Potomac Yard (Alexandria) HOA — Issues?

[Anonymous]

One thing is for sure. Frank is living rent free in some pedant's head. I can't wait to see his meltdown when Franks wins and the parking spaces go..... poof.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The Potomac Yard HOA and the property manager have been targeting Frank for years for rules that have nothing to do with the Declaration. They should have left him alone, but it could be too late now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The Potomac Yard HOA and the property manager have been targeting Frank for years for rules that have nothing to do with the Declaration. They should have left him alone, but it could be too late now.

[b]The best solution to these HOA messes would be for HOA insurance companies to have a two-strike rule: HOA insurance companies will deny coverage to HOA/condo associations that work with any HOA law firm or lawyer that has lost two lawsuits. That should discourage lawyers from playing the let's-see-if-the-court-totally-changes-course-after-multiple-precedents game, or the even worse game, let's-keep-the-lawsuit-going-to-run-the-homeowner-out-of-money. Losing lawyers would soon be out of jobs because it would be bad for business for any HOA law firm to hire them.[b]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The Potomac Yard HOA and the property manager have been targeting Frank for years for rules that have nothing to do with the Declaration. They should have left him alone, but it could be too late now.

[b]The best solution to these HOA messes would be for HOA insurance companies to have a two-strike rule: HOA insurance companies will deny coverage to HOA/condo associations that work with any HOA law firm or lawyer that has lost two lawsuits. That should discourage lawyers from playing the let's-see-if-the-court-totally-changes-course-after-multiple-precedents game, or the even worse game, let's-keep-the-lawsuit-going-to-run-the-homeowner-out-of-money. Losing lawyers would soon be out of jobs because it would be bad for business for any HOA law firm to hire them.[b]

Their gobblygook doesn't work with experienced lawyers. It's worth noting that the same lawyer who drafted the updated Potomac Yard parking policy, Drew Terrell, was the losing counsel in Batt versus Manchester Oaks.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

Ok, Frank, Esq. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

The Potomac Yard HOA and the property manager have been targeting Frank for years for rules that have nothing to do with the Declaration. They should have left him alone, but it could be too late now.[/quote]

[b][i]The best solution to these HOA messes would be for HOA insurance companies to have a two-strike rule: HOA insurance companies will deny coverage to HOA/condo associations that work with any HOA law firm or lawyer that has lost two lawsuits. That should discourage lawyers from playing the let's-see-if-the-court-totally-changes-course-after-multiple-precedents game, or the even worse game, let's-keep-the-lawsuit-going-to-run-the-homeowner-out-of-money. Losing lawyers would soon be out of jobs because it would be bad for business for any HOA law firm to hire them.[/i][b]
[/quote]

I believe our HOA, Potomac Yard, now has a $25,000 deductible for directors' insurance. This means the insurance company will not incur losses until legal fees exceed 25k.

[Anonymous]

Lots of crazy stuff gonna on with HOAs that deserve to face a lawsuit. This silly parking thing is NOT one if them. Total waste of Frank’s time and money. Sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lots of crazy stuff gonna on with HOAs that deserve to face a lawsuit. This silly parking thing is NOT one if them. Total waste of Frank’s time and money. Sad.

Every lawsuit lost by an HOA helps. At some point this broken system will cave in on itself and become so untenable no one will want to buy a home in an HOA community. And the sad lawyers representing HOAs can go back to doing debt collection and real estate closings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of crazy stuff gonna on with HOAs that deserve to face a lawsuit. This silly parking thing is NOT one if them. Total waste of Frank’s time and money. Sad.

Every lawsuit lost by an HOA helps. At some point this broken system will cave in on itself and become so untenable no one will want to buy a home in an HOA community. And the sad lawyers representing HOAs can go back to doing debt collection and real estate closings.

Agree. But Frank’s lawsuit ain’t the one to help. It stinks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of crazy stuff gonna on with HOAs that deserve to face a lawsuit. This silly parking thing is NOT one if them. Total waste of Frank’s time and money. Sad.

Every lawsuit lost by an HOA helps. At some point this broken system will cave in on itself and become so untenable no one will want to buy a home in an HOA community. And the sad lawyers representing HOAs can go back to doing debt collection and real estate closings.

Agree. But Frank’s lawsuit ain’t the one to help. It stinks.

It will deter prospective buyers with cars to buy into HOAs without a driveway or garage..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of crazy stuff gonna on with HOAs that deserve to face a lawsuit. This silly parking thing is NOT one if them. Total waste of Frank’s time and money. Sad.

Every lawsuit lost by an HOA helps. At some point this broken system will cave in on itself and become so untenable no one will want to buy a home in an HOA community. And the sad lawyers representing HOAs can go back to doing debt collection and real estate closings.

Agree. But Frank’s lawsuit ain’t the one to help. It stinks.

It's slam dunk, bro, and you know it. I'm not looking for an admission you are wrong. Stay salty. IDGAF. I'm way happier wacthing you go down with the ship. There is zero chance he either doesn't force significant concessions or out right wins. You can't take common area and give it to handful of members and you know it. The end.

[Anonymous]

Did I listen to these videos? Jon Futrell doesn't want his HOA Assessments to go to legal fees, but he believes the HOA is in the right with the parking policy. 🎃🎈🧨🧨🧨🧨🧨🧨🧨🧨

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did I listen to these videos? Jon Futrell doesn't want his HOA Assessments to go to legal fees, but he believes the HOA is in the right with the parking policy. 🎃🎈🧨🧨🧨🧨🧨🧨🧨🧨

[Anonymous]

Can Frank get damages?

[Anonymous]

In "Batt versus Manchester Oaks", the plaintiffs were awarded for each month they were denied access to the parking spots. The plantiff in Telegraph Square was awarded loss rental income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of crazy stuff gonna on with HOAs that deserve to face a lawsuit. This silly parking thing is NOT one if them. Total waste of Frank’s time and money. Sad.

Every lawsuit lost by an HOA helps. At some point this broken system will cave in on itself and become so untenable no one will want to buy a home in an HOA community. And the sad lawyers representing HOAs can go back to doing debt collection and real estate closings.

Agree. But Frank’s lawsuit ain’t the one to help. It stinks.

It's slam dunk, bro, and you know it. I'm not looking for an admission you are wrong. Stay salty. IDGAF. I'm way happier wacthing you go down with the ship. There is zero chance he either doesn't force significant concessions or out right wins. You can't take common area and give it to handful of members and you know it. The end.

Seems like your ambulance chaser adviser fed you a load of crap. You’re probably paying for his new suv.

And your amateur internet searches on the law don’t help. Go to law school (a good one) if you want to bring good lawsuits.