Potomac Yard (Alexandria) HOA — Issues?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It's not just about maintenance costs. It's being excluded from something all members were given a right to use and no say in having it taken away. Those parking spots are supposed to be available to everyone and for guest parking. Where are the nannies and housecleaners supposed to park?

How do you answer this, which says the parking spaces were assigned in the Final Site Plan i.e. from the very beginning, before anyone bought? And that the Declaration (again, before anyone bought) gives the Board the right to regulate parking on private streets owned by the Association, overriding their status as common elements?

https://www.pyhoafacts.org/facts/van-valkenburgh-parking/

The HOA insurance lawyer has legal standards she has to abide by. Therefore, this patently false information did not make it into the associations pleadings.

What is false about it?

I believe the point is, if that blog link you posted contained legally effective facts, the HOA would have included that information in its pleadings. Lawyers cannot put false information in pleadings. However, pleadings that respond to a complaint (answer) tend to be responsive and sparse, so that information could still turn up as the case progresses. It's a process. When briefs are filed will be the best time to see the arguments on both sides.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only way this ends is the spots become open to all. Until that happens, the HOA will just continue to bleed funds. Wild that they aren't being counseled properly.

I could see the HOA turning around and suing First Service.

I could see the HOA suing its counsel for malpractice if the HOA loses. BTW, it's not possible to attach a file to these posts and there is no way to link the complaint. It's a PDF.

Use Dropbox.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only way this ends is the spots become open to all. Until that happens, the HOA will just continue to bleed funds. Wild that they aren't being counseled properly.

I could see the HOA turning around and suing First Service.

I could see the HOA suing its counsel for malpractice if the HOA loses. BTW, it's not possible to attach a file to these posts and there is no way to link the complaint. It's a PDF.

Use Dropbox.

I don't have a Dropbox account and am not opening one just for this. I'm not Frank, btw. Maybe someone else with Dropbox can post it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only way this ends is the spots become open to all. Until that happens, the HOA will just continue to bleed funds. Wild that they aren't being counseled properly.

I could see the HOA turning around and suing First Service.

I could see the HOA suing its counsel for malpractice if the HOA loses. BTW, it's not possible to attach a file to these posts and there is no way to link the complaint. It's a PDF.

Use Dropbox.

The same HOA lawyer who drafted the latest parking policy for Potomac Yard was counsel for Manchester Oak in Batt versus Manchester Oaks. Lightbulb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It's not just about maintenance costs. It's being excluded from something all members were given a right to use and no say in having it taken away. Those parking spots are supposed to be available to everyone and for guest parking. Where are the nannies and housecleaners supposed to park?

How do you answer this, which says the parking spaces were assigned in the Final Site Plan i.e. from the very beginning, before anyone bought? And that the Declaration (again, before anyone bought) gives the Board the right to regulate parking on private streets owned by the Association, overriding their status as common elements?

https://www.pyhoafacts.org/facts/van-valkenburgh-parking/

The HOA insurance lawyer has legal standards she has to abide by. Therefore, this patently false information did not make it into the associations pleadings.

What is false about it?

I believe the point is, if that blog link you posted contained legally effective facts, the HOA would have included that information in its pleadings. Lawyers cannot put false information in pleadings. However, pleadings that respond to a complaint (answer) tend to be responsive and sparse, so that information could still turn up as the case progresses. It's a process. When briefs are filed will be the best time to see the arguments on both sides.

So it is true that it's the garageless homeowners who are faced with losing existing exclusive access to reserved spaces, rather than all homeowners being faced with losing existing shared access to a pool of spaces. In the similar legal cases where the HOA lost, what remedy was imposed?

[Anonymous]

There is pretty much no way the THS without garages keep those spots.

[Anonymous]

Francis still won’t post the pleadings. Shocker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It's not just about maintenance costs. It's being excluded from something all members were given a right to use and no say in having it taken away. Those parking spots are supposed to be available to everyone and for guest parking. Where are the nannies and housecleaners supposed to park?

How do you answer this, which says the parking spaces were assigned in the Final Site Plan i.e. from the very beginning, before anyone bought? And that the Declaration (again, before anyone bought) gives the Board the right to regulate parking on private streets owned by the Association, overriding their status as common elements?

https://www.pyhoafacts.org/facts/van-valkenburgh-parking/

The HOA insurance lawyer has legal standards she has to abide by. Therefore, this patently false information did not make it into the associations pleadings.

What is false about it?

I believe the point is, if that blog link you posted contained legally effective facts, the HOA would have included that information in its pleadings. Lawyers cannot put false information in pleadings. However, pleadings that respond to a complaint (answer) tend to be responsive and sparse, so that information could still turn up as the case progresses. It's a process. When briefs are filed will be the best time to see the arguments on both sides.

