Potomac Yard (Alexandria) HOA — Issues?

[Anonymous]

Demand the HOA circulate the lawsuit and associations pleadings in the weekly email. The HOA can redact Frank's address. Some members will be irate when they verify there is no city zoning requirement to assign parking.spaces. Even f there were a zoning requirement, then the HOA will have to annex more land because they can't give away a common area.

[Anonymous]

Frank sure is lazy. Would literally take 2 minutes to post his defective pleadings but he refuses to.

Probably bc the pleadings are embarrassing, and he regrets spending $10,000 (that could have been spent on a nice vacation) on that drivel

[Anonymous]

I wonder how many realtors will have the temerity to list these ungarage town homes in Potomac Yard with assigned parking.?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Frank sure is lazy. Would literally take 2 minutes to post his defective pleadings but he refuses to.

Probably bc the pleadings are embarrassing, and he regrets spending $10,000 (that could have been spent on a nice vacation) on that drivel

A "nice" vacation for $10k? What is that, a week at Ocean City staying at the Motel 6? That's sad. My last nice vacation was at least $50k. And lawsuits cost more than that. Stay on the porch little dog.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Frank sure is lazy. Would literally take 2 minutes to post his defective pleadings but he refuses to.

Probably bc the pleadings are embarrassing, and he regrets spending $10,000 (that could have been spent on a nice vacation) on that drivel

Frank is living in your head, rent free. And he's about to take away your parking spot.

[Anonymous]

Having to sell your home with a HOA feea and telling prospective buyers they can't use the common areas impacts your resale or rental income greater than 10 or 50k.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frank sure is lazy. Would literally take 2 minutes to post his defective pleadings but he refuses to.

Probably bc the pleadings are embarrassing, and he regrets spending $10,000 (that could have been spent on a nice vacation) on that drivel

A "nice" vacation for $10k? What is that, a week at Ocean City staying at the Motel 6? That's sad. My last nice vacation was at least $50k. And lawsuits cost more than that. Stay on the porch little dog.

I meant a vacation just for you solo. And if you spent more than $10k on a crappy complaint (probably written by AI) that you’re too embarrassed to even post, you got ripped off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frank sure is lazy. Would literally take 2 minutes to post his defective pleadings but he refuses to.

Probably bc the pleadings are embarrassing, and he regrets spending $10,000 (that could have been spent on a nice vacation) on that drivel

A "nice" vacation for $10k? What is that, a week at Ocean City staying at the Motel 6? That's sad. My last nice vacation was at least $50k. And lawsuits cost more than that. Stay on the porch little dog.

I meant a vacation just for you solo. And if you spent more than $10k on a crappy complaint (probably written by AI) that you’re too embarrassed to even post, you got ripped off.

No, you got ripped off.

Frank's lawyer is the same lawyer who won Sully Station, the original parking space case. Probably knows what he's doing. Private sector lawyers don't take losing cases. They have a reputation to protect. However, HOA lawyers are happy just being involved in a lawsuit. Bit of excitement from those boring HOA board windbags.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frank sure is lazy. Would literally take 2 minutes to post his defective pleadings but he refuses to.

Probably bc the pleadings are embarrassing, and he regrets spending $10,000 (that could have been spent on a nice vacation) on that drivel

A "nice" vacation for $10k? What is that, a week at Ocean City staying at the Motel 6? That's sad. My last nice vacation was at least $50k. And lawsuits cost more than that. Stay on the porch little dog.

I meant a vacation just for you solo. And if you spent more than $10k on a crappy complaint (probably written by AI) that you’re too embarrassed to even post, you got ripped off.

No, you got ripped off.

Frank's lawyer is the same lawyer who won Sully Station, the original parking space case. Probably knows what he's doing. Private sector lawyers don't take losing cases. They have a reputation to protect. However, HOA lawyers are happy just being involved in a lawsuit. Bit of excitement from those boring HOA board windbags.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frank sure is lazy. Would literally take 2 minutes to post his defective pleadings but he refuses to.

Probably bc the pleadings are embarrassing, and he regrets spending $10,000 (that could have been spent on a nice vacation) on that drivel

A "nice" vacation for $10k? What is that, a week at Ocean City staying at the Motel 6? That's sad. My last nice vacation was at least $50k. And lawsuits cost more than that. Stay on the porch little dog.

I meant a vacation just for you solo. And if you spent more than $10k on a crappy complaint (probably written by AI) that you’re too embarrassed to even post, you got ripped off.

Well said. What a waste of time.

I’m sure Frank’s HOA lawyer is super elite and brilliant. And I’m sure he’s happy taking Frank’s money. There’s a fool born every second.

[Anonymous]

If Frank suffers any minor setback in the case (like I’m sure he will), he’ll probably just fire his lawyer, just like his idol DJT fires anyone who gives him bad news.

