Scott v. Walker
Bedford · VA · Supreme Court of Virginia
Member win · rentals
What happened
William and Suzanna Scott bought Harbor Village lot 53 (section 2) at Smith Mountain Lake in Bedford County in May 2003 and later rented the single-family house nightly and weekly. Neighbors Donald and Charlotte Walker (adjacent lots) sued in March 2004 to enjoin short-term rentals as violating the 1979 restrictive covenant that “[n]o lot shall be used except for residential purposes.” On stipulated facts the circuit court enjoined nightly/weekly rentals, treating “residential purposes” as limiting duration of use. The Scotts appealed. On June 8, 2007, the Supreme Court of Virginia reversed and entered final judgment for the Scotts.
What the court (or agency) held
The Scotts won. The covenant’s “residential purposes” language was ambiguous as to whether it barred short-term rentals; under Virginia law ambiguous covenants are construed strictly against restrictions and in favor of free use of land. Without express or necessarily implied prohibition of nightly/weekly rentals, short-term rental did not violate the covenant. Injunction reversed; final judgment for the Scotts.
Why this matters for members
Neighbor covenant fights turn on the recorded words, not board preference or tourism labels. If a covenant only says “residential purposes” and never mentions rental length, Virginia courts may refuse to read in a short-term ban. Parties seeking to ban STR usually need clearer drafting (or a valid amendment), and the enforcer bears the burden to show the activity is within the covenant’s terms.
What the member did
Defended the injunction suit and appealed, arguing the covenant neither expressly nor by necessary implication forbade short-term rental of the whole dwelling.
Questions for the board
- What exact recorded covenant language does the board claim bans short-term rentals, and where is rental length stated?
- Has the association or neighbors tried to enjoin rentals based only on a general “residential purposes” clause?
- Were owners given the recorded restrictions when they bought, and have those restrictions been restated or amended since?
- If the board wants clearer rental limits, what amendment process and vote threshold do the governing documents require?
Questions for a lawyer
- On these covenants, is “residential purposes” ambiguous under Scott v. Walker as applied to nightly/weekly rentals?
- Who has the burden to prove a short-term rental falls within the restriction?
- Would a later, clearer amendment or restatement change the analysis for this lot?
- What remedies or defenses matter if neighbors—not the association—brought the injunction suit?
Citation
Scott v. Walker, 274 Va. 209, 645 S.E.2d 278 (2007); Record No. 061410 (2007-06-08). Supreme Court of Virginia. Outcome chip: member_win. Source: https://www.vacourts.gov/static/opinions/opnscvwp/1061410.pdf
_General information, not legal advice. Outcomes turn on facts and current law._
General information, not legal advice. Outcomes turn on facts and current law.