Updated on December 30, 2025
The Arizona Court of Appeals has invalidated the City of Sedona’s ban on short-term rentals in mobile home parks, reaffirming statewide protections for home-sharing.
In a unanimous decision on Nov. 26, 2025, the three-judge panel held that Sedona’s attempt to bar short-term rentals at Oak Creek Mobilodge violated Arizona’s 2016 short-term rental statute, which preempts local bans on vacation and short-term rentals statewide. The ruling reversed a lower court decision and ordered that Sedona may not deny short-term rental use simply because the dwellings are mobile homes located in a mobile home park.
Oak Creek Hospitality, a limited liability company, purchased the 59-acre mobile home park in 2024 with the intention of operating short-term rentals. When Oak Creek inquired about applying for a license to operate, Sedona replied that mobile homes in a mobile home park were prohibited from being used as short-term rentals, according to court documents.
Oak Creek sued the city with the assistance of legal representation from the Goldwater Institute, a public policy and litigation organization dedicated to defending Americans’ constitutional rights. The company argued that the city’s policy violated the Short-Term Rental Statute, which prohibits cities from restricting the use of homes as short-term rentals.
Yavapai County Superior Court Judge Linda Wallace dismissed the complaint, agreeing with Sedona’s position that the state’s home-sharing protections did not apply to mobile home parks in the same way they apply to other residential housing.
The Court of Appeals disagreed. In its decision, the panel focused on the definition Arizona law uses for “vacation rentals” and “short-term rentals.” Judge Jennifer Perkins, writing for the panel, explained that the statute defines those terms to include “any individually or collectively owned single-family or one-to-four house or dwelling unit.” Sedona argued that mobile home parks fall outside that scope because they are zoned differently and function differently.
However, the appellate judges treated the question as one of residential use, rather than zoning labels.
Judge Perkins highlighted that other Arizona laws define “‘residential rental property’ to include a ‘mobile home’ in a ‘space-rental mobile home park’ if the mobile home ‘is owned … by the owner of the rental space.’” Oak Creek Hospitality told the court it owned most of the individual mobile home units in the park. Under that structure, “those mobile homes are part of the residential rental property, to which the statute appears to apply,” the judge wrote.
The opinion also drew on broader state definitions of what counts as a residential dwelling unit. Title 9 defines a dwelling unit as a structure used by people who maintain a household, and clarifies that it “also means a mobile home regardless of the ownership of the land,” the judge noted.
While Arizona’s 2016 law broadly preempts local bans, the Legislature later allowed cities to adopt certain public-safety regulations. The appellate opinion reinforces that local governments can address issues such as nuisance behavior and public safety, but they can’t enact ordinances that function as a ban.
The court also addressed Sedona’s position that it could deny Oak Creek a short-term rental license based on the property type. Under the statute, the court explained, a city may require an owner to apply for a permit or license, but denial is limited to deficiencies in the application.
The appellate court’s decision reverses the Superior Court’s dismissal and remands the case, directing the lower court to follow its interpretation of state law. It also awarded attorneys’ fees to the plaintiffs.
Sedona Mayor Holli Ploog told KJZZ that she expects the City Council to appeal the most recent ruling.
Goldwater Institute attorneys argued that the case presented a straightforward question of statutory meaning and property rights, contending that cities should not be permitted to sidestep statewide protections by creating their own definitions of what constitutes a “home.”
Jonathan Riches, an attorney for the Goldwater Institute, said the appellate panel got it right.
“A mobile home is clearly a dwelling unit,” he told KJZZ, and he criticized the city’s effort to argue otherwise.
“Anybody who wants to say a mobile home is not a home is not on terribly solid legal footing,” he said.
…
GET UPDATES