Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone have any diagrams

This is the document with a plat showing the reserved parking spaces. It was recorded way back in 2014. Plat resolution isn't great but it's enough to see which spaces are reserved.

https://www.pyhoafacts.org/files/Association%20Documents/PYHOAParkingSpaceAssignmentandPlat.pdf

This piece of paper confirms that these spots are HOA common areas, and the assignments are not authorized in the Declaration. This is akin to negotiating against myself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone have any diagrams

This is the document with a plat showing the reserved parking spaces. It was recorded way back in 2014. Plat resolution isn't great but it's enough to see which spaces are reserved.

https://www.pyhoafacts.org/files/Association%20Documents/PYHOAParkingSpaceAssignmentandPlat.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For what it's worth, I know of someone who bought a top-floor condo unit without exclusive use of the roof, and later bought it from the rest of the owners, though not in Virginia. And I know, from reading the news, that a Florida condo association can be dissolved by a vote of 75% of the total ownership.

My point being that a common area in a condo, and the very existence of the condo itself, aren't as immutable as is assumed in this thread. In the early days of PY the HOA board might have been able to get enough votes to meet the threshold for changing the usage of a common area.

the HOA, with a 67% affirmative vote, can give away a common area to the city. However, the board cannot give away a common area for the exclusive use of certain HOA members under any circumstances.

Say a resident became disabled and needed a ramp to enter their townhouse, and a suitably sloped ramp had to block part of the sidewalk, which I assume is a common area. It wouldn't be allowed even if a supermajority was ok with it? But the board could give that piece of sidewalk to the city, which could in turn, after the proper procedures and votes, allow the resident to build the ramp?

The decision in Manchester Oaks Homeowners Ass'n v. Batt, decided by the Virginia Supreme Court in 2012, established that all HOA members have an equal, non-exclusive easement to use all HOA common areas, including parking spaces, unless the governing declaration expressly provides otherwise. In that case, the HOA attempted to amend its declaration to assign parking spaces in the common area exclusively to certain owners (those without garages), which was found to violate the declaration’s guarantee of equal access to common areas for all owners.

The court held that:

The declaration provided that “every Owner shall have a right and easement of enjoyment in and to the Common Area.”

Any assignment of common area (like parking) must benefit all owners equally, “because equality is inherent in the definition of common area” unless the declaration specifically states otherwise.

The HOA’s attempt to assign two common area parking spaces per ungaraged lot, but none to garaged lots, violated these principles.

Thus, under Manchester Oaks, unless specifically provided otherwise in the HOA's declaration, all members share a non-exclusive easement over all common areas and any allocation of common resources must be done fairly and equally.

Not a resident garaged or ungaraged but this seems painfully cut and dried to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love the way that Frank always falls back on the line, “well, you know, there’s a tiny cabal that controls the HOA that doesn't like me because I speak truth to power."

He always casts himself as a victim who is sort of the Karen Silkwood of the HOA — Someone who’s so truthful that he's being hunted down by the conspiracy that runs the HOA. It’s all a bit much and paranoid. And his legal theories are garbage.

I don't see anywhere in this thread where Frank is acting the victim. As far as HOA conspiracies, read this article and think again: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/2013/02/09/d46f9bec-6652-11e2-93e1-475791032daf_story.html

My favorite line - "board member Don Hughes compared some residents’ refusal to install window-pane dividers to the “cat and mouse game Saddam Hussein played with the USA,” e-mails show. Ultimately, Hussein “paid the price,” he said, concluding that the residents should comply."

This behavior from HOA board members is terrifyingly common. I'm guessing a lot of it is egged on by the HOA's lawyers who have nothing better to do than fan the flames of the smallest controversy to try to get litigation going. Drafting useless resolutions doesn't pay as well as lawsuits.

I have worked in the property management space since 2004. I've been on the HOA/COA side as well as individually managed portfolios in the 350 unit range.

If you don't think board's are malicious, you are a fool. Plain and simple.