Still no pleadings posted. Sad!

[Anonymous]

As a retired lawyer, here’s my take, based on a very quick read. First, the complaint undercuts its own ultra‑vires theory. It reproduces the Declaration language giving the Association “the right, but not the obligation, to assign and reserve parking spaces for the exclusive use of individual Owners,” then immediately alleges the Declaration is silent on unequal parking assignments. The quoted clause is an express grant of discretion that contradicts the claim of silence. Yet plaintiffs proceed as though the clause does not exist, insisting that nothing “expressly provides otherwise,” a statement flatly inconsistent with their own quotation.

Their reliance on Manchester Oaks, Telegraph Square and White is also misplaced. Those decisions limit an association only where the governing instrument contains no provision on the contested power. Because the Declaration here squarely authorizes exclusive parking assignments, the cases do not apply; the complaint never confronts this dispositive distinction.

The pleading also assumes a contractual right to proportional access to common‑area parking. The Declaration creates no such right; it merely imposes a duty to pay assessments for upkeep of the common area. Owners who chose two‑car‑garage homes inherently need fewer street spaces, and the allocation of forty‑six of fifty‑two spaces to non‑garage lots is rational on its face.

On the architectural claims, plaintiffs portray Sections 6.03 and 6.06 as vague “general design‑control provisions,” but Section 6.03 contains a concrete prohibition: “no Structure shall be painted, stuccoed or surfaced with any material unless and until approved in writing” under committee guidelines. Far from vague, it is a textbook example of an express covenant conditioning exterior changes on prior approval.

The complaint further ignores the Declaration’s expansive definition of “Structure,” which covers “any thing or object … the placement of which upon any Lot may affect the appearance of such Lot,” sweeping in bird feeders, string lights, flags and colored bulbs—the very items for which the Association imposed fines. Plaintiffs nonetheless argue that Section 6.03 “provides no guidance whatsoever,” a characterization belied by the detailed language they quote.

Plaintiffs assert that any rules adopted after their purchase are unenforceable because they were not recorded, but Section 5.07 and Virginia Code 55.1‑1819 expressly empower the Board to promulgate reasonable design rules without recordation. The statute’s default authority defeats the recording argument.

The fines claim is pled in purely conclusory terms: the complaint alleges only that debits and credits “appeared” on monthly ledgers, without dates, amounts, notice, or hearing details. Absent factual particulars tying each fine to a specific violation and demonstrating procedural due process, the claim cannot survive dismissal.

Procedurally, the plaintiffs request sweeping injunctive relief despite having an adequate remedy at law—refund of any improper fines and reassignment of parking if warranted. They also omit allegations that they satisfied the POA Act’s prerequisite of a written final adverse decision and a 30‑day settlement window before suing for attorney fees. Statutory miscitation of repealed sections and shotgun pleading of multiple theories in a single count further expose the complaint to dismissal.

Taken together, the Declaration provisions quoted by plaintiffs undermine their key theories; their legal authorities are inapposite; factual allegations about fines and notice are thin; and statutory prerequisites are absent.

Plaintiffs will LOSE. Bigly.

[Anonymous]

What is Margo's the community managers take on all this ? Why is she circulating an unlawful parking policy to HOA members ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a retired lawyer, here’s my take, based on a very quick read. First, the complaint undercuts its own ultra‑vires theory. It reproduces the Declaration language giving the Association “the right, but not the obligation, to assign and reserve parking spaces for the exclusive use of individual Owners,” then immediately alleges the Declaration is silent on unequal parking assignments. The quoted clause is an express grant of discretion that contradicts the claim of silence. Yet plaintiffs proceed as though the clause does not exist, insisting that nothing “expressly provides otherwise,” a statement flatly inconsistent with their own quotation.

Their reliance on Manchester Oaks, Telegraph Square and White is also misplaced. Those decisions limit an association only where the governing instrument contains no provision on the contested power. Because the Declaration here squarely authorizes exclusive parking assignments, the cases do not apply; the complaint never confronts this dispositive distinction.

The pleading also assumes a contractual right to proportional access to common‑area parking. The Declaration creates no such right; it merely imposes a duty to pay assessments for upkeep of the common area. Owners who chose two‑car‑garage homes inherently need fewer street spaces, and the allocation of forty‑six of fifty‑two spaces to non‑garage lots is rational on its face.

On the architectural claims, plaintiffs portray Sections 6.03 and 6.06 as vague “general design‑control provisions,” but Section 6.03 contains a concrete prohibition: “no Structure shall be painted, stuccoed or surfaced with any material unless and until approved in writing” under committee guidelines. Far from vague, it is a textbook example of an express covenant conditioning exterior changes on prior approval.

