A MAN’S fight to have his home become a vacation rental has led to a small win that will affect future homeowners in the state.

The Tennessee Supreme Court ruled that Dr. Pratik Pandharipande could not list his home on Airbnb. However, the court did agree that his HOA rules were not clear.

After looking over multiple documents, the courts ruled that the Four Seasons HOA policy was too ambiguous regarding the prohibition of short-term vacation rentals.

Ben Rose, an attorney for the doctor told Knox News that he believes the ruling will have a “monumental impact on probably hundreds, if not thousands, of different developments throughout the state.”

Dr. Pratik Pandharipande had argued that the association’s rules did not prevent him from making money through vacation rentals and the court agreed.

However, the courts also believe that despite the community rules changing after he bought the house, the policy still applied to him.

It’s common for HOAs to limit the homes in the community to residential use only, in order to stop people from running businesses out of their houses.

Read Related Also: Boss gives ALL his employees £2,600 bonuses & pay rises as he shells out £6million to help them beat inflation

With Shields Mountain Property Owners Association v. Teffeteller, a commonly cited case, the court of appeals ruled in 2006 that short-term vacation rental could not be considered residential, since it operated more like a hotel.

While this case has been used to defend HOAs from allowing Airbnbs, Pandharipande’s attorney believes that their case “effectively reverses” the Teffeteller case.

However, Gerald Wigger, the HOA’s attorney looks at the ruling differently.

“It should be noted that the Tennessee Supreme Court never stated that the Teffeteller case was overruled,” said the attorney.

“I think that’s because, as the Tennessee Supreme Court meticulously went through, it has to be decided upon the language of each governing document.”

Regardless, the court’s poking holes in what is considered residential could force HOAs to make amendments to their rules.

The courts came to the decision, once they were able to define what residential meant in a legal sense.

“One could use a property for residential purposes, then, by employing it for aims related to residences,” Justice Sarah K. Campbell said in the opinion.

“Using a property to house short-term visitors who engage in largely the same activities as permanent residents – sleeping, eating, bathing, relaxing – would seem to satisfy this test.”