Quick Answer
In Parsons v. City of Indian Wells (Cal. Ct. App., 4th Dist., Div. 2, No. E082591), filed August 31, 2026 and certified for publication, the Court of Appeal reversed a judgment for two owners in a common interest development who wanted a short-term rental permit. The court held that a city ordinance letting common interest developments vote to opt out of the city's 29-night minimum stay is not preempted by Civil Code section 4740 or the Davis-Stirling Act's voting rules, because an opt-out vote does not amend a CID's governing documents. It also held the ordinance was not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority and was not arbitrary or capricious.
At a Glance
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Case | Matthew Parsons et al. v. City of Indian Wells et al. |
| Court | California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two (appeal from Riverside County Superior Court No. PSC2002777) |
| Docket number | E082591 |
| Opinion filed | August 31, 2026; certified for publication |
| Result | Judgment and postjudgment attorney fee order reversed; the City recovers its costs on appeal |
| Reporter citation | Not available when we reviewed it; use the docket number and filing date |
| Issues | Preemption by Civil Code sections 4740, 4270 and 4275; delegation of legislative authority; arbitrary or capricious action |
The Dispute
The City of Indian Wells declared short-term rentals (STRs) in residential properties a public nuisance and adopted a 29-night minimum stay requirement that effectively banned them. After comments from owners in common interest developments who wanted to operate STRs, the City adopted Ordinance No. 732. It amended the municipal code so members of a CID could opt out of the minimum stay and allow STRs for a shorter minimum period proposed by their governing board.
Matthew and Rebecca Parsons own property in a CID in the City. They alleged they invested $1.5 million in their property between July 2015 and July 2017 intending to operate an STR, and that in 2015 they had obtained a permit as a grandfathered STR under an earlier ordinance. They petitioned for a writ of mandate after the City denied their request for an STR permit. They argued the opt-out provision conflicts with Civil Code section 4740, which exempts CID members from governing-document rental prohibitions adopted after they acquired title, and that the opt-out vote procedure conflicts with sections 4270 and 4275, which require a majority of all eligible owners (not merely a majority of those voting) to amend a CID declaration. They also argued the ordinance unconstitutionally delegated the City's legislative authority to private parties.
The trial court agreed with the Parsons. It ruled the municipal code provision was preempted, ordered the City to issue a permit, entered judgment for the Parsons and awarded them attorney fees. The City appealed.
What the Court Held
No preemption
The Court of Appeal held the ordinance is not preempted by section 4740 or by the Act's voting requirements "for the simple reason that a vote to opt out of the minimum stay requirement does not result in an amendment to a CID's governing documents."
No unconstitutional delegation
The court held the City did not unconstitutionally delegate its legislative authority. In the court's description, the City adopted a generally applicable policy by declaring STRs a public nuisance and set procedural guidelines and safeguards for opt-out votes.
Not arbitrary or capricious
The court concluded the trial court correctly found the City did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner when it enacted the opt-out provision. It agreed with the City that a voting process was needed for existing CIDs, which have members who can vote, and not for new CIDs, which do not yet have voting members.
Disposition
The judgment and the postjudgment order on attorney fees were reversed, and the City recovered its costs on appeal.
Why It Matters for Associations
Our reading is that the decision is about the relationship between city rental rules and the Davis-Stirling Act, not about an association's own rental rules. Associations in cities that regulate STRs should note three points.
- A city may structure its STR rules so that a CID's membership or board decision matters, and the court did not treat that vote as an amendment of the CC&Rs.
- Section 4740 and the CC&R amendment voting rules are tied to changes to governing documents. The court did not extend them to a city-level opt-out vote.
- Local STR rules and association governing documents can both apply. Passing a city vote does not by itself change what the CC&Rs allow.
We read the opinion in part (the introduction, procedural history, the statements of the holdings and the disposition), so the page does not describe every step of the court's reasoning. This is not a ruling on any association's own rental restriction.
Related California Law
- All published California HOA decisions of 2025 and 2026
- California HOA case law: Nahrstedt, Lamden, and more
- California Davis-Stirling Act guide
- California HOA law changes 2021 to 2025
Board Checklist
- Check whether your city regulates short-term rentals and whether any ordinance gives CIDs an opt-out or opt-in role.
- Compare your CC&R rental provisions with city rules before announcing any rental policy.
- Do not treat a city-level vote as an amendment of your governing documents; ask counsel.
- Check when each rental restriction in your documents was adopted relative to owners' purchase dates (section 4740 context).
- Keep a written record of any board proposal to the city on rental periods.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did the court say HOAs can ban short-term rentals?
No. The case concerns a city ordinance and whether it is preempted by the Davis-Stirling Act. It does not decide the validity of any association's own rental rules.
What is section 4740?
As the opinion describes it, section 4740 exempts CID members from governing-document provisions that prohibit renting or leasing if the prohibition was adopted after the members acquired title.
Why did the opt-out vote not conflict with sections 4270 and 4275?
The court reasoned that a vote to opt out of the city's minimum stay does not amend the CID's governing documents, so the amendment voting rules are not triggered.
Who won?
The City of Indian Wells. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's judgment and the attorney fee award for the Parsons.
Is the opinion published?
Yes. It is marked certified for publication and was filed August 31, 2026.
Does the ruling apply outside Indian Wells?
It is a published appellate decision, so it is citable authority in California. Each city's ordinance is different, so whether it controls another city's rules is a question for counsel.
Where This Comes From
We read part of the opinion in Parsons v. City of Indian Wells (No. E082591, filed August 31, 2026) as posted by the California courts website: the caption, introduction, procedural history, the statements of holdings, and the disposition. We did not read every page of the analysis. No Cal.App.5th citation was available when we reviewed it.
How APM Helps
Association Property Managers manages HOA and condominium communities in the San Francisco Bay Area from our Dublin office. See our California service area, browse every California state-law guide, or request a free proposal. Laws and documents differ by community, and we review your CC&Rs and bylaws when we build your proposal.
Legal disclaimer: This article is general information, not legal advice. Laws change and associations differ. Confirm the current statute text and how it applies to your governing documents with a licensed California attorney before acting.
Ready to work with Association Property Managers?
Get a free, itemized proposal for your community — delivered within 3 business days.
Request a Free Proposal
