
p r o p e r t y as a b e d and b r e a k f a s t .
The C o u r t o p i n e d
t h a t the r e n t a l of a r e s i d e n c e i n the c o n t e x t of
s u c h d e e d r e s t r i c t i o n p e r m i t t e d t h e r e n t a l o n l y as
a r e s i d e n c e and n o t as a f a c i l i t y s e r v i n g t e m p o r a r y
or t r a n s i e n t guests from the g e n e r a l p u b l i c . Robins
v. W a l t e r , 670 So. 2d 971 ( F l a . D i s t . App. 1 9 9 5 ) .
4
2100498
"The C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f M i c h i g a n r e c e n t l y h e l d
t h a t a p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t commercial use p r e v e n t e d
property
owners
from u s i n g
their
property f o r
v a c a t i o n r e n t a l s f o r a week o r l e s s t o t r a n s i e n t
g u e s t s . E n c h a n t e d F o r e s t P r o p e r t y Owners A s s o c i a t i o n
v. S c h i l l i n g ,
[(No. 287614)]
(Mich.
[ C t . ] App.,
M a r c h 11, 2010) [ ( n o t r e p o r t e d i n N.W.2d)].
"The c o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e c o v e n a n t r e s t r i c t i o n
a g a i n s t commercial use o f t h e p r o p e r t y c l e a r l y and
unambiguously p r e c l u d e s t h e r e n t a l use t h a t [the
Slabys] a r e making o f t h e i r p r o p e r t y .
"ADJUDICATION
"For t h e reasons s e t f o r t h , t h e c o u r t f i n d s t h a t
t h e u s e b e i n g made b y t h e [ S l a b y s ] o f t h e s u b j e c t
property, i . e . ,short-term rentals to t r a n s i t o r y
guests i n c l u d i n g m u l t i - f a m i l y groups, i s a v i o l a t i o n
of
the
applicable
restrictive
covenant.
A c c o r d i n g l y , i t i s adjudged t h a t the [Slabys] are
permanently e n j o i n e d from engaging i n a commercial
use o f t h e p r o p e r t y b y r e n t i n g i t on a s h o r t - t e r m
b a s i s o f one week o r l e s s a n d f r o m r e n t i n g i t t o
m u l t i - f a m i l y and n o n - f a m i l y groups."
The S l a b y s
trial
court's
filed
a motion t o stay the execution
judgment p e n d i n g a p p e a l
on F e b r u a r y
of the
23, 2011;
t h a t m o t i o n was g r a n t e d , a n d t h e t r i a l c o u r t s e t a s u p e r s e d e a s
bond
i n t h e amount o f $7, 500.
Alabama
Supreme
Court
on
The S l a b y s
February
28,
2011;
t r a n s f e r r e d the appeal t o t h i s court, pursuant
Ala.
Code 1975.
5
appealed
to §
that
to the
court
12-2-7(6),
2100498
Facts
Mark
property,
Slaby
testified
that,
before
purchasing
t h e S l a b y s h a d r e a d , and t h e y c o m p l e t e l y
the r e s t r i c t i v e
the
understood,
c o v e n a n t s and b y l a w s o f t h e A s s o c i a t i o n .
of those bylaws
One
provided:
"All
parcels
shall
be h e l d ,
transferred,
sold
conveyed, used, l e a s e d ,
occupied,
m o r t g a g e d and
o t h e r w i s e e n c u m b e r e d s u b j e c t t o a l l t h e t e r m s and
provisions
of the D e c l a r a t i o n
[of R e s t r i c t i v e
C o v e n a n t s ] , t h e A r t i c l e s o f I n c o r p o r a t i o n , and t h e s e
By-laws,
including,
but
not
limited
t o , the
continuing l i e n herein described."
(Emphasis
added.)
indicated
to
him
Mark
that
testified
leasing
that
of
the
t h e above
property
language
would
be
permitted.
On F e b r u a r y 15, 2006, he and h i s w i f e p u r c h a s e d two
i n the Mountain R i v e r Estates
they planned t o construct
purchased
the property,
Association.
Mark
s u b d i v i s i o n i n Mentone on w h i c h
a v a c a t i o n home.
the
testified
lots
Slabys
that
became
he
At the time
members
and h i s f a m i l y
they
of the
began
c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a f i v e - b e d r o o m l o g c a b i n a r o u n d December 2006.
According
for
t o Mark, he h a d b u i l t
t h e c a b i n as a v a c a t i o n home
h i s f a m i l y , b u t , as t h e economy
decided,
around
grew w o r s e ,
June o r J u l y 2007, t o i m p r o v e
6
the
Slabys
the cabin
so
2100498
t h a t i t c o u l d be u s e d f o r r e n t a l s .
gain
permission
property;
from
however,
the Association
Maria
testified
f r o m comments made a t an A p r i l
and
of
a conversation
their
rented
homes.
before
that
renting
their
she h a d u n d e r s t o o d
2007 p r o p e r t y
owners' m e e t i n g
s h e h a d h a d w i t h Ann R o g e r s , t h e d i r e c t o r
Phase One o f t h e A s s o c i a t i o n ,
rent
The S l a b y s d i d n o t s e e k o r
Mark
1
the property
that property
testified
that
owners
the Slabys
i n O c t o b e r 2007, j u s t a f t e r
could
first
construction
o f t h e c a b i n was c o m p l e t e d .
Mark
testified
that
Mountain R i v e r Estates
He
testified
that
t h e name
of their
cabin
i n the
s u b d i v i s i o n i s " L i t t l e R i v e r Harmony."
he h a d b r o c h u r e s
Slabys dispensed those brochures
drawn
up a n d t h a t t h e
f o r one y e a r a t t h e D e K a l b
C o u n t y T o u r i s t B u r e a u ; t h o s e b r o c h u r e s i n f o r m e d p e o p l e how t o
contact
cabin.
He
t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e y have one Web s i t e t h a t t h e y m a i n t a i n
and
that
the Slabys
that
Web
site,
i f they wanted t o rent
i n turn,
links
their
t o a n o t h e r Web
site for
The
m i n u t e s f r o m t h a t m e e t i n g do n o t r e f l e c t any
discussion
regarding
rental
of
property
within
the
s u b d i v i s i o n , a n d s e v e r a l w i t n e s s e s t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e y were
p r e s e n t a t t h e m e e t i n g and d i d n o t hear any d i s c u s s i o n
r e g a r d i n g r e n t i n g . Rogers t e s t i f i e d t h a t she d i d n o t g i v e t h e
Slabys permission t o rent the cabin.
1
7
2100498
w h i c h t h e y pay an a n n u a l amount t o have t h e i r c a b i n l i s t e d f o r
rental.
He
testified
that
persons
who
want
to
make
a
r e s e r v a t i o n to r e n t the cabin c o n t a c t e d Maria Slaby v i a e-mail
or
telephone.
Association
subject
An
e-mail
indicates
that
to a "vacation
use o f t h e p r o p e r t y .
l i s t t h e c a b i n w i t h any
He
further stated
o f f i c e , a business
evidence
of
the
cabin
the
by
are
agreement," which governs
According
handles a l l the
into
a l l rentals
rental
t h e y were a d v e r t i s i n g t h e
that Maria
placed
t o Mark, a t t h e t i m e o f
c a b i n on
t h e i r Web
a d v e r t i s i n g and
site;
he
t h a t they
the
trial,
stated
do
not
r e n t a l company o r management company.
that
they
do
not
maintain
a real-estate
o f f i c e , o r a r e n t a l o f f i c e on t h e
premises.
