By Zach Gorchow
Gongwer News Service
A rule barring short-term rentals within a nine-home Berrien County subdivision on Lake Michigan will stand after the Michigan Supreme Court deadlocked.
In 2011, Laura and Scott Malkin purchased a home in the Swift Estates subdivision. In 2017, Thomas Rubin and Nina Russell purchased a different home in the community. They contracted with a company to list their homes as seasonal vacation rentals
Their neighbors, unhappy with the frequent rentals of the homes, complained about large parties and trespassing on their properties. The Malkins lived in England. Rubin and Russell lived in Washington state.
Neighbors pointed to the declaration that created the Swift Estates Association, Inc., in 1977, which stated subdivision lots could only be used for single family residence purposes. They said the two homes were rented to at least 55 different renters between 2012 and 2020.
The Berrien Circuit Court ruled for the neighbors, holding the neighborhood covenants clearly banned short-term rentals with the restriction to single-family residences. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Supreme Court, in Melvin R. Berlin Revocable Trust v. Rubin et al (SC Docket No. 166228), split 3-3 in an order. As a result, the Court of Appeals' ruling stands.
Justice Noah Hood, who was not on the bench when the court heard the case, did not participate.
Justice Richard Bernstein, Justice Elizabeth Welch and Justice Brian Zahra said they agreed with the decision to side with the neighbors. Welch, in a concurring opinion signed by Zahra, wrote that the Malkins, Rubin and Russell were using their homes primarily to host transitory renters – clearly in violation of the covenant.
Justice Kimberly Thomas, in a dissent, said the covenant limiting the lots to single-family residences was ambiguous and subject to five possible interpretations. It could be construed to address the type of individuals living in the home, a restriction on the type of construction, duration of ownership and the purpose of the property.
Covenants must be unambiguous to survive scrutiny, Thomas wrote. Ambiguity argues in favor of the property owner having discretion, she said.
Chief Justice Megan Cavanagh and Justice Kyra Harris Bolden signed Thomas' dissent.
Gongwer News Service
A rule barring short-term rentals within a nine-home Berrien County subdivision on Lake Michigan will stand after the Michigan Supreme Court deadlocked.
In 2011, Laura and Scott Malkin purchased a home in the Swift Estates subdivision. In 2017, Thomas Rubin and Nina Russell purchased a different home in the community. They contracted with a company to list their homes as seasonal vacation rentals
Their neighbors, unhappy with the frequent rentals of the homes, complained about large parties and trespassing on their properties. The Malkins lived in England. Rubin and Russell lived in Washington state.
Neighbors pointed to the declaration that created the Swift Estates Association, Inc., in 1977, which stated subdivision lots could only be used for single family residence purposes. They said the two homes were rented to at least 55 different renters between 2012 and 2020.
The Berrien Circuit Court ruled for the neighbors, holding the neighborhood covenants clearly banned short-term rentals with the restriction to single-family residences. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Supreme Court, in Melvin R. Berlin Revocable Trust v. Rubin et al (SC Docket No. 166228), split 3-3 in an order. As a result, the Court of Appeals' ruling stands.
Justice Noah Hood, who was not on the bench when the court heard the case, did not participate.
Justice Richard Bernstein, Justice Elizabeth Welch and Justice Brian Zahra said they agreed with the decision to side with the neighbors. Welch, in a concurring opinion signed by Zahra, wrote that the Malkins, Rubin and Russell were using their homes primarily to host transitory renters – clearly in violation of the covenant.
Justice Kimberly Thomas, in a dissent, said the covenant limiting the lots to single-family residences was ambiguous and subject to five possible interpretations. It could be construed to address the type of individuals living in the home, a restriction on the type of construction, duration of ownership and the purpose of the property.
Covenants must be unambiguous to survive scrutiny, Thomas wrote. Ambiguity argues in favor of the property owner having discretion, she said.
Chief Justice Megan Cavanagh and Justice Kyra Harris Bolden signed Thomas' dissent.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://www.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
