Quote:
Originally Posted by Normal
“Properties within the Subdivision are intended for residential use and no commercial, professional or similar activity requiring either maintaining an inventory, equipment or customer/client visits may be conducted in or on a homesite.”
Of course airBnB specifically and repetitively uses the term customer for renters of units throughout its support website. The term commercial involves the exchange of funds and in many instances landlords even have contracts written supporting the commercial transaction. Of course renting also requires additional cleaning maintenance which does occur on the homesite.
The violation as a commercial entity is blatant.
|
All the words of the sentence are important. Commercial activities are not prohibited unless those activities require maintaining an inventory or customer/client visits
It is highly unlikely that the couch, chair, or dining room table will be considered to be inventory for the purposes of the deed restrictions. It is also unlikely that the renter would be considered a customer/client for those purposes either.
You want to use your interpretation to make it a violation to have a short term rental but it will also affect long term renters. A renter is a renter if he is there one night, one week, or one month. Since it is not a violation to have a renter for one month then it is clearly not a violation to have a renter. If a renter is not a violation then a renter that stays for only one week would not be a violation either.
You can argue it if you would like but you will still be wrong. But who am I to say? Make your case in court and let the lawyers hammer out whether a person sleeping in a home is a customer/client in the sense of the word as used in the restrictions and then only when they stay for a number of days that you find acceptable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by margaretmattson
Just responding to the post that states rentals are a business and conducting a business from your home in the Villages is prohibited in the deed restrictions. I believe the poster I responded to quoted the deed restriction. If the developer is knowingly selling his home to investors, he is breaking his own deed restrictions. Selling to a full time investor is selling him a full time business, not a home.
|
Be careful taking anything you read on here as correct. Just because a post claims something is a violation or a famous person has passed doesn't make it so.
WHY would the developer selling to an investor be a violation of the deed restrictions? Just because another poster said so? Who is this other poster? What are his qualifications for making such a claim? What is he basing his claim on? Posters on this site make all kinds of claims. You should know this, you've been reading these forums for some time now.
I gave my opinion of the rental situation above. But why assume an investor purchased a home to rent it out? With the way homes in the Villages appreciate, particularly in the last few years, what's to say the investor didn't purchase the homes to hold for 18 months and then sell at a profit? There would be no question of commercial activity because there would be no activity at all. How would that be a violation of the deed restrictions?