I was once an onsite manager for a 400 unit HOA in NOVA where the board president told me, several times, in no uncertain terms, that has entire goal of running for board President was so he could make the previous President's life "a living hell." I saw him lie through his teeth on multiple occasions where it benefitted him and his neighbors. I saw another board member start a complete lie about a man having an affair with a woman he hated. I could share anecdote after anecdote after anecdote that would not only have you avoid HOAs for the rest of your life, but would also completely convince you that Frank could very well be suffering persecution at the hands of the board .

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love the way that Frank always falls back on the line, “well, you know, there’s a tiny cabal that controls the HOA that doesn't like me because I speak truth to power."

He always casts himself as a victim who is sort of the Karen Silkwood of the HOA — Someone who’s so truthful that he's being hunted down by the conspiracy that runs the HOA. It’s all a bit much and paranoid. And his legal theories are garbage.

I don't see anywhere in this thread where Frank is acting the victim. As far as HOA conspiracies, read this article and think again: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/2013/02/09/d46f9bec-6652-11e2-93e1-475791032daf_story.html

My favorite line - "board member Don Hughes compared some residents’ refusal to install window-pane dividers to the “cat and mouse game Saddam Hussein played with the USA,” e-mails show. Ultimately, Hussein “paid the price,” he said, concluding that the residents should comply."

This behavior from HOA board members is terrifyingly common. I'm guessing a lot of it is egged on by the HOA's lawyers who have nothing better to do than fan the flames of the smallest controversy to try to get litigation going. Drafting useless resolutions doesn't pay as well as lawsuits.

Anonymous wrote:I love the way that Frank always falls back on the line, “well, you know, there’s a tiny cabal that controls the HOA that doesn't like me because I speak truth to power."

He always casts himself as a victim who is sort of the Karen Silkwood of the HOA — Someone who’s so truthful that he's being hunted down by the conspiracy that runs the HOA. It’s all a bit much and paranoid. And his legal theories are garbage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For what it's worth, I know of someone who bought a top-floor condo unit without exclusive use of the roof, and later bought it from the rest of the owners, though not in Virginia. And I know, from reading the news, that a Florida condo association can be dissolved by a vote of 75% of the total ownership.

My point being that a common area in a condo, and the very existence of the condo itself, aren't as immutable as is assumed in this thread. In the early days of PY the HOA board might have been able to get enough votes to meet the threshold for changing the usage of a common area.

the HOA, with a 67% affirmative vote, can give away a common area to the city. However, the board cannot give away a common area for the exclusive use of certain HOA members under any circumstances.

Say a resident became disabled and needed a ramp to enter their townhouse, and a suitably sloped ramp had to block part of the sidewalk, which I assume is a common area. It wouldn't be allowed even if a supermajority was ok with it? But the board could give that piece of sidewalk to the city, which could in turn, after the proper procedures and votes, allow the resident to build the ramp?

The decision in Manchester Oaks Homeowners Ass'n v. Batt, decided by the Virginia Supreme Court in 2012, established that all HOA members have an equal, non-exclusive easement to use all HOA common areas, including parking spaces, unless the governing declaration expressly provides otherwise. In that case, the HOA attempted to amend its declaration to assign parking spaces in the common area exclusively to certain owners (those without garages), which was found to violate the declaration’s guarantee of equal access to common areas for all owners.

The court held that:

The declaration provided that “every Owner shall have a right and easement of enjoyment in and to the Common Area.”

Any assignment of common area (like parking) must benefit all owners equally, “because equality is inherent in the definition of common area” unless the declaration specifically states otherwise.

The HOA’s attempt to assign two common area parking spaces per ungaraged lot, but none to garaged lots, violated these principles.

Thus, under Manchester Oaks, unless specifically provided otherwise in the HOA's declaration, all members share a non-exclusive easement over all common areas and any allocation of common resources must be done fairly and equally.

Anonymous wrote:I love the way that Frank always falls back on the line, “well, you know, there’s a tiny cabal that controls the HOA that doesn't like me because I speak truth to power."

He always casts himself as a victim who is sort of the Karen Silkwood of the HOA — Someone who’s so truthful that he's being hunted down by the conspiracy that runs the HOA. It’s all a bit much and paranoid. And his legal theories are garbage.