|
ROOM RENTAL
RESTRICTION
UPHELD BY COURT
 In a recently published decision,
the Court of Appeal upheld an association's prohibition of room rentals.
Background. Colony Hill is
a planned development near San Diego in which defendant Masood
Ghamaty bought a four-bedroom, three-bath house.
Ghamaty moved into the house and rented the remaining rooms to six persons at various times for periods of between two months and two
years.
Board Hearing. Owners voiced concerns to the
board about
parking issues, renters and a loud party at Ghamaty's home. They complained that Ghamaty
ran a commercial enterprise prohibited by the CC&Rs. The board met with
Ghamaty and demanded that he immediately return the property to a private
single-family dwelling status. Ghamaty denied that he was violating the CC&Rs
because he considered
the renters his family. The association filed suit.
"Family" Argument. At trial Ghamaty relied on the San Diego
Municipal Code's definition of "family," which is:
unrelated persons who jointly
occupy and have equal access to all areas of a dwelling unit and who function
together as an integrated economic unit.
The court found that "family" could not reasonably be interpreted to include Ghamaty and his renters. Ghamaty
provided no evidence he had any prior relationship with five of the
renters, or that any of the renters had any prior relationship with each other.
He produced no
evidence he shared meals with or had any type of relationship with
the renters.
Privacy Argument. Ghamaty
argued that the permanent injunction
issued by the trial court violated his right of privacy under the California Constitution, i.e., "the State may not utilize its power to
interfere with a person's choice of cohabitants." The court noted that the
Constitution restricts the State, not private developers. Moreover, a prior Supreme Court decision made it clear that
CC&Rs have the power to limit activities in the confines of the home itself.
Decision. The court ruled that by renting out rooms Ghamaty was engaged in commercial activity
prohibited by the CC&Rs, and the injunction was rationally
related to the association's right to maintain its family character by prohibiting
uses other than single-family dwelling purposes. To review the decision in detail,
see Colony Hill v. Ghamaty.
 |
Sincerely
yours,
Adrian
J. Adams, Esq.
Adams Kessler PLC |
|
