by Jon Styf
A DeKalb County homeowner won part of his short-term rental case in front of the Tennessee Supreme Court but he still won’t be able to short-term rent the property in the future due to amendments to homeowners association rules that came after his purchase.
Pratik Pandharipande bought a property in the Four Seasons neighborhood on Center Hill Lake in 2015 and began to lease the property on a short-term basis between two and 28 days.
The neighborhood homeowners association claimed that was against the rules because of a stipulation that homes must be used for “residential and no other purposes.”
Then, in 2018, the homeowners association amended its rules to add a minimum lease period of 30 days for properties in the community.
After a trial court ruled against Pandharipande continuing to short-term lease the property, the case reached Tennessee’s top court.
The Supreme Court ruled that the earlier “residential” restriction did not prevent homeowners from short-term renting properties but the amended rules did apply to all homeowners.
Pandharipande argued the amendments’ grandfather clause allowed him to continue short-term renting the property because the association could not impose additional restrictions on property use.
The court, however, disagreed and said the new rules could be enforced.
“Because FSD is not attempting to apply the 2018 amendments to conduct that occurred before the amendments became effective, Pandharipande’s argument regarding retroactivity fails,” Justice Sarah K. Campbell wrote in the ruling. “And because that was the only argument Pandharipande offered in support of his assertion that the 2018 amendments are arbitrary and capricious, he has failed to carry his burden.”
– – –
Jon Styf is an award-winning editor and reporter of The Center Square who has worked in Illinois, Texas, Wisconsin, Florida and Michigan in local newsrooms over the past 20 years, working for Shaw Media, Hearst and several other companies.
Photo “Tennessee Supreme Court” by Thomas R Machnitzki. CC BY-SA 3.0.
@Joe Blow While I agree with you on having short-term rentals next door, this is just further proof that private home ownership is a myth. He is unable to use his property in the way he see fit, which is still residential and, apparently, does not violate zoning laws. He may have failed in court for using the wrong argument, I suppose it depends on the wording of his Deed, which it seems was not used in the case.
Wouldn’t just love having his rental property next to your place? Short term rentals are bad news.