He s t a t e d t h a t a l l r e n t a l money i s e x c h a n g e d o f f - s i t e , v i a t h e
Internet.
He
testified
c a b i n ; "D.C.
and
s l e e p s up t o 14,
o f one
The
and
two
a n o t h e r w i t h no
level
level
there
are
2 different
levels
a l F i n e , " w h i c h i s t h e t o p f l o o r , has
a r e a , s l e e p s 6.
one
that
to
the
" P i z z i c a t o , " which i s the
l e v e l s are designed
interior
other.
or the bottom l e v e l
access
t o be
testified
that
can
be
or the
8
the
4 bedrooms
downstairs
independent
a v a i l a b l e t o go
He
rented
in
e i t h e r the
entire
from
top
cabin
2100498
can be
rented.
t o 25
He
p e o p l e had
t e s t i f i e d that Maria
stayed
there
had
a t once.
S l a b y s r e n t e d t h e c a b i n t o two s e p a r a t e
t o l d him
At
no
groups
that
t i m e have
up
the
simultaneously,
however.
The
Association placed
i n t o evidence
a copy of
the
Web
page a d v e r t i s i n g t h e c a b i n , w h i c h i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e c a b i n i s
available
for
submitted
a
rental
chart
"year
made
round."
by
Mark,
The
Association
which
showed
Slabys'
that,
from
r e n t e d the
O c t o b e r 2007 t o November 2009, t h e S l a b y s had
a t o t a l o f 380
also
cabin
d a y s , o r an a v e r a g e o f 14 d a y s p e r month.
records
a l s o showed t h a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y
The
120 d i f f e r e n t
p e r s o n s o r g r o u p s had r e n t e d t h e c a b i n d u r i n g t h a t p e r i o d ,
they
kept
dates
of
d e t a i l e d accounts
their
tenants
as
t r a n s a c t i o n s i n v o l v e d i n the
Mark p r e s e n t e d
rental
revenue
of
the
well
check-in
as
and
check-out
all
of
r e n t a l of the
financial
cabin.
a c h a r t r e v e a l i n g t h a t the average monthly
from the
cabin
i s $2, 773
and
r e v e n u e f r o m O c t o b e r 2007 t o November 2009 had
that
the
t h e l o t s and t o b u i l d t h e
was
He
$500,000.
r e n t a l amount does n o t
testified
total
b e e n $74,858.
He s t a t e d t h a t t h e c o s t t o buy
approximately
and
that
the
cabin
average
cover a l l the debt a s s o c i a t e d w i t h
9
the
2100498
property
and t h a t t h e y h a d n o t made any p r o f i t
the c a b i n .
of t r y i n g
According
to offset
cabin.
I f they
extent,
Mark
maintain
renting
t o Mark, t h e y r e n t t h e c a b i n as a means
some o f t h e d e b t t h a t t h e y i n c u r on t h e
are not able
stated,
the cabin.
i t would
to offset
jeopardize
that
debt
their
t o some
ability
to
He t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e y h a d h i r e d someone
to clean the property
testified
from
and t h a t M a r i a p a y s t h a t p e r s o n .
t h a t she c o l l e c t s
l o d g i n g t a x and r e m i t s
Maria
i t to the
S t a t e o f A l a b a m a and t o t h e c o u n t y .
With regard
to the p o l i c i e s i n e f f e c t at the cabin,
Mark
t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d i d n o t t h i n k t h e r e was a r e s t r i c t i o n on who
could rent the cabin.
He t e s t i f i e d
t h a t t h e y have r e n t e d t o
f a m i l i e s , t o c h u r c h g r o u p s , t o y o u t h g r o u p s , and t o women and
mothers
family
seeking
reunions
property.
a weekend
vacation;
are popular
not
He s t a t e d t h a t t h e t y p i c a l
provide
transportation,
services
food,
or
testified
because of the l o c a t i o n
r e n t s t h e c a b i n i s 10 t o 15 p e o p l e .
do
he a l s o
for
renters
beverages
of the
s i z e o f the group
Mark t e s t i f i e d
to
f o r the
that
that
purchase
renters.
that
they
or
He
t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e r e i s no r e s t a u r a n t on t h e p r e m i s e s and t h a t
r e n t e r s must p r e p a r e t h e i r own m e a l s , change t h e i r own
10
linens,
2100498
take
out the garbage,
house
during
their
cabin t o "eat,
do t h e i r
stay.
Mark
own
stated
people are screened economically
that the Slabys
and t h a t
Mark
complaints
use t h e
because the r e n t a l fees a r e
that
neighbors
conduct or a c t i v i t i e s
i s their
breakers."
t a l k s to or e-mails p o t e n t i a l
they had never had c o l l e g e
testified
from
screen t h e i r renters, that
do n o t e n c o u r a g e " s p r i n g
He t e s t i f i e d f u r t h e r t h a t M a r i a
group.
people
make i t c l e a r t h a t t h e c a b i n
home, a n d t h a t t h e S l a b y s
renters
that
and c l e a n t h e
s l e e p , a n d hang o u t . "
Mark t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e S l a b y s
high,
laundry,
they
kids
had never
or A s s o c i a t i o n
o f any o f t h e i r
stay
received
members a b o u t t h e
to the chairperson
of t h e R e s t r i c t i o n s Committee f o r t h e M o u n t a i n R i v e r
proposing
covenants.
In
the
any
renters.
I n F e b r u a r y 2009, Mark s e n t an e - m a i l
subdivision,
as a
an
amendment
e-mail,
Mark
to
the
proposed
Estates
restrictive
that
certain
r e g u l a t i o n s be added t o g o v e r n t h e r e n t a l o f homes w i t h i n t h e
s u b d i v i s i o n i n order
"to provide
i n Mountain R i v e r Estates
a way f o r owners o f p r o p e r t y
... t o r e n t / l e a s e t h e i r p r o p e r t y i n
a way t h a t i s h a r m o n i o u s t o t h e o t h e r p r o p e r t y
subdivision.
At the annual property
11
owners" i n t h e
owners' m e e t i n g i n A p r i l
2100498
2009,
the
Restrictions
Committee
submitted
for
a
p r o p o s e d amendment t o t h e r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t s t o
allow" for short-term
r e n t a l s to the
t h a n a two-week p e r i o d ,
by
Mark.
A majority
f a v o r of the
subject
of the
amendment, and
property
f o r no
regulations
i t was
not
vote
court
t e s t i f i e d at t r i a l
r u l e to p r o h i b i t the
and
requested
Slabys'
in
adopted.
A number o f p r o p e r t y owners i n t h e M o u n t a i n R i v e r
subdivision
more
suggested
owners d i d n o t
therefore
a
"expressly
same t e n a n t
to the
vote
that
Estates
the
r e n t a l of t h e i r
trial
property.
Discussion
The
contend
Slabys
that
restrictive
r a i s e two
the
trial
covenant
as
a r g u m e n t s on
court
erred
precluding
m u l t i f a m i l y g r o u p s and n o n f a m i l i e s .
not
prevail
trial
court
on
the
should
first
appeal.
issue,
in
First,
they
construing
the
short-term
rentals
to
Second, assuming t h e y
the
Slabys
argue
that
have b a l a n c e d t h e e q u i t i e s i n t h e i r
do
the
favor
and d e t e r m i n e d t h a t e n f o r c i n g t h e r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t a g a i n s t
them
would
result
S c o f i e l d , 567
resolution
appeal,
of
so we
So.
in
an
2d 1299,
the
do n o t
first
undue
1302
issue
address the
12
hardship.
