Potomac Yard (Alexandria) HOA — Issues?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the plaintiff will prevail based on the law and precedents. But is that a fair result? Everyone who bought at PY freely entered into the deal, knowing that common area parking spaces were subject to restriction. I don't think this provision is against public policy.

How many other HOA's in Virginia are at risk of similar disruption? Maybe a legislative solution is needed.

If the Board isn't being entirely forthcoming with the membership, well, it's not their finest hour, but they didn't create the problem and they're in a tough position.

I was not aware of this policy, and I purchased my unit before it was enacted via a board edict. Every ungaraged townhouse owner made a conscientious decision to buy a unit without a driveway or garage, and some bought before the policy went into effect.

The solution would be to have the developer return and annex more land, but unfortunately, this is not a feasible option.

The Amended and Restated Declaration from October 2011 authorizes the board to issue that edict. You probably got a copy of that before you bought, or at least signed something saying you got it.

This language means the association must assign parking spaces equally, if at all, unless the Declaration expressly provides otherwise, which it doesn't.

I'm not convinced that was the intention, but it seems the courts might interpret it that way, as they apparently did in other cases.

If defense lawyers are able to present evidence backing up the claim that the city told Pulte to provide reserved spaces for garageless units, would that change the course of the lawsuit? I'm thinking of correspondence between the city and Pulte, or testimony from city employees or Pulte employees who were involved in the development.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the plaintiff will prevail based on the law and precedents. But is that a fair result? Everyone who bought at PY freely entered into the deal, knowing that common area parking spaces were subject to restriction. I don't think this provision is against public policy.

How many other HOA's in Virginia are at risk of similar disruption? Maybe a legislative solution is needed.

If the Board isn't being entirely forthcoming with the membership, well, it's not their finest hour, but they didn't create the problem and they're in a tough position.

I was not aware of this policy, and I purchased my unit before it was enacted via a board edict. Every ungaraged townhouse owner made a conscientious decision to buy a unit without a driveway or garage, and some bought before the policy went into effect.

The solution would be to have the developer return and annex more land, but unfortunately, this is not a feasible option.

The Amended and Restated Declaration from October 2011 authorizes the board to issue that edict. You probably got a copy of that before you bought, or at least signed something saying you got it.

This language means the association must assign parking spaces equally, if at all, unless the Declaration expressly provides otherwise, which it doesn't.

I'm not convinced that was the intention, but it seems the courts might interpret it that way, as they apparently did in other cases.

If defense lawyers are able to present evidence backing up the claim that the city told Pulte to provide reserved spaces for garageless units, would that change the course of the lawsuit? I'm thinking of correspondence between the city and Pulte, or testimony from city employees or Pulte employees who were involved in the development.

It is important to remember that the HOA Declaration serves as the governing document for our community. Additionally, the developer has officially relinquished their membership rights within the association.

Please note that the city has communicated via email that this issue is considered a civil matter to be resolved among residents who object to the current parking policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the plaintiff will prevail based on the law and precedents. But is that a fair result? Everyone who bought at PY freely entered into the deal, knowing that common area parking spaces were subject to restriction. I don't think this provision is against public policy.

How many other HOA's in Virginia are at risk of similar disruption? Maybe a legislative solution is needed.

If the Board isn't being entirely forthcoming with the membership, well, it's not their finest hour, but they didn't create the problem and they're in a tough position.

Judges rule on the law and not on what they believe is fair or the prevailing winds of public opinion. The law does not allow the Homeowners Association (HOA) to assign parking spaces for exclusive use to ungarage owners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the plaintiff will prevail based on the law and precedents. But is that a fair result? Everyone who bought at PY freely entered into the deal, knowing that common area parking spaces were subject to restriction. I don't think this provision is against public policy.

How many other HOA's in Virginia are at risk of similar disruption? Maybe a legislative solution is needed.

If the Board isn't being entirely forthcoming with the membership, well, it's not their finest hour, but they didn't create the problem and they're in a tough position.

