Vacation rentals

Subscribe to Vacation rentals via RSS
Texas court of appeals fifth

Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following. 

Recall that a couple of months ago, the court of appeals held that the challengers were likely to succeed in their challenge to Dallas’s short-term rental ban. The case was up on appeal from a preliminary injunction, so there wasn’t a lot in that decision. 

Now, we have a decision after fuller consideration after the city asked for en banc review. In City of Dallas v. Dallas Short-Term Rental Alliance, No. 05-23-01309 (July 18, 2025), the court again concluded that the challenger property owners were likely to succeed on their claim that the city’s ban on short-term renting violated the due-course-of-law requirement under the Texas Constitution:

Under the circumstances, we conclude appellees Dallas Short Term-Rental Alliance, Sammy Aflalo, Vera Elkins, and Denise Lowry proved their probable right to relief against the City’s zoning ordinance under their due-course-of-law argument…

Continue Reading Tex App: Like We Said Before, Property Owners Are Likely To Succeed In Challenge To Short-Term Rental Ban

In City of Dallas v. Dallas Short-Term Rental Alliance, No. 05-23-01309-CV (July 18, 2025), the Texas Court of Appeals affirmed a preliminary injunction, suspending operation of two ordinances which (1) restrict, and (2) require registration of short-term rentals in Dallas.

It’s a short opinion and up on appeal from interlocutory emergency relief, so there isn’t a ton there. But it is still worth reading because the court concludes the challengers have a likelihood of eventually showing that the ordinance restricting short-term renting violates “due-course-of-law” (aka substantive due process). Texas recognizes a property right in leasing property, and the owners here asserted they have a vested right to do so:

Under the circumstances, we conclude appellees Dallas Short Term-Rental Alliance, Sammy Aflalo, Vera Elkins, and Denise Lowry proved their probable right to relief against the City’s zoning ordinance under their due-course-of-law argument because they alleged they possessed well-established rights to…

Continue Reading Tex App: Challengers Likely To Succeed On Due Course Of Law Claim For Short-Term Rental Ban

In this order, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois temporarily enjoined enforcement of Chicago suburb Glen Ellyn‘s prohibition on renting property for less than 30 days.

Blakelick owns a five-bedroom single family home that when purchased was not located in Glen Ellyn. Since 2022, it has been offering the home for short-term rental on platforms like Airbnb. But in 2024, the property was annexed by the Village of Glen Ellyn. Blakelick continued to rent the property for less than 30 days. 

The dispute apparently began six months earlier when a neighbor began complaining about noise, culminating in the threat to “do everything in [his] capability to see to it that such use of property is banned in this area.” Slip op. at 2. Apparently he was successful, because in 2025, the Village, now having jurisdiction over the property, adopted an ordinance prohibiting owners from…

Continue Reading Property Owner Likely To Succeed On Claim That Prohibition Of Short-Term Rentals Is A Penn Central Taking

These days, when we have cases where there’s tinkering with the terms of rental agreements, we most often see local governments using their police power to force property owners to rent their properties on a long-term (more than 30 days) basis.

But in Bigelow Arizona TX-344, LP v. Town of Addison, No. 05-23-00642-CV (Apr. 4, 2025), the Texas Court of Appeals was dealing with a town ordinance that went the other way: it redefined the definition of “hotel,” which had the effect of prohibiting an extended-stay hotel from continuing to rent 95% of its rooms on a long-term basis under a nearly 30-year old special use permit, and forced what had been long term stays to become short-term stays.

Why? The town’s “desire for motels and hotels to operate so that rooms are available for the Town’s tourists[.]” Slip op. at 3. Really? Read a bit further and you…

Continue Reading Tex App Dismisses Penn Central Claim – But What’s It Doing Weighing The Facts?

It’s been a couple of weeks, but we’re still trying to wrap our head around the Iowa Supreme Court’s opinion in Singer v. City of Orange City, No. 23-1600 (Dec. 20, 2024).

The court rejected a facial challenge under the Iowa Constitution’s search-and-seizure clause to a city ordinance requiring the owner of rental units to have a rental permit and to submit to “regular inspections” of those properties. The ordinance purports to create a “right of entry” for a “code official,” and if the owner refuses to voluntarily allow inspection, the inspector may obtain an “administrative search warrant” to enter and search. An owner can exempt itself from inspection by a city inspector if a unit is “inspected by a certified third-party inspection organization[.]” And the ordinance says nothing about probable cause.