( A l a . 1990) .
to
be
See
We
Lange
consider
d i s p o s i t i v e of
second i s s u e .
v.
the
this
2100498
I.
The M e a n i n g o f " S i n g l e F a m i l y
A.
The f i r s t
restricts
S t r u c t u r e V e r s u s Use
sentence of the r e s t r i c t i v e
the property
residential
R e s i d e n t i a l Purposes"
owned b y t h e S l a b y s
purposes only."
That p h r a s e ,
covenant a t i s s u e
"to single family
and o t h e r
p h r a s e s , h a s e n g e n d e r e d many c o n f l i c t i n g o p i n i o n s
country
as t o w h e t h e r
the language
restricts
similar
across the
the types
and
number o f s t r u c t u r e s t h a t may be e r e c t e d on t h e p r o p e r t y , t h e
use t o w h i c h t h o s e s t r u c t u r e s may be p u t , o r b o t h .
M. D o u g h e r t y , A n n o t a t i o n ,
Use
See F r a n c i s
R e s t r i c t i v e Covenant L i m i t i n g Land
t o " P r i v a t e Residence" or " P r i v a t e R e s i d e n t i a l Purposes":
I n t e r p r e t a t i o n and A p p l i c a t i o n , 43 A.L.R. 4 t h 71 ( 1 9 8 6 ) .
particular
opinions
phrase
has
often
appeared
in
That
appellate-court
f r o m t h i s s t a t e , s e e , e.g., C i t y o f M o u n t a i n B r o o k v .
Green V a l l e y
Partners
T u r n e r v. C l u t t s ,
I , 690 So. 2d 359, 360
565 So. 2d 92
292 A l a . 227, 292 So. 2d 103
723
So. 2d 694, 695
has
o n l y been c o n s t r u e d
( A l a . 1997);
( A l a . 1990); Laney v. E a r l y ,
(1974);
and R o e g n e r v.
Vinson,
( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 8 ) , b u t , t o d a t e , i t
i n controversies regarding
the nature
and number o f s t r u c t u r e s t h a t may be c o n s t r u c t e d on a b u r d e n e d
parcel
of property.
As a p p l i e d i n t h a t
13
context,
the phrase
2100498
"single
family
erection
of a s i n g l e
facilities,
Orange
residential
purposes
structure
containing
(concluding
erected
precludes
segmented
s u c h as an a p a r t m e n t o r c o n d o m i n i u m
B e a c h M a r i n a , I n c . v. Warner,
1986)
only"
that multifamily
on p r o p e r t y
private dwelling
separate l i v i n g
restricted
complex, see
500 So. 2d 1068 ( A l a .
condominiums
n o t be
t o use f o r a " ' s i n g l e
family
or maintenance of m u l t i p l e
located
on t h e same p r o p e r t y ,
H i n e s v. H e i s l e r , 439 So. 2d 4 ( A l a . 1983) ( p r o p e r t y
be u s e d t o e r e c t
when
subject
residential
(Ala.
multifamily
to
could not
shared driveway
requiring
private
505 So. 2d 325, 328
l o t f o r u s e as
of
residence,"
a
purposes only'" p r o h i b i t e d
several
temporary r e s i d e n c e s ) ,
nature
covenant
see
1987) ( r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t l i m i t i n g u s e o f s u b d i v i s i o n
l o t from p l a c i n g
single
with
u s e ) ; a n d W a l d r o p v. W e l c h ,
l o t s to "'private residence
of
townhouse
restrictive
living
could
or residence'"),
facilities
the
"single
camper-type
camping
travel
recreational
owners
trailers
on
facilities
or
because such s t r u c t u r e s are not i n the
family
residence"
or
a
i . e . , "a p l a c e o f abode f o r one f a m i l y . "
505 So. 2d a t 328.
14
"private"
Waldrop,
2100498
In t h i s
question
and
whether the
built,
argument
argued
cabin
owned by
litigate
the
Slabys,
on
i t s application for
that,
under
Hines,
the
covenant because,
rehearing,
as
Slabys'
the
cabin
i t s a i d , the
designed
At
trial
i t s j u d g m e n t on
c o u r t and
that
t h a t the
ground.
is in
a f f i r m a j u d g m e n t on any v a l i d g r o u n d , e v e n one
by
the t r i a l
v.
State,
16
c o u r t , t h a t g r o u n d must be
So.
3d
Liberty Nat'l Life
Servs.
Found., P.C.,
792,
Ins.
881
797
Co.
So.
the
family.
court d i d
this
court
not
( A l a . C i v . App.
not
can
considered
a l e g a l one.
Atkins
2009)
(citing
v.
U n i v e r s i t y of Alabama
2d
1013,
1020
the
not r a i s e d t h a t
trial
Although
oral
violates
o f a d u p l e x , b u i l t t o accommodate more t h a n one
argument i n t h e
the
Association
cabin
However, t h e A s s o c i a t i o n c o n c e d e d t h a t i t had
rest
at t r i a l
constitutes a "single family residence."
restrictive
nature
case, the p a r t i e s d i d not
Health
(Ala. 2003)).
In
t h i s c a s e , w h e t h e r t h e c a b i n can be
c h a r a c t e r i z e d as a d u p l e x
or
would
as
a
question
"single family
residence"
of f a c t not a q u e s t i o n
issue
was
not
r a i s e d or
court
cannot a f f i r m the
c o n s t i t u t e s a d u p l e x and
of law.
resolved
j u d g m e n t on
not
involve
a
disputed
Because t h a t f a c t u a l
i n the
trial
court,
the b a s i s t h a t the
a s i n g l e - f a m i l y residence.
15
this
cabin
2100498
At t r i a l ,
way
the p a r t i e s d i d c o n t e s t the
i s s u e whether
i n w h i c h t h e S l a b y s use t h e c a b i n v i o l a t e s t h e
requiring
their
property
to
r e s i d e n t i a l purposes only."
controversy
on
the
be
The
used
trial
ground t h a t the
cabin to non-family
for
the
restriction
"single
family
court adjudicated
Slabys,
by
renting
the
their
members on a s h o r t - t e r m b a s i s , were u s i n g
t h e i r p r o p e r t y i n a manner i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e t e r m s o f
r e s t r i c t i v e covenant.
This appeal t h e r e f o r e squarely
an i s s u e o f f i r s t i m p r e s s i o n
state
as
to
residential
premises.
the
of
the
phrase
t h e use
"single
this
family
o f a s t r u c t u r e on
Hence, p r i o r c a s e l a w i n f o r m s , b u t does n o t
B.
presents
f o r the a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s of
p u r p o s e s o n l y " on
our d e t e r m i n a t i o n
In
effect
the
the
control,
of t h a t i s s u e .
E f f e c t on
I d e n t i t y of Occupants
i t s judgment, the t r i a l
court
found:
"A s i n g l e - f a m i l y r e s i d e n c e has b e e n a p p r o p r i a t e l y
d e f i n e d as a h o u s e o c c u p i e d by one f a m i l y .
See
H o o k e r v. A l e x a n d e r ,
129 Conn. 433, 29 A.2d
308
(1942).
I t f o l l o w s t h a t the term s i n g l e - f a m i l y
r e s i d e n t i a l purpose manifests
an
intent that a
r e s i d e n c e n o t be u s e d f o r r e s i d e n t i a l p u r p o s e s by
m u l t i - f a m i l y or non-family groups."
