弗吉尼亚上诉法院支持禁止短期租赁的限制性契约

Short-term rentals such as those listed on sites like Air B&B and VRBO are becoming more and more common across the Commonwealth. However, short-term rentals are controversial.  一方面，它们为度假者或商务旅行者提供了传统酒店之外的另一种选择. 他们还为房主提供收入来源，房主可以短期出租他们的房屋(或房屋的一部分).  

On the other hand, many of the short-term rental homes are located in established, family-style neighborhoods. Not surprisingly, 许多邻居都不太高兴发现他们邻居的房子被改成了出租给临时居住者.  Short term rentals are often associated with nuisances, such as loud parties and guests coming and going at all hours of the night.

Local Ordinances and Regulations

Due to the controversial nature of short-term rentals, 许多地方已经颁布——或者正在颁布——地方法规来规范这类业务，这不足为奇.  For example, 弗吉尼亚海滩市对经营短期租赁有严格的要求，可以找到 here.  Similarly, the City of Norfolk has short term-rental regulations which can be found here. 希望将房屋作为短期租赁的业主最好在列出任何出租房产之前查看当地法规.  However, 而英联邦的许多大城市对短期租赁采取了明确的规则和条例, many smaller towns and counties have not yet passed such laws.

Covenants Enforced by Property Owners’ Associations

业主必须意识到，地方条例并不是短期租赁经营的唯一潜在障碍. This type of business may also be prohibited by covenants, enforced by Property Owners’ Associations (POAs), 哪些限制了业主对其土地的使用，即使这些使用在其他方面是合法的. Covenants of this nature are considered contracts between the POA and the homeowner, and the POA has the power to enforce the covenants under contract law.

For example, 许多poa强制执行契约，限制附近允许的围栏和其他建筑设计的大小或类型. 一些社区有契约，禁止房屋用作短期租赁. If this is the case, a homeowner may be prevented from using his/her home as a short-term rental, even if such use is authorized by local laws.

Restrictive Covenants in the Chain of Title

在没有POA的社区，当地法规不禁止短期租赁, 反对的邻居只是运气不好，没有办法挑战他们社区的短期租赁业务吗?  

Perhaps not. This is because, even in neighborhoods without a POA, 另一种限制性契约可能会影响财产的使用方式.  In some instances, restrictive covenants are present in deeds located in the homeowners’ chain of title. These covenants can restrict certain uses of land, even if there is no neighborhood POA to enforce the restrictions. 在产权链中可能存在的限制性契约只是众多原因之一，每个潜在的购房者都应该聘请专业的房地产律师，在完成房地产交易之前进行彻底的产权搜索. If restrictive covenants are recorded anywhere in the chain of title, the homeowner is considered to have legal notice of the restrictions, even if the restrictions are not specifically spelled out in the homeowners’ deed.

If restrictive covenants are present in the chain of title, 弗吉尼亚州的法律允许邻居向巡回法院提起诉讼，强制执行契约. It can be difficult to win such a case, 因为在弗吉尼亚，自由使用土地受到法院的青睐，限制性契约中的任何含糊之处都可能被解释为不利于提起诉讼的一方.  However, if the restrictive covenants are clear and unambiguous, they can be enforced.

The Court of Appeals of Virginia recently decided just such a case.  In Kooiman v. Ornoff, 2024 Va. App. LEXIS 42 (Cir. Ct 2024), a Plaintiff purchased a waterfront home in Isle of Wight County.  Several years later, the Plaintiff’s neighbor, a building contractor by trade, purchased an empty lot next door to the Plaintiff and built a large house on the lot. 这两处房产都受到各自产权链上记录的限制性契约的影响，这些契约阻止了对该房产的某些使用. 限制性契约包括两个单独的限制，没有明确解决短期租赁问题, but arguably prohibited the homes from being used for that purpose. Those restrictions were as follows:

Restriction #1:  Said real estate shall be used solely and exclusively for residential purposes不得在上述不动产上建造、改建、放置或允许其继续存在; other than a single family dwelling, not to exceed two stories in height, a private garage of not more than two cars, and appurtenant outbuildings incidental to residential use.  (emphasis added)

Restriction #4:  No trailer, basement在上述不动产上竖立或放置的帐篷、棚屋、车库、谷仓、船屋或其他附属建筑 shall at any time be used as a residence, temporarily or permanently. (emphasis added)

The Plaintiff’s neighbor constructed a large home on the neighboring lot. Notwithstanding the restrictive covenants in his chain of title, 原告的邻居在地下室建造了一套公寓，并开始在Air B等各种平台上宣传该公寓为短期租赁&B and VRBO. The basement apartment was rented out several times a week, which caused disturbances to the Plaintiff whose house was located very nearby. 原告向巡回法院提起诉讼，寻求禁令，禁止邻居将地下室用作单独住所和/或短期租赁. 

At trial, 被告辩称，他们的地下室不是单独的住所，违反了限制性契约, but instead was an integral part of their home. 他们还认为，鉴于弗吉尼亚州支持自由使用土地的推定，这些契约太过模糊，无法禁止短期租赁. 原告坚持认为，这些限制是明确的，并明确禁止将地下室用作单独的住宅, including its use as a short-term rental.

巡回法院同意原告的意见，并发布了一项命令，禁止被告将地下室作为单独的住宅使用(包括将其用作短期租赁)。. The Defendants appealed.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Circuit Court, 认为限制性盟约并不含糊，因此必须予以执行. In its Opinion, 上诉法院将怀特岛案与弗吉尼亚州的其他案件区分开来，在这些案件中，限制性契约被认为过于模糊，无法禁止短期租赁. Unlike those cases, the Court of Appeals found that in the Isle of Wight case, 这两个单独的限制性契约——当放在一起解释时——明确禁止在地下室建立单独的住宅, even for short periods of time. Therefore, 将地下室用作短期租赁违反了原告可以强制执行的限制性契约.

Bryan Peeples is a Pender & Coward attorney focusing his practice on maritime and riparian law, worker’s compensation and civil litigation.