Four justices dissented, citing a majority of states that ruled the other way
The Oklahoma Supreme Court split 5-4 in ruling that a homeowner’s Airbnb short-term rentals violated a standard residential-use covenant in an HOA community.
The court affirmed a district court judgment that short-term rentals in the Silverhawk addition in Edmond, Oklahoma, breached covenants requiring lots “be used for private residence purposes only” and prohibiting any “store or business” from being “erected or maintained” on the property. An injunction barring the rentals and $8,528 in accumulated HOA fines were upheld.
The homeowner argued that “business” and “single family” were never defined in the governing documents and were therefore ambiguous. Justice Edmondson, writing for the majority, held the terms carry a plain and ordinary meaning - commercial activity for gain or livelihood - and that the rental operation met that definition. The homeowner advertised online, charged nightly rates, supplied sundries to guests, maintained check-in and check-out times, and kept the right to re-enter the property under Airbnb rules. The district court had found the operation “held out for remuneration in manner similar to that used by a hotel or motel.”
Airbnb records presented at trial showed income of $53,881.93 between July 2021 and September 2023. Vrbo records showed an additional $14,670.82 for one stay and $10,631.81 for another. Between late 2021 and late 2023, the property hosted 36 stays and 141 guests.
The homeowner, who represented himself, also challenged the HOA’s fine process on due process grounds. The court found the HOA had offered a board hearing, which he attended but then declined to present the evidence he had prepared. His estoppel argument - that an individual board member had informally suggested short-term rentals were permissible - failed because no single board member could bind the board or change the covenants.
Four justices dissented. Justice argued the majority placed Oklahoma “in the minority of jurisdictions,” citing rulings from Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Colorado, Washington, and more than a dozen other states where courts found similar covenants did not bar short-term rentals. The dissent read the covenant’s second sentence as a structural restriction - barring certain building types - rather than a use restriction, and argued the renters were using the property residentially.
For anyone advising property investors or managing covenant-restricted communities, the split matters. A standard residential-use covenant without any explicit short-term rental ban may now be enough in Oklahoma to shut the operation down.
The opinion has not yet been released for publication and remains subject to revision or withdrawal.