To
the
extent
traditional
that
nuclear
the
trial
f a m i l y may
16
court
reside
meant
in
a
that
"single
only
a
family
2100498
residence"
related
and t h a t
occupancy
or
unrelated
c o v e n a n t , we
by o t h e r ,
persons
more t a n g e n t i a l l y
breaches
the
restrictive
disagree.
N e i t h e r o u r supreme c o u r t , n o r t h i s c o u r t , h a s e v e r
ruled
t h a t a s t r u c t u r e t h a t q u a l i f i e s as a " s i n g l e f a m i l y r e s i d e n c e "
must
be
occupied
by o n l y
one b i o l o g i c a l
family
or that
a
s t r u c t u r e i s not used f o r " s i n g l e f a m i l y r e s i d e n t i a l purposes"
because u n r e l a t e d persons r e s i d e t h e r e i n .
R e s t r i c t i n g t h e use
of
traditional
the cabin
to occupation
nuclear f a m i l y would prevent
by
only
a
single
t h e Slabys from u s i n g t h e i r
cabin
t o h o u s e t h e i r own e x t e n d e d f a m i l y o r f r o m h a v i n g o v e r n i g h t o r
weekend v i s i t s
are
not
with
only
their
f r i e n d s and a s s o c i a t e s , uses
consistent
with
single-family
that
residential
purposes, but are expected.
The
restrictive
term " f a m i l y . "
understanding
Courts
covenant
at issue
does
not define the
are g e n e r a l l y i n c l i n e d toward a broad
o f the term
" f a m i l y " when
that
term
i s left
undefined
i n r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t s and z o n i n g o r d i n a n c e s .
James
Rigelhaupt,
L.
"Family"
Within
J r . ,Annotation,
What
Meaning o f Zoning R e g u l a t i o n
C o v e n a n t , 71 A.L.R.3d 693
(1976).
17
See
Constitutes
a
or R e s t r i c t i v e
2100498
"Now t h i s w o r d ' f a m i l y , ' c o n t a i n e d i n t h e s t a t u t e ,
i t i s an e x p r e s s i o n o f g r e a t f l e x i b i l i t y . I t i s
a p p l i e d i n many ways. I t may mean t h e h u s b a n d a n d
w i f e , h a v i n g no c h i l d r e n a n d l i v i n g a l o n e t o g e t h e r ,
o r i t may mean c h i l d r e n , o r w i f e a n d c h i l d r e n , o r
blood
relatives,
o r any g r o u p
constituting
a
d i s t i n c t d o m e s t i c o r s o c i a l body. I t i s o f t e n u s e d
t o d e n o t e a s m a l l s e l e c t c o r p s a t t a c h e d t o an army
c h i e f , a n d h a s e v e n b e e n e x t e n d e d t o w h o l e s e c t s , as
i n t h e case o f the Shakers."
Carmichael
496,
v. N o r t h w e s t e r n
16 N.W.
given
8 7 1 , 872
Mut. B e n e f i t A s s ' n , 51 M i c h . 494,
(1883).
an e v e n more e l a s t i c
decided.
See B l a c k ' s
Law
The w o r d
definition
" f a m i l y " has been
since Carmichael
Dictionary
679
was
( 9 t h e d . 2009)
( d e f i n i n g " f a m i l y " p r i m a r i l y a s : "A g r o u p o f p e r s o n s c o n n e c t e d
by
blood,
by a f f i n i t y ,
o r b y l a w , e s p . w i t h i n two o r t h r e e
generations.").
M o r e o v e r , t h e r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t does n o t p r o v i d e
that
t h e b u r d e n e d p r o p e r t y s h a l l be o c c u p i e d b y " n o t more t h a n one
single
family unit."
Preston,
85 M i c h .
(construing
dwelling
Slabys
See J a y n o H e i g h t s
App. 443, 447, 271 N.W.2d 268, 270
s u c h w o r d i n g as p r e v e n t i n g
f o r operation
also
point
L a n d o w n e r s A s s ' n v.
(1978)
use of s i n g l e - f a m i l y
o f g r o u p home f o r e l d e r l y ) .
out, the r e s t r i c t i v e
covenant
As t h e
does n o t
r e q u i r e t h a t t h e c a b i n be e x c l u s i v e l y " o w n e r - o c c u p i e d " o r t h e
like,
so t h e y
"are not constrained i n the character of t h e i r
18
2100498
residential
use of t h e p r o p e r t y
S i l s b y v. B e l c h ,
v.
Bernstein,
("courts
by
t h e deed
952 A . 2 d 218, 222 (Me. 2 0 0 8 ) .
251 A l a .
should
covenants."
See a l s o B e a r
230, 232, 36 So. 2d 483, 484
not extend,
by c o n s t r u c t i o n ,
(1948)
the r e s t r a i n t
b e y o n d i t s p r o p e r s c o p e b y w r i t i n g i n t o i t what i s n o t c l e a r l y
inhibited").
"[W]hen t h e t e r m ' s i n g l e - f a m i l y d w e l l i n g ' i s c o u p l e d
with
the phrase
'residential
purposes
only,'
n o n r e s i d e n t i a l u s e s may n o t be made o f t h e b u i l d i n g .
However, i n t h i s l a t t e r s i t u a t i o n , c o u r t s have a l s o
h e l d t h a t t h e r e i s no r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t t h e d w e l l i n g
be i n h a b i t e d b y a ' s i n g l e ' f a m i l y , as l o n g as t h e
b u i l d i n g i s used f o r r e s i d e n t i a l purposes."
43 Am. J u r . P r o o f o f F a c t s
ed.
1997)
(emphasis
added)
Homeowners A s s ' n v . B a c a ,
(use
of
house
as
requiring
(citing
home
adults
§ 8 (3d
Greenbrier-Cloverdale
763 P.2d 1 ( C o l o .
group
developmentally disabled
covenant
473 ( R e s i d e n t i a l P r o p e r t y )
for
C t . App. 1988)
eight
unrelated,
d i d not v i o l a t e
restrictive
"'single-family dwelling'");
and Vienna
Bend S u b d i v i s i o n Homeowners A s s ' n v. M a n n i n g , 459 So. 2d 1345
(La.
C t . App. 1984) ( a c c o r d ) ) .
See a l s o
Bellarmine
Hills
A s s ' n v. R e s i d e n t i a l S y s . Co., 84 M i c h . App. 554, 269 N.W.2d
673
word
(1978)
(discussing at length
"family"
i n the context
19
the problem of d e f i n i n g the
of
a
restrictive
covenant
2100498
r e q u i r i n g t h a t p r o p e r t y be u s e d f o r s i n g l e - f a m i l y r e s i d e n c e s ) ;
and C o s t l e y v. C a r o m i n House, I n c . , 313 N.W.2d 21 (Minn. 1981)
(group
home
f o r s i x mentally
challenged
adults
a n d two
r e s i d e n t h o u s e p a r e n t s was a s i n g l e - f a m i l y u n i t w i t h i n m e a n i n g
of c i t y
zoning
ordinance).
2
" R e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t s w i l l be r e c o g n i z e d a n d
e n f o r c e d when e s t a b l i s h e d b y c o n t r a c t , b u t t h e y a r e
not
favored
and w i l l
be
strictly
construed.
C a r p e n t e r v. D a v i s , 688 So. 2d 256, 258 ( A l a . 1997) .
