NASHVILLE - A Tennessee legislator is questioning the legality of a controversial bill seeking to wade into a battle between Tennessee homeowner associations and absentee corporate landlords over short-term rentals.
Rep. Bob Freeman, D-Nashville, is formally asking state Attorney General Herbert Slatery to issue a legal opinion on whether state lawmakers can "impair or eliminate the contractual terms" among homeowners under the bill "without violating the protections afforded by the Tennessee and U.S. Constitutions."
Freeman also is asking Slatery to weigh in on whether the Legislature can "impair or eliminate deed restrictions and conditions under the proposed legislation without violating the protections afforded by the Tennessee and U.S. Constitutions."
At issue are efforts by some homeowners associations - nonprofit organizations in subdivisions and planned communities that set and enforce rules for properties and residents - to alter rules involving large corporations buying homes to rent. They say absentee corporations are harming the character of developments, creating situations where homes are unkept and renters violate HOA rules, even committing crimes.
The companies, which deny the allegations and say they act quickly on problems, counter that HOAs are trying to change the rules in the middle of the game and are interfering with their property rights. That's attracted sympathy from a number of Republican lawmakers, including Bell, a Riceville Republican.
After the bill stalled during last year's session, senators later held a lengthy hearing last year seeking compromises. Bell told the Times Free Press earlier this month that he hoped to make changes to the legislation that both sides could agree to.
In his letter to Slatery, Freeman says bill proponents "claim that HOA covenants that restrict the ability of property owners to rent their property 'short term' is a taking in violation of the Due Process Clause."
But Freeman said "when a person buys a property in a developed and platted subdivision that already has restrictive covenants in place and of record there is no 'taking.' By purchasing the land the buyer enters into the HOA contract and consents to be bound by the provisions of the recorded covenants."
If the covenants "allow a supermajority of owners in the development to amend the covenants to place more restrictions on the use of the property, the new owner is bound by that part of the contract as well. A contract freely entered into is not a 'taking,' and without a 'taking' there can be no Due Process violation."
Meanwhile, a group calling itself the "Save Our Neighborhoods" coalition said Monday in a news release that homeowners are "planning to storm the Tennessee State House" Tuesday to protest the bill, which they charge is "deceptively labeled a Solar Energy Easement bill."
The group alleged in its news release that the bill amounts to "an illegal attack on existing contracts" and would "eliminate the existing rights of homeowners living in homeowners associations to regulate the number of long-term rentals in their communities so that Wall Street investors can take over community associations."
Contact Andy Sher at asher@timesfreepress.com or 615-255-0550. Follow on Twitter @AndySher1.