## Facts

- A townhouse subdivision was governed by recorded covenants (the 1980 declaration) stating lots were for “single family residential purposes only, on an ownership, rental or lease basis.”
- The 1980 declaration also allowed amendments by a specified supermajority of owners.
- Virgil Adams bought a unit in 2003 subject to the recorded covenants and later rented it on a short-term basis.
- After owner complaints about short-term renters, the homeowners’ association adopted a 2013 amendment requiring minimum rental terms of six months.
- The association also adopted rules authorizing monetary penalties, including per-day fines for unauthorized renting and advertising.
- Adams continued short-term rentals, received violation notices, and was assessed fines.
- Adams sued for a declaratory judgment that the amendment was invalid; the district court granted summary judgment to the association.

## Issues

1. Whether a general amendment clause in recorded CC&Rs permits adoption of a six-month minimum lease restriction when the original declaration permitted use on a “rental or lease basis.”
2. Whether the minimum lease term is an unlawful restraint on alienation or an unreasonable restraint on the free use of land.
3. Whether purchasers had sufficient notice that leasing could be materially restricted by later amendment, and whether the amendment was inconsistent with the original covenants’ purposes.

## Decision

- The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the association.
- The court held the 2013 amendment was valid because the declaration expressly authorized amendments and the amendment was adopted through the required procedure.
- The court held the six-month minimum rental term was a permissible use restriction and not an invalid restraint on alienation or an unreasonable restraint on land use.
- The court rejected challenges based on lack of notice and declined to invalidate the enforcement/fine scheme on the record presented.

## Legal Principles

- Recorded CC&Rs that expressly authorize amendment may be modified by the required owner vote, and amendments may change the terms of previously permitted uses, if duly adopted and not otherwise unlawful.
- A restriction that limits leasing (e.g., a minimum lease term) without eliminating the ability to rent or otherwise transfer the property is generally not an impermissible restraint on alienation.
- Purchasers take title with record notice of CC&Rs and their amendment mechanisms; permission to “rent or lease” does not create an immutable right to rent on any terms.
- Amendments consistent with stated covenant purposes (such as protecting property value and residential character) are more likely to be enforced.

## Conclusion

The Idaho Supreme Court upheld an HOA amendment requiring six-month minimum leases, reasoning that the recorded covenants’ amendment clause authorized the change, owners had notice that rules could be amended, and the restriction reasonably regulated (rather than eliminated) leasing to protect the community’s residential character.


Adams v. Kimberley One Townhouse Owner’s Ass’n, Inc., 158 Idaho 770, 352 P.3d 492 (Idaho 2015)