Our Supreme C o u r t h a s h e l d t h a t
" ' i n c o n s t r u i n g r e s t r i c t i v e covenants, a l l
doubts
must
be
resolved
against the
restriction
and i n f a v o r o f f r e e and
u n r e s t r i c t e d use o f p r o p e r t y .
However,
In
C i v i t a n s Care,
I n c . v. Board o f Adjustment o f
H u n t s v i l l e , 437 So. 2d 540 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 3 ) , t h i s c o u r t
a f f i r m e d a judgment d e n y i n g a f a v o r a b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f a
zoning ordinance t o a n o n p r o f i t o r g a n i z a t i o n desirous of
o p e r a t i n g a g r o u p home f o r m e n t a l l y c h a l l e n g e d a d u l t s i n an
a r e a z o n e d f o r o c c u p a n c y b y one o r two f a m i l i e s .
The t r i a l
c o u r t i n t h a t case r e c o g n i z e d t h a t t h e group c o n s t i t u t e d a
"family" within the d e f i n i t i o n
contained
i n the zoning
o r d i n a n c e , n a m e l y : "'Any number o f i n d i v i d u a l s l i v i n g t o g e t h e r
as a s i n g l e h o u s e k e e p i n g u n i t a n d d o i n g t h e i r own c o o k i n g on
the premises.'"
437 So. 2d a t 542. However, t h e t r i a l c o u r t
found, and t h i s c o u r t agreed, t h a t t h e n o n p r o f i t o r g a n i z a t i o n
p l a n n e d t o o p e r a t e t h e g r o u p home a s a " b o a r d i n g h o u s e " o r a
"rooming house" i n v i o l a t i o n o f o t h e r s e c t i o n s o f t h e zoning
ordinance.
437 So. 2d a t 542-43 ( c i t i n g C i t y o f G u n t e r s v i l l e
v. S h u l l , 355 So. 2d 361 ( A l a . 1 9 7 8 ) ) .
We f i n d C i v i t a n s C a r e
t o be d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m t h e p r e s e n t c a s e a n d n o t i n
c o n f l i c t w i t h our h o l d i n g today t h a t the undefined
term
"family"
should
be c o n s t r u e d
broadly
in a
restrictive
covenant.
2
20
2100498
e f f e c t w i l l be g i v e n t o t h e m a n i f e s t i n t e n t
o f t h e p a r t i e s when t h a t i n t e n t i s c l e a r
.... F u r t h e r m o r e , r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t s a r e
t o be c o n s t r u e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i n t e n t o f
the p a r t i e s i n the l i g h t of the terms of
t h e r e s t r i c t i o n and c i r c u m s t a n c e s known t o
the p a r t i e s . '
" H i n e s v. H e i s l e r , 439
Hipsh
v.
So.
2d 4,
Graham C r e e k E s t a t e s
5-6
( A l a . 1983)."
Owners A s s ' n ,
927
So.
2d
846,
848-49 ( A l a . C i v . App.
2005).
See a l s o G r o v e H i l l Homeowners'
A s s ' n v. R i c e ,
3d
614
The
cabin
to
43 So.
evidence
only
reflects
one
persons w i t h i n the
t o one
and
another,
other
p e r s o n s who
those
609,
group
that
of
( A l a . C i v . App.
the
persons
Slabys
at
a
each other
are
using
residential
and
commercial
lodgings,
but
are
r e n t t h e c a b i n as a c o o r d i n a t e d w h o l e .
r e l a t i o n s , but,
biologically
does n o t
the
that
unrelated
for
other
C.
than
R e s i d e n t i a l Uses
21
motels,
affiliated
Sometimes
The mere f a c t t h a t
to
purposes."
the
as shown, t h a t i s
the
mean t h a t , when r e n t i n g t h e
premises
the
strangers
as one w o u l d e x p e c t t o f i n d a t h o t e l s ,
similar
are
rented
i n d i v i d u a l g r o u p s have n o t b e e n
groups are not b l o o d
renters
have
time
not the o n l y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of a " f a m i l y . "
the
2010).
Slabys
or
cabin,
"single
to
they
family
2100498
A t l e a s t two o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s have d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e
short-term
rental
restrictions
purposes"
58,
of
a
vacation
requiring property
or s i m i l a r wording.
home
does
not v i o l a t e
t o be u s e d f o r " r e s i d e n t i a l
I n Lowden v . B o s l e y , 395 Md.
909 A . 2 d 261 ( 2 0 0 6 ) , c i t e d b y t h e S l a b y s ,
the Maryland
C o u r t o f A p p e a l s d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e owners o f a v a c a t i o n home
had n o t v i o l a t e d a r e s t r i c t i v e covenant r e q u i r i n g t h a t l o t s i n
the
subdivision
purposes
only'"
be
used
f o r "'single
family
residential
b y r e n t i n g t h e i r home t o o t h e r f a m i l i e s on a
short-term basis.
S p e c i f i c a l l y , the court concluded that the
c o v e n a n t "on i t s f a c e
[did] not p r o h i b i t the short-term r e n t a l
o f a d e f e n d a n t ' s home t o a s i n g l e f a m i l y w h i c h r e s i d e s
home."
395 Md. a t 67, 909 A . 2 d a t 266.
The c o u r t
i n the
reasoned
t h a t " ' [ r ] e s i d e n t i a l u s e , ' w i t h o u t more, h a s been c o n s i s t e n t l y
interpreted
as m e a n i n g
that
t h e use of t h e p r o p e r t y
l i v i n g purposes, or a d w e l l i n g , or a place
"[t]he
t r a n s i t o r y or temporary
defeat the r e s i d e n t i a l status."
is
for
o f abode," a n d t h a t
n a t u r e o f s u c h u s e does n o t
395 Md. a t 68, 909 A . 2 d a t
267.
Similarly,
i n M u l l i n v . S i l v e r c r e e k Condominium, Owner's
A s s ' n , 195 S.W.3d 484 (Mo. C t . App. 2 0 0 6 ) , t h e M i s s o u r i
22
Court
2100498
of
Appeals
affirmed
condominiums
requiring
that
each
exclusively
a judgment
were
unit
to
subject
to
be
The
court
to
a
"'used,
residential
S.W.3d a t 488.
a l l o w i n g n i g h t l y r e n t a l s of
use
by
restrictive
improved,
a
covenant
and
devoted
single family.'"
195
stated:
"The p l a i n and o r d i n a r y m e a n i n g o f
'residential
p u r p o s e s ' i s 'one i n w h i c h p e o p l e r e s i d e o r d w e l l ,
o r w h i c h t h e y make t h e i r homes, as d i s t i n g u i s h e d
f r o m one w h i c h i s u s e d f o r c o m m e r c i a l o r b u s i n e s s
p u r p o s e s . ' S t a t e d a n o t h e r way, t h e u n i t o w n e r s ' use
o f t h e i r u n i t s and r e s t r i c t e d common e l e m e n t s must
be f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f r e s i d i n g o r d w e l l i n g t h e r e , o r
in
a
manner
making
the
realty
a
home,
as
d i s t i n g u i s h e d from u s i n g the r e a l t y f o r commercial
or b u s i n e s s purposes."
195
S.W.3d a t 490
the
restriction
single
family"
restriction
agree
"residential
the
should
continue
to
construed
court found
units
be
together
owner c o u l d be
those
purposes"
living
condominium
be
the
The
used
with
allowed
that
"by
a
another
to rent
the
i s used
for
Id.
with
ordinary
incidental
that
so t h a t
unit to others.
