Court rules against landlord in dispute over Rock Hill’s short-term rental rules

ROCK HILL, S.C. — The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against a property owner in Rock Hill who sued the city over short-term rental rules.

Channel 9 reported on the issue back in 2023, when Tom Hutto filed a lawsuit against the city for what he said were overly restrictive ordinances regulating short-term rentals.

The city first implemented restrictions on rentals in 2020, requiring rental owners to obtain permits to operate a short-term rental. One of the provisions in the permitting process was a clause stating “the unit would ‘not be marketed nor used as an event location or a party house,’ including for ‘weddings’ and ‘holiday parties,’” according to the Court’s opinion released on Monday.

Then, in 2022 the city updated the ordinance once again, restricting short-term rentals to “a reasonable number of commercially zoned areas.”

The city regulations prohibited any new rental properties in areas outside of the commercially zoned area and allowed a five-year period for short-term rentals to operate until they would be required to either convert to a long-term rental or not operate as a rental at all. That’s when Tom Hutto, a rental property owner with about a dozen rental homes, sued the city.

Channel 9 previously spoke with Hutto in 2023 following the filing of his lawsuit.

He explained his issues with the restrictions, saying: “They’re squashing and running out Airbnbs, they’re running out a lot of people. Multi-billionaires, for example, don’t want to do business here because they micromanage things and they do things that they want, and not necessarily based on what’s best for the community.”

Hutto’s lawsuit prompted more changes to the city’s regulations, as well as new complaints from Hutto. Hutto made several claims against the city, including alleged violations of his “fundamental right to livelihood,” but lost his case in district court.

Hutto listed seven different alleged violations of his rights as well as the rights of his tenants – the 4th Circuit ruled against his arguments on each of them.