The complaint further ignores the Declaration’s expansive definition of “Structure,” which covers “any thing or object … the placement of which upon any Lot may affect the appearance of such Lot,” sweeping in bird feeders, string lights, flags and colored bulbs—the very items for which the Association imposed fines. Plaintiffs nonetheless argue that Section 6.03 “provides no guidance whatsoever,” a characterization belied by the detailed language they quote.

Plaintiffs assert that any rules adopted after their purchase are unenforceable because they were not recorded, but Section 5.07 and Virginia Code 55.1‑1819 expressly empower the Board to promulgate reasonable design rules without recordation. The statute’s default authority defeats the recording argument.

The fines claim is pled in purely conclusory terms: the complaint alleges only that debits and credits “appeared” on monthly ledgers, without dates, amounts, notice, or hearing details. Absent factual particulars tying each fine to a specific violation and demonstrating procedural due process, the claim cannot survive dismissal.

Procedurally, the plaintiffs request sweeping injunctive relief despite having an adequate remedy at law—refund of any improper fines and reassignment of parking if warranted. They also omit allegations that they satisfied the POA Act’s prerequisite of a written final adverse decision and a 30‑day settlement window before suing for attorney fees. Statutory miscitation of repealed sections and shotgun pleading of multiple theories in a single count further expose the complaint to dismissal.

Taken together, the Declaration provisions quoted by plaintiffs undermine their key theories; their legal authorities are inapposite; factual allegations about fines and notice are thin; and statutory prerequisites are absent.

Plaintiffs will LOSE. Bigly.

This must be Deacon Gary Bockweg. It sounds 100% like him. The word of "God".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a retired lawyer, here’s my take, based on a very quick read. First, the complaint undercuts its own ultra‑vires theory. It reproduces the Declaration language giving the Association “the right, but not the obligation, to assign and reserve parking spaces for the exclusive use of individual Owners,” then immediately alleges the Declaration is silent on unequal parking assignments. The quoted clause is an express grant of discretion that contradicts the claim of silence. Yet plaintiffs proceed as though the clause does not exist, insisting that nothing “expressly provides otherwise,” a statement flatly inconsistent with their own quotation.

Their reliance on Manchester Oaks, Telegraph Square and White is also misplaced. Those decisions limit an association only where the governing instrument contains no provision on the contested power. Because the Declaration here squarely authorizes exclusive parking assignments, the cases do not apply; the complaint never confronts this dispositive distinction.

The pleading also assumes a contractual right to proportional access to common‑area parking. The Declaration creates no such right; it merely imposes a duty to pay assessments for upkeep of the common area. Owners who chose two‑car‑garage homes inherently need fewer street spaces, and the allocation of forty‑six of fifty‑two spaces to non‑garage lots is rational on its face.

On the architectural claims, plaintiffs portray Sections 6.03 and 6.06 as vague “general design‑control provisions,” but Section 6.03 contains a concrete prohibition: “no Structure shall be painted, stuccoed or surfaced with any material unless and until approved in writing” under committee guidelines. Far from vague, it is a textbook example of an express covenant conditioning exterior changes on prior approval.

The complaint further ignores the Declaration’s expansive definition of “Structure,” which covers “any thing or object … the placement of which upon any Lot may affect the appearance of such Lot,” sweeping in bird feeders, string lights, flags and colored bulbs—the very items for which the Association imposed fines. Plaintiffs nonetheless argue that Section 6.03 “provides no guidance whatsoever,” a characterization belied by the detailed language they quote.

Plaintiffs assert that any rules adopted after their purchase are unenforceable because they were not recorded, but Section 5.07 and Virginia Code 55.1‑1819 expressly empower the Board to promulgate reasonable design rules without recordation. The statute’s default authority defeats the recording argument.

The fines claim is pled in purely conclusory terms: the complaint alleges only that debits and credits “appeared” on monthly ledgers, without dates, amounts, notice, or hearing details. Absent factual particulars tying each fine to a specific violation and demonstrating procedural due process, the claim cannot survive dismissal.

Procedurally, the plaintiffs request sweeping injunctive relief despite having an adequate remedy at law—refund of any improper fines and reassignment of parking if warranted. They also omit allegations that they satisfied the POA Act’s prerequisite of a written final adverse decision and a 30‑day settlement window before suing for attorney fees. Statutory miscitation of repealed sections and shotgun pleading of multiple theories in a single count further expose the complaint to dismissal.

Taken together, the Declaration provisions quoted by plaintiffs undermine their key theories; their legal authorities are inapposite; factual allegations about fines and notice are thin; and statutory prerequisites are absent.

Plaintiffs will LOSE. Bigly.

This must be Deacon Gary Bockweg. It sounds 100% like him. The word of "God".