We
(citations omitted).
courts
when
purposes.
relax, eat,
activities,
that
property
those
occupying
Thus,
so
sleep,
bathe,
long
and
i t do
as
the
engage
so
for
renters
in
other
as t h e u n d i s p u t e d e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s
23
2100498
renters
did
residential
in
this
case,
they
purposes.
24
are
using
the
cabin
for
2100498
D.
E f f e c t on D u r a t i o n
In i t s judgment, t h e t r i a l
of Rental
c o u r t , i n s t e a d o f f o c u s i n g on
how t h e r e n t e r s u s e d t h e c a b i n , c o n c e n t r a t e d on t h e s h o r t - t e r m
nature
of that use.
The t r i a l
court stated:
"Construing
the term
residential
purposes
e m p l o y i n g t h e common a n d o r d i n a r y m e a n i n g o f t h e
words u s e d , i t d e n o t e s t h e o c c u p y i n g o f a p r e m i s e s
f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f m a k i n g i t one's u s u a l p l a c e o f
abode.
I t does n o t mean o c c u p y i n g a p r e m i s e s f o r
vacation or t r a n s i e n t purposes."
(Second emphasis
added.)
that
like
the Slabys,
subdivision,
there
only
court's
The e v i d e n c e
many o f t h e o t h e r
use t h e i r
property
intermittently
reasoning,
clearly
establishes
landowners
i n the
as a v a c a t i o n home, s t a y i n g
or seasonally.
and the reasoning
Under
the t r i a l
e m p l o y e d b y t h e Texas
C o u r t o f A p p e a l s i n B e n a r d v . Humble, 990 S.W.2d 929 (Tex. C t .
App.
their
1 9 9 9 ) , upon w h i c h t h e t r i a l c o u r t r e l i e d , u n l e s s t h e y u s e
property
as
their
primary
residences,
the
other
l a n d o w n e r s i n t h e s u b d i v i s i o n a l s o w o u l d be i n v i o l a t i o n o f
the r e s t r i c t i v e covenant.
On de novo
Owners A s s ' n ,
review,
see Hipsh
927 So. 2d a t 848
v. Graham
(treating
de
novo),
we
hold
25
that
the
Estates
construction of
unambiguous r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t as a q u e s t i o n
reviewed
Creek
term
o f l a w t o be
"residential
2100498
p u r p o s e s " does n o t mean o n l y " o c c u p y i n g
of a premises f o r the
p u r p o s e o f m a k i n g i t one's u s u a l p l a c e o f abode."
court
did
not
hold
in
Waldrop,
supra,
Our
that
supreme
the
term
" r e s i d e n c e " means u s u a l p l a c e o f abode; r a t h e r , i t s t a t e d o n l y
that
the
abode."
term
505
is satisfied
So.
when a b u i l d i n g
2d a t 328.
So
d e f i n e d , the
i s "a
place
of
cabin would
be
u s e d f o r " r e s i d e n t i a l p u r p o s e s " a n y t i m e i t i s u s e d as a p l a c e
o f abode, e v e n i f t h e p e r s o n s o c c u p y i n g
there temporarily during a vacation.
a t 68,
909 A.2d
s u c h use
The
lease
a t 267
("The
does n o t d e f e a t
See a l s o Lowden, 395
the r e s i d e n t i a l
and
residing
t r a n s i t o r y or temporary nature
A s s o c i a t i o n ' s bylaws
their property,
the cabin are
recognize
Md.
of
status.").
the
Slabys
can
judgment i m p l i e d l y
the
that
allows
the
S l a b y s t o l e a s e t h e i r p r o p e r t y f o r p e r i o d s l o n g e r t h a n a week.
The
judgment o n l y p r o h i b i t s
"short-term"
rentals.
"[T]here i s u t t e r l y n o t h i n g i n the language of the
D e c l a r a t i o n w h i c h p r o v i d e s any b a s i s f o r d r a w i n g a
d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n l o n g - t e r m r e n t a l s and s h o r t - t e r m
r e n t a l s . M o r e o v e r , a t what p o i n t does t h e r e n t a l o f
a home move f r o m s h o r t - t e r m t o l o n g - t e r m : a week? a
month? a s e a s o n ? t h r e e months? s i x months? one y e a r ?
or s e v e r a l y e a r s ? "
Lowden, 395
the
Md.
restrictive
a t 70,
909
covenants,
A.2d
as
26
a t 268.
We
written,
read nothing
addressing
in
the
2100498
acceptable
length
of a r e n t a l
or lease
of the property.
As
n o t e d , a m a j o r i t y o f t h e members o f t h e A s s o c i a t i o n r e j e c t e d
attempts t o provide
leasing rights.
the
Slabys
cabin
further d e f i n i t i o n of the property
I n t h e a b s e n c e o f some s p e c i f i c
presumably can a u t h o r i z e
their
restriction,
r e n t e r s t o use the
i n t h e same manner, a n d f o r t h e same p e r i o d ,
Slabys
themselves
Corp. ,
283 A l a . 5 5 1 , 219
purported
to lease
prohibited
void).
use i t .
by
We
So. 2d
379
(1969)
f o r commercial
zoning
therefore
ordinance,
decline
to
E.
context,
purposes
does
that
only,"
not require
lessor
contract
the
meaning
was
was
of
court.
Summary
summary, we c o n c l u d e
residential
(when
lease
adopt
Trucking
use, which
" r e s i d e n t i a l purpose" employed by t h e t r i a l
In
that the
C f . W a l k e r v. S o u t h e r n
property
local
owners'
when
the phrase
applied
permanent
"single
i n the
occupancy
family
present
by o n l y
one
t r a d i t i o n a l nuclear family.
T h a t p h r a s e does n o t p r o h i b i t t h e
Slabys
cabin
from
renting
their
on a
short-term
basis
to
i n d i v i d u a l s o r groups o f a s s o c i a t e d p e r s o n s u n r e l a t e d by b l o o d
to the Slabys
o r t o one a n o t h e r .
27
2100498
II.
The M e a n i n g o f t h e " C o m m e r c i a l U s e " P r o h i b i t i o n
In i t s judgment, t h e t r i a l
rental
of
the
cabin
court
violates
the
" c o m m e r c i a l u s e . " When t h e S l a b y s
d o u b t r e a l i z e some p e c u n i a r y
benefit
nor
remittance
the
of
the
from r e s i d e n t i a l
financial
property
the nature
or
the
of t h e use
t o c o m m e r c i a l as t h e t r i a l
concluded.
279 A l a . 453, 186 So. 2d 915
supreme c o u r t h e l d t h a t a r e s t r i c t i v e
that
against
c a b i n , t h e y no
gain, but neither that
advertisement
I n R e e t z v. E l l i s ,
our
prohibition
rent t h e i r
of a lodging t a x transforms
of t h e p r o p e r t y
court
found t h a t the Slabys'
the burdened p r o p e r t y
dwelling
purposes
be u s e d
impliedly
covenant r e q u i r i n g
solely
prohibited
(1966),
f o r farming
commercial
and
uses.
N o t i n g t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y owners p l a n n e d on u s i n g t h e p r o p e r t y
to
manage a 30- t o 40-mobile-home t r a i l e r p a r k , c o m p l e t e w i t h
a
rental
office,
a
laundry
area,
a
swimming
pool,
and a
r e c r e a t i o n room, t h e c o u r t h e l d t h a t " t h e p r o p o s e d u s e i s f o r
a commercial purpose and n o t f o r d w e l l i n g p u r p o s e s . "
a t 458, 186 So. 2d a t 918.