Several owners sued, and after discovery, the court granted the plaintiff-owners summary judgment. It declared the ordinance…

Continue Reading Iowa: Mandatory Inspection Of Rental Units Without A Warrant Is Not Facially Unconstitutional, Because Private Inspectors Might Barge In

Check out City of Kemah v. Crow, No. 01-23-00417-CV (July 25, 2024), from the Texas Court of Appeal (First District).

This is yet another takings ripeness case — here, the so-called “final decision” requirement — the second recent opinion on this issue from the Texas court. See “Final Decision Takings Ripeness Is Based On All Circumstances, Not Hard-And-Fast Requirements (Read That Again: A Factual Question)” for our write-up of the other case.

In this one, the owner asserted that the city issued her a building permit for her “barndominium” and and two other structures to be used as short-term rentals, but later issued a stop work order. This resulted in a Penn Central taking, she asserted.   

The city sought ripeness dismissal, asserting the owner didn’t actually have a permit issued by the city council as its ordinances require. The owner didn’t have the actual…

Continue Reading Relying On Complaint’s Allegation That City Issued A Permit As Confirmed By Chief Building Officer Email, Texas App Holds Takings Claim Ripe Even Though City Said Council Must Issue Permits

PXL_20240422_045016733.MP
There are some rewards for working late in the 808

Yesterday was the last day of instruction for the Spring 2024 semester at the University of Hawaii Law School. Did these last few months ever go by fast. 

A big thank you to Professor Mark M. Murakami, with whom I guest-lectured at the Old School (both of us earned our JD’s at the Law School) over the semester, on such topics as Euclid, vested rights and development agreements, and of course limitations on the police power such as takings.

Although our students have another couple of weeks to finish up with their final papers, we can say with certainty that the future of Hawaii land use law is in good hands. We had some very intriguing and educational discussions over the past few months. 

PXL_20230426_222214630

Law of the Splintered Paddle

PXL_20240423_050055849.MP       
Old School chalkboards remain in some of the classrooms. …

Continue Reading Aloha To Another Semester Of U. Hawaii Land Use

As 2023 comes to a close, here are a few of the decisions that we wanted to blog about, but didn’t have the time.

  • Bruce v. Ogden City Corp., No. 22-4114 (10th Cir. Dec. 1, 2023): city demolishing a building that was damaged by fire was not a Lucas taking because the owner still has use of the land (even though the building is gone). And no Penn Central taking because… Penn Central.
  • Moriarity v. Indiana, No. 22A-PL-2899 (Ind. Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2023): State ordering removal of illegal dam was not a taking under U.S. or Indiana Constitution. The owners don’t have a property right to build an illegal dam. Thus, the “background principles” exception to Lucas rules the day. And no Penn Central taking because the owners never had any investment-backed expectations they could build this dam.
  • Lafayette Bollinger Dev., LLC v. Town of

…
Continue Reading 2023 Year-End Clean Up

Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following.

In this Order, the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii made permanent its earlier ruling that Honolulu’s ordinance which expanded the minimum rental term to 90 days because it did not account for those owners who were already legally renting their properties for 30 days. The state Zoning Enabling Act requires zoning ordinances account for preexisting uses.

We covered the issues and the court’s preliminary injunction ruling here, and won’t go over those again. About the only difference between that one and this one is that the court rejects the City’s “several new legal arguments[,]” including Pullman abstention, and the claim that this isn’t a zoning ordinance covered by the ZEA, but rather a “rental regulation.” See slip op. at 10.

The City’s attempt to reframe the issue first presented during preliminary injunction proceedings more than a…

Continue Reading Hawaii Federal Court: Honolulu Can’t Increase Minimum Rental Term To 90 Days Without Accommodating Existing Uses

A quick one from the Alabama Supreme Court. In Dixon v. City of Auburn, No SC-2022-0741 (Oct. 27, 2023), the court rejected a property owner’s claim that the city outlawing short term rentals of residential properties — when the plaintiff had been renting his basement for a while — was not a violation of the Alabama Constitution.

The court rejected the argument that Dixon’s use was a nonconforming use or vested right, and concluded that his right to do so was not so because he had no legal right to rent out his property before the STR ordinance. The court rejected his claim that in the absence of regulations limiting that right, he could rent short term, because the zoning code prohibits any uses not expressly allowed. Slip op. at 10.

And here’s the interesting bit. Although Dixon styled one of his claims as “an ‘unlawful taking without just …

Continue Reading Alabama: Banning Short-Term Rentals Is Constitutional (PS – “the Alabama Constitution does not recognize regulatory-takings claims”)