Judges rule on the law and not on what they believe is fair or the prevailing winds of public opinion. The law does not allow the Homeowners Association (HOA) to assign parking spaces for exclusive use to ungarage owners.

Agreed. His lawsuit states the parking policy is unlawful. It does not broach the topic of whether it is fair or unfair.

[Anonymous]

If the lawsuit prevails, how does PY move forward from there, parking-wise? Hopefully they can do better than opening all the spaces to everyone. How about this: Distribute equal shares in the spaces to all unit owners, which will probably involve fractional spaces. Then set up an arrangement so owners who want a space can rent one (a whole space) from owners who don't. They should work this out with court approval as part of a settlement, if there is one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the lawsuit prevails, how does PY move forward from there, parking-wise? Hopefully they can do better than opening all the spaces to everyone. How about this: Distribute equal shares in the spaces to all unit owners, which will probably involve fractional spaces. Then set up an arrangement so owners who want a space can rent one (a whole space) from owners who don't. They should work this out with court approval as part of a settlement, if there is one.

Regarding the parking situation, it appears to be moving towards a "first come, first served" system, similar to city parking.

In case you haven't noticed, the enforcement of the 4-day rule has significantly increased. My guess is that Frank will likely pursue another case against the HOA if his vehicle is towed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the lawsuit prevails, how does PY move forward from there, parking-wise? Hopefully they can do better than opening all the spaces to everyone. How about this: Distribute equal shares in the spaces to all unit owners, which will probably involve fractional spaces. Then set up an arrangement so owners who want a space can rent one (a whole space) from owners who don't. They should work this out with court approval as part of a settlement, if there is one.

Regarding the parking situation, it appears to be moving towards a "first come, first served" system, similar to city parking.

In case you haven't noticed, the enforcement of the 4-day rule has significantly increased. My guess is that Frank will likely pursue another case against the HOA if his vehicle is towed.

I don't live there, and I imagine I'm not the only outsider on this thread. It's an interesting situation, and I live in a common ownership community also. Mine is a high-rise condo with limited common element parking spaces, so this exact situation is unlikely to come up.

[Anonymous]

I strongly suspect that houses within this No Parking Zone have become much less desirable compared to others. This action is going to significantly affect those homes. People frequently have visitors such as UPS drivers, DoorDash deliveries, friends, family, and appliance repair personnel, all of whom require parking access.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I strongly suspect that houses within this No Parking Zone have become much less desirable compared to others. This action is going to significantly affect those homes. People frequently have visitors such as UPS drivers, DoorDash deliveries, friends, family, and appliance repair personnel, all of whom require parking access.

Hogwash, Frank.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the lawsuit prevails, how does PY move forward from there, parking-wise? Hopefully they can do better than opening all the spaces to everyone. How about this: Distribute equal shares in the spaces to all unit owners, which will probably involve fractional spaces. Then set up an arrangement so owners who want a space can rent one (a whole space) from owners who don't. They should work this out with court approval as part of a settlement, if there is one.

This may be a little complicated, but sounds like the fairest option and it makes sense. If not possible to have fractional shares in parking spaces, then those who want a space should rent it from the HOA to cover the cost of maintaining them. There would likely be more spaces open for visitors this way. Although it would likely require a vote of the HOA members.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Frank will lose - bigly. The board has statutory authority to regulate use of common areas to keep order and ensure access. A permit system that allocates a small number of signed spaces to a defined class of homes is a classic time–place–manner rule, not a transfer of ownership.

This is equalization, not favoritism. Lots with garages already have reliable off-street parking. Lots without garages do not. Treating unlike homes identically creates a predictable scarcity. A narrow, rational classification based on objective lot features is permissible.

No property rights change hands. Assignments are revocable, time-limited licenses adopted by rule. No deeds change. No partition of common area. All owners keep use of the remaining common spaces and visitor spaces.

Community welfare improves: fewer late-night disputes, less spillover to public streets, better emergency access, and higher property values due to predictable parking.

Design intent matters. Recorded plats show which homes lack garages. Common-area parking exists to serve those homes. Targeted, documented assignments ensure the amenity serves its core function.

