Potomac Yard (Alexandria) HOA — Issues?

[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.

[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?

Unless 673 more common area parking spots can be added and assigned, there is nothing the HOA can do besides rescind the unlawful parking policy in an attempt to ward off more lawsuits.

[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?

Unless 673 more common area parking spots can be added and assigned, there is nothing the HOA can do besides rescind the unlawful parking policy in an attempt to ward off more lawsuits.

Correct. And until they do this, the HOA will hemmorhage funds and expose themsleves to more liability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Unless 673 more common area parking spots can be added and assigned, there is nothing the HOA can do besides rescind the unlawful parking policy in an attempt to ward off more lawsuits.

Correct. And until they do this, the HOA will hemmorhage funds and expose themsleves to more liability.

A neighbor mentioned that our HOA is required to pay a $25,000 deductible each time a lawsuit is filed. They also noted that this amount does not include the fees from the HOA lawyer, who reportedly attempts to bill our HOA as much as possible, despite not being the primary attorney for these cases.

Could someone clarify this information and provide details on the HOA's policy regarding legal fees and deductibles for lawsuits?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Unless 673 more common area parking spots can be added and assigned, there is nothing the HOA can do besides rescind the unlawful parking policy in an attempt to ward off more lawsuits.

Correct. And until they do this, the HOA will hemmorhage funds and expose themsleves to more liability.

A neighbor mentioned that our HOA is required to pay a $25,000 deductible each time a lawsuit is filed. They also noted that this amount does not include the fees from the HOA lawyer, who reportedly attempts to bill our HOA as much as possible, despite not being the primary attorney for these cases.

Could someone clarify this information and provide details on the HOA's policy regarding legal fees and deductibles for lawsuits?

I guarantee their E&O insurance has already nailed them hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Unless 673 more common area parking spots can be added and assigned, there is nothing the HOA can do besides rescind the unlawful parking policy in an attempt to ward off more lawsuits.

Correct. And until they do this, the HOA will hemmorhage funds and expose themsleves to more liability.

A neighbor mentioned that our HOA is required to pay a $25,000 deductible each time a lawsuit is filed. They also noted that this amount does not include the fees from the HOA lawyer, who reportedly attempts to bill our HOA as much as possible, despite not being the primary attorney for these cases.

Could someone clarify this information and provide details on the HOA's policy regarding legal fees and deductibles for lawsuits?

I guarantee their E&O insurance has already nailed them hard.

If the insurance raises our premiums and deductibles, this means the HOA needs to change its governance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Unless 673 more common area parking spots can be added and assigned, there is nothing the HOA can do besides rescind the unlawful parking policy in an attempt to ward off more lawsuits.

Correct. And until they do this, the HOA will hemmorhage funds and expose themsleves to more liability.

A neighbor mentioned that our HOA is required to pay a $25,000 deductible each time a lawsuit is filed. They also noted that this amount does not include the fees from the HOA lawyer, who reportedly attempts to bill our HOA as much as possible, despite not being the primary attorney for these cases.

Could someone clarify this information and provide details on the HOA's policy regarding legal fees and deductibles for lawsuits?

I guarantee their E&O insurance has already nailed them hard.

If the insurance raises our premiums and deductibles, this means the HOA needs to change its governance.

The HOA lawyer tells the board what they want to hear, but the HOA lawyer is not paying the insurance premiums or deductibles. Additionally, the HOA lawyer is primarily concerned with billable hours and would not be affected if the HOA were to lose.

[Anonymous]

To the lawyer on this thread, does it make sense for the HOA to cite a resident for anything that is not clear-cut, especially if the HOA will have to pay a $25,000 deductible for a potential lawsuit?

Thank you for your insights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the lawyer on this thread, does it make sense for the HOA to cite a resident for anything that is not clear-cut, especially if the HOA will have to pay a $25,000 deductible for a potential lawsuit?

Thank you for your insights.

Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the lawyer on this thread, does it make sense for the HOA to cite a resident for anything that is not clear-cut, especially if the HOA will have to pay a $25,000 deductible for a potential lawsuit?

Thank you for your insights.

If HOA boards are still doing this, HOAs and their lawyers should closely study the Sainani opinion, and like Jesus Christ, take it into their hearts so they can be born again and free themselves from worshiping false rules and regulations and learn to love and accept their neighbors and their neighbor's holiday decorations and other imperfections that are not truly covered in the HOA's declaration covenants.

Link here: https://law.justia.com/cases/virginia/supreme-court/2019/181037.html

[Anonymous]

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

Yup