Association maintains
279 A l a .
On a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g , t h e
t h a t Reetz compels t h e c o n c l u s i o n
28
that
2100498
the
Slabys'
short-term
rental
p r o h i b i t e d c o m m e r c i a l use
of
their
of t h e i r
cabin
the
mobile-home
mercantile
actual
or
similar
r e n t i n g of
associated
park
on
activity
the
cabin,
therewith,
occurs
site,
occurs
and
a
property.
U n l i k e i n Reetz, i n which the p r o p e r t y
manage
constitutes
any
owners p l a n n e d t o
in
at
this
the
cabin.
financial
off-site.
The
case
no
The
transactions
Slabys
do
not
s o l i c i t r e n t e r s o n - s i t e , b u t do so t h r o u g h t h e I n t e r n e t , where
p o t e n t i a l tenants
there.
can v i e w t h e p r e m i s e s w i t h o u t
While occupying the
cabin,
the
tenants
actually
going
must c o o k
and
c l e a n f o r t h e m s e l v e s and t h e y do n o t r e c e i v e any s e r v i c e s f r o m
the Slabys.
A l t h o u g h the Slabys
p a y a b l e by
persons
furnishing
any
transients
in
[County],"
§
"engaging
room o r
any
...
40-26-1,
remit a lodging tax, which i s
i n the
business
rooms, l o d g i n g ,
tourist
Ala.
Code
or
renting
or
accommodations
to
cabin
...
1975,
that
of
in
...
fact
DeKalb
does
d e t r a c t f r o m t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t no c o m m e r c i a l a c t i v i t y
place
on t h e
not
takes
premises.
M o s t i m p o r t a n t l y , u n l i k e i n R e e t z , t h e income t h e
Slabys
d e r i v e from the r e n t a l of the p r o p e r t y d e r i v e s s o l e l y from the
use
of the p r o p e r t y
i n t h e same manner as t h e o t h e r
29
landowners
2100498
in
t h e s u b d i v i s i o n use t h e i r
properties.
The f a c t
that the
S l a b y s r e c e i v e r e n t a l income does n o t t r a n s f o r m t h e c h a r a c t e r
of
the surrounding
subdivision like
mobile-home p a r k o r a h o t e l would.
the maintenance
of a
As t h e M a r y l a n d C o u r t o f
A p p e a l s e x p l a i n e d i n Lowden:
"The
o w n e r s ' r e c e i p t o f r e n t a l income i n no way
detracts
from
t h e use o f t h e p r o p e r t i e s
as
residences
by
the
tenants.
There
are
many
r e s i d e n t i a l uses of p r o p e r t y which a l s o p r o v i d e a
commercial b e n e f i t t o c e r t a i n persons.
Both i n
M a r y l a n d and i n a g r e a t m a j o r i t y o f o t h e r s t a t e s ,
o v e r 30 p e r c e n t o f homes a r e r e n t e d r a t h e r t h a n
owned b y t h e f a m i l i e s
residing
therein,
thus
providing
much r e n t a l
income t o l a n d l o r d s . I n
addition
to conventional
rentals,
a commercial
b e n e f i t may be r e a l i z e d f r o m r e s i d e n t i a l p r o p e r t y b y
persons o r e n t i t i e s h o l d i n g ground r e n t s , mortgages,
o r deeds o f t r u s t . When p r o p e r t y i s u s e d f o r a
r e s i d e n c e , t h e r e s i m p l y i s no t e n s i o n b e t w e e n s u c h
use a n d a c o m m e r c i a l b e n e f i t a c c r u i n g t o someone
else."
395 Md. a t 69, 909 A . 2 d a t 267-68 ( f o o t n o t e o m i t t e d ) ; s e e a l s o
P i n e h a v e n P l a n n i n g Bd. v. B r o o k s ,
P.3d
664, 667-68
(2003)
138 I d a h o 826, 829-30, 70
(holding that r e s t r i c t i v e
covenants
d i s a l l o w i n g "'commercial or i n d u s t r i a l ventures or business of
any t y p e ' " f r o m b e i n g m a i n t a i n e d
were
not
meaning,
whether
ambiguous
clearly
and
that,
on any l o t i n t h e s u b d i v i s i o n
"according
allow the r e n t a l
short-term
or long-term,
30
to
their
of r e s i d e n t i a l
because
plain
property,"
t h e u s e "does n o t
2100498
v i o l a t e t h e p r o h i b i t i o n on c o m m e r c i a l and b u s i n e s s a c t i v i t y
such terms are
The
commonly
as
understood").
S l a b y s c i t e a number o f o t h e r c a s e s t h a t a l s o
support
t h e i r argument t h a t t h e s h o r t - t e r m r e n t a l o f t h e i r p r o p e r t y i s
n o t p r o h i b i t e d by a c o m m e r c i a l - u s e r e s t r i c t i o n .
v.
C o l u c c i , 908
(although
the
N.E.2d
rental
1214,
of
1219-21
property
c o v e n a n t s r e q u i r i n g p a r c e l s t o be
(Ind.
subject
See
Applegate
Ct.
App.
to
restrictive
"'used o n l y f o r r e s i d e n t i a l
purposes,'" p r o h i b i t i n g commercial b u s i n e s s from b e i n g
on,
and
prevent
stating
that
2009)
"'[n]othing
herein
carried
contained
shall
the l e a s i n g or r e n t i n g of p r o p e r t y or s t r u c t u r e s f o r
r e s i d e n t i a l use
'" was
not p r o h i b i t e d , the maintenance of
a r e n t a l o f f i c e on t h e p r o p e r t y c r e a t e d a q u e s t i o n o f f a c t
as
t o w h e t h e r c o v e n a n t s were v i o l a t e d ) ; S c o t t v. W a l k e r , 274
Va.
209,
not
218,
645
S.E.2d 278,
283
(2007)
( r e n t a l of p r o p e r t y
p r o h i b i t e d by r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t s r e q u i r i n g l o t s t o be
f o r r e s i d e n t i a l p u r p o s e s b e c a u s e c o v e n a n t s were s i l e n t
leases
or
rental
agreements
purposes"
was
ambiguous);
Basinger,
115
Ohio
(1996)
(short-term
App.
3d
rental
and
Catawba
402,
of
31
the
term
Orchard
409,
685
property
used
as
to
"residential
Beach
Ass'n
v.
N.E.2d
584,
589
did
not
violate
2100498
restrictive
covenant
when
no
business
was
conducted
on
p r o p e r t y a n d p r o p e r t y was u s e d as s i n g l e - f a m i l y r e s i d e n c e s f o r
one f a m i l y e a c h ) ;
751,
754
zoning
S i w i n s k i v. Town o f Ogden Dunes, 922 N.E.2d
( I n d . C t . App. 2010)
ordinance
the p r o p e r t y
("'single-family dwelling'" i n
refers to physical a c t i v i t y
r a t h e r than
c o n d u c t e d upon
the p r o f i t - m a k i n g i n t e n t i o n s of the
homeowners); a n d Mason F a m i l y T r u s t v. DeVaney, 146 N.M.
202,
207 P.3d 1176, 1179
reasonably
construed,
a
(N.M. C t . App. 2009)
restriction
stating
199,
(strictly
that
and
property
s h a l l be u s e d f o r d w e l l i n g p u r p o s e s o n l y a n d n o t f o r b u s i n e s s
or c o m m e r c i a l p u r p o s e s does n o t f o r b i d s h o r t - t e r m
dwelling
The
rental for
purposes).
