Leases and Rentals in Hide A Way

HOME| BUYER-SELLERS | PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES | DISCOVER HIDE-A-WAY HILLS

DISCOVER HOCKING HILLS | DAILY/WEEKEND CABINS| MONTHLY RENTALS | BEYOND THE WEEKEND RETREATS

For assistance contact Kim at kim@hockinghillsohiorealestate.com 740 603-8356

Rentals in Hide-A-Hills - Regarding Short-term rentals

The facts from someone who was present during the lawsuit and involved in trying to help protect Homeowner rights.

August 17, 2003 at the annual meeting, issue 3 was passed prohibiting short-term rentals (rentals less than 31 days in duration). This prohibition was placed upon the entire membership by less than 550 members (of approximately 1500 members) that attended the meeting.

In October 2004, several members including myself and spouse filed a lawsuit against the HAH Club on not only our behalf but trying to cover & include “all similarly” situated members at the time of the vote. We felt our homeowner/member rights in addition to our deed restrictions had been violated.

On May 28, 2004, the Court awarded the HAH membership the initial relief they were seeking when the Court signed an Order granting their motion for preliminary injunction, which provides that:

Defendant HAH Club cannot enforce, implement, execute or in any way enact restrictions on Members' use of their property for rental to short-term tenants; and

Defendant HAH Club cannot implement, execute or in any way enforce the August 17, 2003 amendment to the HAH Club Code of Regulations seeking to add Article VI.B.2.g to prohibit Members from renting to short-term tenants.

In August of 2005 with attorney expenses (on the plaintiffs side alone) exceeding 52,000 Both parties entered into an agreement to settle the lawsuit hopefully giving closure to all those involved. Although the entire membership at the time of the vote was not “grandfathered in" with the settlement, I personally feel we accomplished our primary goal to protect ourselves retaining our own “rights”…. Who knows what would have happened if the balance of the membership with our same thoughts and opinions would have worked “together” with the plaintiffs to resolve the issue. The plaintiffs ended up with a payment of less than $2,000 per couple for attorney fees. (There were approximately 12 couples involved as plaintiffs).

Included in the settlement agreement the defendants agreed to allow the plaintiff’s tenants “permitted use” of the following member amenities: roadways, playground, basketball court, restaurant, lounge, scheduled services at chapel in the pines, picnic areas (except at the beach), baseball field, and horseshoe pit all otherwise in full accordance with the rules and regulations governing the use of the same, as they may be amended from time to time. All other Member amenities remained the same.