So it is true that it's the garageless homeowners who are faced with losing existing exclusive access to reserved spaces, rather than all homeowners being faced with losing existing shared access to a pool of spaces. In the similar legal cases where the HOA lost, what remedy was imposed?

In 2012, after the appeals, the plaintiffs were compensated $15 per month for each month they were denied access. Additionally, the VA Supreme Court corrected the issue, ensuring all HOA members were allowed access, and the plaintiffs were awarded legal fees.
The Fairfax County Circuit Court, in approximately 2011, awarded the plaintiffs $27,000 and legal fees. However, the court did not correct the underlying issue at that time. You can listen to the plantiffs here. https://onthecommons.net/2013/03/on-the-commons-with-patrick-batt-and-rudy-grom/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only way this ends is the spots become open to all. Until that happens, the HOA will just continue to bleed funds. Wild that they aren't being counseled properly.

I could see the HOA turning around and suing First Service.

I could see the HOA suing its counsel for malpractice if the HOA loses. BTW, it's not possible to attach a file to these posts and there is no way to link the complaint. It's a PDF.

Use Dropbox.

I don't have a Dropbox account and am not opening one just for this. I'm not Frank, btw. Maybe someone else with Dropbox can post it?

Bs. It takes two seconds to get an account. Just embarrass of your ridiculous arguments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It's not just about maintenance costs. It's being excluded from something all members were given a right to use and no say in having it taken away. Those parking spots are supposed to be available to everyone and for guest parking. Where are the nannies and housecleaners supposed to park?

How do you answer this, which says the parking spaces were assigned in the Final Site Plan i.e. from the very beginning, before anyone bought? And that the Declaration (again, before anyone bought) gives the Board the right to regulate parking on private streets owned by the Association, overriding their status as common elements?

https://www.pyhoafacts.org/facts/van-valkenburgh-parking/

The HOA insurance lawyer has legal standards she has to abide by. Therefore, this patently false information did not make it into the associations pleadings.

What is false about it?

I believe the point is, if that blog link you posted contained legally effective facts, the HOA would have included that information in its pleadings. Lawyers cannot put false information in pleadings. However, pleadings that respond to a complaint (answer) tend to be responsive and sparse, so that information could still turn up as the case progresses. It's a process. When briefs are filed will be the best time to see the arguments on both sides.

So it is true that it's the garageless homeowners who are faced with losing existing exclusive access to reserved spaces, rather than all homeowners being faced with losing existing shared access to a pool of spaces. In the similar legal cases where the HOA lost, what remedy was imposed?

In 2012, after the appeals, the plaintiffs were compensated $15 per month for each month they were denied access. Additionally, the VA Supreme Court corrected the issue, ensuring all HOA members were allowed access, and the plaintiffs were awarded legal fees.
The Fairfax County Circuit Court, in approximately 2011, awarded the plaintiffs $27,000 and legal fees. However, the court did not correct the underlying issue at that time. You can listen to the plantiffs here. https://onthecommons.net/2013/03/on-the-commons-with-patrick-batt-and-rudy-grom/

The recent most case in Telegraph Square, in this case, the plaintiff was awarded lost rental income due to being denied access to common areas.

At this time, I believe this precedent is inapplicable to Frank until he decides to rent his unit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It's not just about maintenance costs. It's being excluded from something all members were given a right to use and no say in having it taken away. Those parking spots are supposed to be available to everyone and for guest parking. Where are the nannies and housecleaners supposed to park?

How do you answer this, which says the parking spaces were assigned in the Final Site Plan i.e. from the very beginning, before anyone bought? And that the Declaration (again, before anyone bought) gives the Board the right to regulate parking on private streets owned by the Association, overriding their status as common elements?

https://www.pyhoafacts.org/facts/van-valkenburgh-parking/

The HOA insurance lawyer has legal standards she has to abide by. Therefore, this patently false information did not make it into the associations pleadings.

What is false about it?

I believe the point is, if that blog link you posted contained legally effective facts, the HOA would have included that information in its pleadings. Lawyers cannot put false information in pleadings. However, pleadings that respond to a complaint (answer) tend to be responsive and sparse, so that information could still turn up as the case progresses. It's a process. When briefs are filed will be the best time to see the arguments on both sides.

So it is true that it's the garageless homeowners who are faced with losing existing exclusive access to reserved spaces, rather than all homeowners being faced with losing existing shared access to a pool of spaces. In the similar legal cases where the HOA lost, what remedy was imposed?