Association
relies
Owners A s s ' n v. S c h i l l i n g ,
on
Enchanted
Forest
Property
(No. 287614, M a r c h 11, 2010)
(Mich.
C t . App. 2010) ( n o t r e p o r t e d i n N.W.2d), w h i c h was a l s o
relied
on b y t h e t r i a l
Appeals
court.
interpreted
a
In S c h i l l i n g ,
restriction
the Michigan
stating
Court
that
of
"'[a]ny
s t r u c t u r e e r e c t e d s h a l l be a p r i v a t e r e s i d e n c e f o r u s e by t h e
owner o r o c c u p a n t
for
commercial
concluded
No p a r t o f s a i d p r e m i s e s s h a l l be u s e d
or
manufacturing
that the r e s t r i c t i o n
32
purposes.'"
"expresses
a clear
The
court
intent to
2100498
p e r m i t use o f t h e p r o p e r t y o n l y f o r p r i v a t e r e s i d e n t i a l
use"
and t h a t " [ u ] s e o f t h e p r o p e r t y t o p r o v i d e t e m p o r a r y h o u s i n g
to
t r a n s i e n t g u e s t s i s a c o m m e r c i a l p u r p o s e , as t h a t t e r m i s
commonly
understood."
We
find
i t noteworthy
that
the
r e s t r i c t i o n i n S c h i l l i n g i n c l u d e s language r e s t r i c t i n g t h e use
t o t h e "'owner o r o c c u p a n t , ' " t h u s m a k i n g t h e c o v e n a n t i n t h a t
c a s e more r e s t r i c t i v e
cases c i t e d
t h a n t h e c o v e n a n t s i n a number o f o t h e r
by t h e S l a b y s t h a t do n o t c o n t a i n s u c h
l i k e the covenant i n the p r e s e n t case.
that S c h i l l i n g
The t r i a l
2d
971
District
i s distinguishable
language,
T h e r e f o r e , we c o n c l u d e
from the p r e s e n t case.
c o u r t a l s o r e l i e d on R o b i n s v. W a l t e r , 670 So.
(Fla.Dist.
Court
C t . App.
of Appeals
1995) .
of
Florida
In Robins,
the
determined
First
that
the
o p e r a t i o n o f a b e d a n d b r e a k f a s t was p r o h i b i t e d by r e s t r i c t i v e
c o v e n a n t s l i m i t i n g t h e e r e c t i o n o f s t r u c t u r e s on t h e p r o p e r t y
to
"'one d e t a c h e d s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g u n i t ' " a n d r e q u i r i n g
t h a t no s t r u c t u r e be u s e d f o r b u s i n e s s o r c o m m e r c i a l p u r p o s e s .
670 So. 2d a t 973.
"'the
The c o v e n a n t s i n R o b i n s f u r t h e r n o t e d t h a t
r e n t i n g o f t h e p r e m i s e s i n w h o l e o r i n p a r t s h a l l n o t be
c o n s t r u e d t o be a b u s i n e s s o r c o m m e r c i a l o p e r a t i o n . ' "
note
first
that
the covenants
33
i n the present case,
Id.
We
unlike
2100498
t h o s e a t i s s u e i n R o b i n s , a r e s i l e n t as t o t h e
of p r o p e r t y
rental.
M o r e o v e r , b a s e d on
determination
t h a t the o p e r a t i o n
p r o h i b i t e d by
the
that
that
breakfast
court
o f t h e bed
covenants at issue
distinguished
the
the
permissibility
Florida
court's
and b r e a k f a s t
i n Robins,
operation
was
i t i s clear
of
a
f r o m " r e n t i n g o f t h e p r e m i s e s , " w h i c h was
bed
and
expressly
p e r m i t t e d by t h e r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t s i n t h a t c a s e ; i t s t a t e d
that
" [ t ] h e r e n t a l of a residence
restrictions
in
the
i n the
context
case
and
instant
u n d e r s t a n d i n g i n v o l v e s the
of the
under
r e n t a l as a r e s i d e n c e
deed
common
rather
than
j u s t a f a c i l i t y s e r v i n g temporary or t r a n s i e n t g u e s t s from the
general
public."
which the
provide
Id.
at
975.
Slabys rent t h e i r
cabin
Thus,
the
present
as a r e s i d e n c e ,
any s e r v i c e s t o t h e i r t e n a n t s ,
case,
but
in
do
not
i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from
Robins.
We
conclude t h a t the r e s t r i c t i o n i n the covenant at
p r o h i b i t i n g "commercial use"
of the p r o p e r t y
the Slabys from r e n t i n g t h e i r p r o p e r t y
We
agree w i t h
Brooks,
have
supra,
addressed
property
the
and
the
reasoning
the
majority
issue,
i s used i n t h i s
that
of
the
other
Planning
basis.
Board
jurisdictions
purposes
c a s e , s u c h as
34
does n o t p r o h i b i t
on a s h o r t - t e r m
i n Pinehaven
issue
for
for eating,
which
v.
that
the
sleeping,
2100498
and o t h e r r e s i d e n t i a l p u r p o s e s , does n o t amount t o c o m m e r c i a l
use.
Conclusion
B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e S l a b y s a r e
not
using
their
cabin
i n a manner
inconsistent with the
r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t a t i s s u e b y r e n t i n g t h e c a b i n on a s h o r t term b a s i s
to various
limit
this
d e c i s i o n t o the circumstances
case,
noting
presented
affect
a n y number
of
purposes.
presented
factors,
We
i n this
such
as
those
i n c a s e s c i t e d above f r o m o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s , c o u l d
the application
short-term
reverse
that
groups f o r r e s i d e n t i a l
rental
the t r i a l
of
restrictive
of property
court's
covenants
to the
s u b j e c t t o such covenants.
judgment p r o h i b i t i n g
We
the Slabys'
r e n t a l o f t h e i r p r o p e r t y , a n d we remand t h e c a s e f o r t h e e n t r y
of
a judgment c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s
reversing
the
interpretation
Slabys'
trial
court's
of the covenant,
remaining
APPLICATION
opinion.
judgment
we
decline
B e c a u s e we a r e
based
on
our
t o address the
argument on a p p e a l .
GRANTED;
OPINION
OF
OCTOBER
7,
2011,
WITHDRAWN; OPINION SUBSTITUTED; REVERSED AND REMANDED.
B r y a n a n d Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r .
Pittman,
J . ,concurs
specially.
Thompson, P . J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , w i t h o u t
35
writing.
2100498
PITTMAN, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g
I concurred
specially.
i n t h e m a i n o p i n i o n on o r i g i n a l
deliverance,
and I l i k e w i s e c o n c u r i n t h e o p i n i o n on r e h e a r i n g .
so,
however,
proposition
between
should
that
the
not
be
interpreted
as
decision
in
this
case
d e l i v e r a n c e and t h e d e c i s i o n i n R e e t z v. E l l i s ,
186 So. 2d 915
Ala.
App.
33,
(1966).
36,
261
(declining to consider
rehearing);
(Ala.
accord
doing
supporting
t h e A s s o c i a t i o n t i m e l y r a i s e d any
court's
My
on
the
conflict
original
279 A l a . 453,
See Putnam v. C i t y o f H u n t s v i l l e , 48
So.
new
Ex p a r t e
2d
754,
supporting
Lovejoy,
2000).
36
756-57
( C i v . App.
1972)
arguments p r e s e n t e d
790 So. 2d 933,
on
938-39
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