Bam. Frank is toast.

Whoever wrote this is absolutely clueless about HOA law and probably the law in general. Read the statutes and the cases. What statutory authority to "keep order"? What does that have to do with parking? You're making up a lot of theories but ignoring the law and the precedents. The HOA cannot exclude members from common area. Common area does NOT exist to serve individual homes, but for ALL members. That's the inherent definition fo common area. "Intent" of anything does not matter outside the four corners of the Declaration - a contract - and certainly not design intent. Go back to 1L Contracts class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frank will lose - bigly. The board has statutory authority to regulate use of common areas to keep order and ensure access. A permit system that allocates a small number of signed spaces to a defined class of homes is a classic time–place–manner rule, not a transfer of ownership.

This is equalization, not favoritism. Lots with garages already have reliable off-street parking. Lots without garages do not. Treating unlike homes identically creates a predictable scarcity. A narrow, rational classification based on objective lot features is permissible.

No property rights change hands. Assignments are revocable, time-limited licenses adopted by rule. No deeds change. No partition of common area. All owners keep use of the remaining common spaces and visitor spaces.

Community welfare improves: fewer late-night disputes, less spillover to public streets, better emergency access, and higher property values due to predictable parking.

Design intent matters. Recorded plats show which homes lack garages. Common-area parking exists to serve those homes. Targeted, documented assignments ensure the amenity serves its core function.

Bam. Frank is toast.

Whoever wrote this is absolutely clueless about HOA law and probably the law in general. Read the statutes and the cases. What statutory authority to "keep order"? What does that have to do with parking? You're making up a lot of theories but ignoring the law and the precedents. The HOA cannot exclude members from common area. Common area does NOT exist to serve individual homes, but for ALL members. That's the inherent definition fo common area. "Intent" of anything does not matter outside the four corners of the Declaration - a contract - and certainly not design intent. Go back to 1L Contracts class.

Ok, Frank, Esq.

[Anonymous]

Is there a DC listserve for realtors we can post this thread ? How about an email to a Washington Post employee ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frank will lose - bigly. The board has statutory authority to regulate use of common areas to keep order and ensure access. A permit system that allocates a small number of signed spaces to a defined class of homes is a classic time–place–manner rule, not a transfer of ownership.

This is equalization, not favoritism. Lots with garages already have reliable off-street parking. Lots without garages do not. Treating unlike homes identically creates a predictable scarcity. A narrow, rational classification based on objective lot features is permissible.

No property rights change hands. Assignments are revocable, time-limited licenses adopted by rule. No deeds change. No partition of common area. All owners keep use of the remaining common spaces and visitor spaces.

Community welfare improves: fewer late-night disputes, less spillover to public streets, better emergency access, and higher property values due to predictable parking.

Design intent matters. Recorded plats show which homes lack garages. Common-area parking exists to serve those homes. Targeted, documented assignments ensure the amenity serves its core function.

Bam. Frank is toast.

Whoever wrote this is absolutely clueless about HOA law and probably the law in general. Read the statutes and the cases. What statutory authority to "keep order"? What does that have to do with parking? You're making up a lot of theories but ignoring the law and the precedents. The HOA cannot exclude members from common area. Common area does NOT exist to serve individual homes, but for ALL members. That's the inherent definition fo common area. "Intent" of anything does not matter outside the four corners of the Declaration - a contract - and certainly not design intent. Go back to 1L Contracts class.

Ok, Frank, Esq.

Esq, but not Frank. Since when are HOAs suppose to "keep order"?? That's the number one problem with the authoritarian-minded anal-retentive types who love "serving" by sitting on HOA boards. They get into the mindset that they are there to police the community. That's where they go off the rails. The HOA board's only job is to fulfill the HOA's requirements under the Declaration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a litigator, I can tell you with virtual certainty that this case is fatally flawed and will fail miserably. It’s a joke.

Could you please expound more on the parking case? I found that his lawyer has already won a parking case against an HOA.

Thank you.

Frank — stop talking to yourself.

Show the IP addresses like you promised.