Montana covenants with no short-term-rental clause still barred an Airbnb
Montana covenants with no short-term-rental clause still barred an Airbnb
2026-09-15 · Montana · Courts
What happened. A 1990 set of covenants outside Whitefish contained no short-term-rental clause, no durational limit, and no definition of “rental.” The Montana Supreme Court held it barred short-term rentals anyway — unambiguously.
The decision
Brandt v. R&R Mountain Escapes, LLC, 2025 MT 155, docket DA 23-0716, decided July 22, 2025 after argument on March 19, 2025. Justice McKinnon wrote for the Court; Chief Justice Swanson concurred separately. Published and citable. It affirmed the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County (Hon. Danielle Coffman).1
The covenant language
The declaration, recorded in late 1990, said the parcels “are designed and intended as and for small farm or ranch tracts, and shall be used only for country residential purposes”; that no part “shall be used at any time for any business, trade, manufacture, or any other commercial purpose whatsoever”; and that a dwelling “shall be used only as a private, single-family residence,” not “as an apartment or multi-family structure.” A nuisance clause barred anything that “may be or may become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood.” A narrow sign exception allowed advertising the property “for sale or rent.”
The use
The property was managed by a Whitefish vacation-rental company, listed on Airbnb and VRBO, took reservations for up to ten guests per night, grossed over $55,000 in 2022, and operated under a Flathead County conditional use permit issued in June 2022.
The Court's conclusion: reading all the covenants together, they “unambiguously prohibit[] the commercial business of renting out a home on a short-term basis which undisputedly created a nuisance.”
Keep reading with the Montana State Pass
The rest of this analysis — what an association can actually do, the recent bills and rulings, and how Montana compares nationally — is for subscribers. $49/month for every Montana topic on HOA Weekly.
$49/month, $449/year, or a $19.99 day pass.
What you unlock
- The method is the holding: read the declaration as a whole
- Two evidentiary rules a board is held to
- A county permit is not a defence
and 2 more sections in detail
Already a subscriber? Sign in
Recurring monthly subscription · Cancel anytime · Need help?
Related Montana HOA Topics
- Brandt v. R&R Mountain Escapes, LLC, 2025 MT 155 (DA 23-0716, July 22, 2025), slip opinion (Montana Judicial Branch document service) ↩
- Myers v. Kleinhans, 2024 MT 208, 418 Mont. 113, 556 P.3d 529 (DA 24-0069, Sept. 17, 2024), slip opinion — ADU short-term rental as a second dwelling and a commercial business ↩
Stay on top of Montana HOA law
Every week: new Montana legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.