In 2012, after the appeals, the plaintiffs were compensated $15 per month for each month they were denied access. Additionally, the VA Supreme Court corrected the issue, ensuring all HOA members were allowed access, and the plaintiffs were awarded legal fees.
The Fairfax County Circuit Court, in approximately 2011, awarded the plaintiffs $27,000 and legal fees. However, the court did not correct the underlying issue at that time. You can listen to the plantiffs here. https://onthecommons.net/2013/03/on-the-commons-with-patrick-batt-and-rudy-grom/

The root cause of this (Potomac Yard) mess appears to be a defect in the condo docs, not anything that the Board did. If you were advising the Board on the case, what strategy would you suggest in order to maximize the chances of preserving the existing parking arrangements?

[Anonymous]

Francis is redefining sock puppeting!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It's not just about maintenance costs. It's being excluded from something all members were given a right to use and no say in having it taken away. Those parking spots are supposed to be available to everyone and for guest parking. Where are the nannies and housecleaners supposed to park?

How do you answer this, which says the parking spaces were assigned in the Final Site Plan i.e. from the very beginning, before anyone bought? And that the Declaration (again, before anyone bought) gives the Board the right to regulate parking on private streets owned by the Association, overriding their status as common elements?

https://www.pyhoafacts.org/facts/van-valkenburgh-parking/

The HOA insurance lawyer has legal standards she has to abide by. Therefore, this patently false information did not make it into the associations pleadings.

What is false about it?

I believe the point is, if that blog link you posted contained legally effective facts, the HOA would have included that information in its pleadings. Lawyers cannot put false information in pleadings. However, pleadings that respond to a complaint (answer) tend to be responsive and sparse, so that information could still turn up as the case progresses. It's a process. When briefs are filed will be the best time to see the arguments on both sides.

So it is true that it's the garageless homeowners who are faced with losing existing exclusive access to reserved spaces, rather than all homeowners being faced with losing existing shared access to a pool of spaces. In the similar legal cases where the HOA lost, what remedy was imposed?

In 2012, after the appeals, the plaintiffs were compensated $15 per month for each month they were denied access. Additionally, the VA Supreme Court corrected the issue, ensuring all HOA members were allowed access, and the plaintiffs were awarded legal fees.
The Fairfax County Circuit Court, in approximately 2011, awarded the plaintiffs $27,000 and legal fees. However, the court did not correct the underlying issue at that time. You can listen to the plantiffs here. https://onthecommons.net/2013/03/on-the-commons-with-patrick-batt-and-rudy-grom/

The root cause of this (Potomac Yard) mess appears to be a defect in the condo docs, not anything that the Board did. If you were advising the Board on the case, what strategy would you suggest in order to maximize the chances of preserving the existing parking arrangements?

I will let your inaccuracy stand, but the board gave a way a common area and continued to charge HOA members who can't use it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It's not just about maintenance costs. It's being excluded from something all members were given a right to use and no say in having it taken away. Those parking spots are supposed to be available to everyone and for guest parking. Where are the nannies and housecleaners supposed to park?

How do you answer this, which says the parking spaces were assigned in the Final Site Plan i.e. from the very beginning, before anyone bought? And that the Declaration (again, before anyone bought) gives the Board the right to regulate parking on private streets owned by the Association, overriding their status as common elements?

https://www.pyhoafacts.org/facts/van-valkenburgh-parking/

The HOA insurance lawyer has legal standards she has to abide by. Therefore, this patently false information did not make it into the associations pleadings.

What is false about it?

I believe the point is, if that blog link you posted contained legally effective facts, the HOA would have included that information in its pleadings. Lawyers cannot put false information in pleadings. However, pleadings that respond to a complaint (answer) tend to be responsive and sparse, so that information could still turn up as the case progresses. It's a process. When briefs are filed will be the best time to see the arguments on both sides.

So it is true that it's the garageless homeowners who are faced with losing existing exclusive access to reserved spaces, rather than all homeowners being faced with losing existing shared access to a pool of spaces. In the similar legal cases where the HOA lost, what remedy was imposed?

In 2012, after the appeals, the plaintiffs were compensated $15 per month for each month they were denied access. Additionally, the VA Supreme Court corrected the issue, ensuring all HOA members were allowed access, and the plaintiffs were awarded legal fees.
The Fairfax County Circuit Court, in approximately 2011, awarded the plaintiffs $27,000 and legal fees. However, the court did not correct the underlying issue at that time. You can listen to the plantiffs here. https://onthecommons.net/2013/03/on-the-commons-with-patrick-batt-and-rudy-grom/

The root cause of this (Potomac Yard) mess appears to be a defect in the condo docs, not anything that the Board did. If you were advising the Board on the case, what strategy would you suggest in order to maximize the chances of preserving the existing parking arrangements?

I will let your inaccuracy stand, but the board gave a way a common area and continued to charge HOA members who can't use it.

Fake news.

[Anonymous]

Omg yet another reason why I will NEVER, EVER EVER EVER, live in a place with an HOA.