![]() If they are, then the court must construe it according to its plain and ordinary meaning. In its decision, the Court pointed out that covenants, in order to be enforced, must be clear, explicit, and unambiguous. The Court dismissed the HOA’s case and affirmed the lower court’s ruling. Because they were both reasonable interpretations, the Court was obligated to use the one that least restricted the free use of the property. The South Carolina Court of Appeals determined that both were reasonable interpretations of the covenant. Because the guest covenants only prohibited renting out the guest suite as its own rental, they were not violating the covenant. They pointed out that they were now only renting the rest of the home-not the guest suite. ![]() The Walls, on the other hand, maintained that the covenants as written only prohibited renting out the guest suite separate from the rest of the property. The HOA argued that the unmistakable intent of the covenants required that the entire property be rented out. Their HOA then filed suit to enforce the rental restrictions. When their HOA complained that it was a violation of the covenants the Walls switched to renting the house and moved into the guest suite when the house was rented. The covenants in the community provided that a guest suite “may not be rented or leased except as part of the entire premises.” The Walls began listing the guest suite on Airbnb. In the Wall case, Stephen and Maria Wall owned a home on Hilton Head Island that contained a separate guest suite that was accessible only by an outside staircase. However, where restrictive covenants are susceptible of multiple reasonable interpretations, courts are hesitant to enforce the restriction and have tended to adopt the interpretation that least restricts the free use of property. So long as they are, the courts will enforce them. Therefore, courts in North Carolina and South Carolina require that any restrictive covenant in a homeowners association or condominium be clear and unambiguous. Wall that restrictive covenants must be clear in order to prevent leasing.Ĭovenants that restrict the free use of property are disfavored by the law. The usual answer is “it depends,” and the South Carolina Court of Appeals made it clear in Community Services Associates, Inc. I am often asked by homeowners, property managers, and HOA boards to review restrictive covenants to determine whether their community may restrict leasing in some way.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |