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.
