The Texas Court of Appeals recently ruled in favor of the City of Grapevine, affirming ordinances that prohibit property owners from using their homes as short-term rentals (STRs). This decision affects homeowners Kari Perkins, Kevin Perkins, Richard Mueller, and Pamela Holt, who had challenged the city's regulations. The ruling highlights ongoing tensions between local governments and property owners regarding the use of residential properties.
The case, Kari Perkins, Kevin Perkins, Richard Mueller, and Pamela Holt v. City of Grapevine, was filed on June 18, 2026, under docket number 02-25-00369-CV. The court's opinion was delivered by Chief Justice Sudderth, along with Justices Kerr and Bassel. The court's decision echoes a similar case, Modern Builders, LLC v. City of Fort Worth, reinforcing the legal precedent surrounding municipal authority over zoning and property use.
The dispute began when the City of Grapevine adopted two ordinances in 2018 and 2024 that barred the use of single-family residences as STRs. The property owners argued that these ordinances violated their rights under the Texas Constitution, claiming they were being deprived of their property rights without due process. They also contended that the city had exceeded its authority under the Zoning Enabling Act. In response, the city maintained that the ordinances were necessary to preserve the character of residential neighborhoods and address issues related to noise, traffic, and safety.
In the 2018 ordinance, the city conducted a ten-month study that revealed significant complaints from residents regarding STRs, including increased noise, traffic, and disturbances. The city council concluded that STRs were incompatible with the intent of residential districts and adopted the ordinance to protect neighborhood integrity. The 2024 ordinance reiterated these prohibitions but allowed certain multifamily residences to operate as STRs under specific conditions.
The trial court initially ruled in favor of the city, granting summary judgment and awarding attorney's fees to the city. The property owners appealed, arguing that the ordinances violated their constitutional rights. However, the court upheld the trial court's decision, stating that the ordinances did not violate the Texas Constitution's due course of law or equal protection provisions.
The court ruled, "A duly enacted ordinance enjoys a ‘strong presumption’ of constitutional validity, and a party challenging its constitutionality shoulders ‘an extraordinary burden.’"
The court found that the property owners lacked a vested right to use their homes as STRs, emphasizing that the city had the authority to regulate property use to protect the character of residential neighborhoods. The court also dismissed the owners' claims of unjust attorney's fees, stating that such fees were appropriate in this context.
This ruling has significant implications for property owners in Grapevine and potentially sets a precedent for other municipalities in Texas. The decision reinforces local governments' authority to regulate land use and respond to community concerns about the impact of STRs on residential areas. It highlights the ongoing debate over property rights versus community interests, particularly as the popularity of short-term rentals continues to rise.
Moving forward, the property owners may consider appealing the decision to the Texas Supreme Court, although it is unclear whether they will pursue this option. The case may also influence similar disputes in other Texas cities, as local governments grapple with the challenges posed by the growing STR market.