RV Parking dispute costs home owner $100,000 Options

[JM]

RV Parking dispute costs home owner $100,000

As Tribune writer Blake Herzog has reported, Tone Ranch Estates sued Carrington in 2007 for leaving a travel trailer in his driveway too often. A year later, Carrington and the HOA agreed the rules probably weren’t consistent and a committee needed to clarify them. But the HOA expected Carrington to pay its legal fees, and a judge eventually ruled against him with a judgment of $100,000. Still, that judge understood this was a rather harsh outcome, as he mentioned he was issuing the order only to comply with precedent set by a higher court.

The complete article here:
RV Parking Dispute, Gilbert Arizona

This post has been edited by JM: Aug 11 2009, 07:43 AM

[Barbaraok]

When you buy a house that is within a HOA you agree to the rules - if you don't like rules, then you shouldn't buy there.

Barb

[RayIN]

That's the bottom line Barb.
I heard on the news yesterday that there is an effort to reverse some HOA restrictions already in place and severely limit formation of new HOA's.

This post has been edited by RayIN: Aug 8 2009, 08:20 PM

[LindaH]

I've got to agree with Barb. While the judgement of $100,000 does seem a bit much, the guy knew (or should have known) the rules when he bought into the neighborhood. Of course, the question that comes to my mind is was he given any warnings? If he was, and chose to ignore the warnings, then IMO, he was just asking for trouble. Looks like he found it.

[JM]

It is easy to read into things, yes if the rules were clear live elsewhere, common sense would have you avoid a community were you are not wanted but this sentence says it all:

"the HOA agreed the rules probably weren’t consistent and a committee needed to clarify them. But the HOA expected Carrington to pay its legal fees"

Sounds like the HOA wasn't very well documented or organized and the homeowner has to suffer?

This post has been edited by JM: Aug 9 2009, 04:26 PM

[TCW]

RV Parking dispute costs home owner $100,000

[font="Times New Roman"][i]But the HOA expected Carrington to pay its legal fees, [/b]and a judge eventually ruled against him with a judgment of $100,000. Still, that judge understood this was a rather harsh outcome, as he mentioned he was issuing the order only to comply with precedent set by a higher court.

While I would agree that one needs to look into the HOA rules before buying; the $100,000 was for the legal fees of the party Mr. Carrington sued i.e. the HOA. The real lesson here (at least in my opinion) is don't file a civil law suit without considering that if you loose, the judge may require you to pay the legal fees for the other party.

[Mike & Pat]

While I would agree that one needs to look into the HOA rules before buying; the $100,000 was for the legal fees of the party Mr. Carrington sued i.e. the HOA. The real lesson here (at least in my opinion) is don't file a civil law suit without considering that if you loose, the judge may require you to pay the legal fees for the other party.

"As Tribune writer Blake Herzog has reported, Tone Ranch Estates sued Carrington in 2007 for leaving a travel trailer in his driveway too often."

The HOA sued Mr. Carrington. The article didn't say whether the HOA won or lost the suit. I think the judgement is out of line and Mr. Carrington should appeal it.

[TCW]

"As Tribune writer Blake Herzog has reported, Tone Ranch Estates sued Carrington in 2007 for leaving a travel trailer in his driveway too often."

The HOA sued Mr. Carrington. The article didn't say whether the HOA won or lost the suit. I think the judgement is out of line and Mr. Carrington should appeal it.

Sorry! I miss read who sued who.

[Retired Guy]

Almost all CC&Rs have a clause that say if there is a legal dispute between the HOA and a homeowner and if the homeowner loses (or fails to win), that the homeowner must pay the HOA's legal fees. It makes no difference who sues whom. If the homeowner decides to appeal this decision and he loses again, he just makes himself subject to more legal fees (both his own and those of the HOA).

I am guessing that the reason he has to pay the HOA's legal fees is because he failed to win the lawsuit. It appears that the homeowner and the HOA settled the case without a legal determination and so he failed to win. If he had a good attorney, part of the settlement would have relieved him of having to pay the HOA legal fees. Of course, he would still be responsible for his own legal fees.

It makes no difference if he was warned about parking or not. If someone robs a bank, it is not a defense to say that there was no prior warning saying you can't rob the bank. CC&Rs are enforced by contract law and it is also not a defense to say that the HOA failed to warn that some action or inaction violated the contract.

[Kirk]

As much as I agree that neighborhoods have a right to a strong HOA to keep them as they were when they purchased their house, I would never buy a house in such a neighborhood. Deed restrictions, also called protective covenants, are pretty common even without an HOA, but are less likely to be enforced because there is no official enforcing body. They can be enforce if the problem is bad enough as a neighborhood where we once lived, discovered.

I find that most HOA organizations are too restrictive and heavy handed, but I also do not buy property that is covered by one, rather than to try and fight one that exists.

[JUGGERNAUT]

As much as I agree that neighborhoods have a right to a strong HOA to keep them as they were when they purchased their house, I would never buy a house in such a neighborhood. Deed restrictions, also called protective covenants, are pretty common even without an HOA, but are less likely to be enforced because there is no official enforcing body. They can be enforce if the problem is bad enough as a neighborhood where we once lived, discovered.

I find that most HOA organizations are too restrictive and heavy handed, but I also do not buy property that is covered by one, rather than to try and fight one that exists.

As a past HOA president, I quit mid-term due to the aggressive behavior by some homeowners. Currently we own a deeded lot in an RV park. Unfortunately nothing in this park is consistent. Rules for all don't seem to apply for some.

[Wandering One]

Deed restrictions are imposed on property to protect the value of the property they cover. Anyone who buys property receives a copy of the deed restrictions and is required to abide by them. If you don't like the deed restrictions, don't buy property that is covered by them. Most deed restrictions are designed to keep people from trashing the neighborhood, which happens. I was in the land development business in Houston for 20 years and can tell you from my own experience that people will push on the rules til somebody pushes back. HOA's are run by the people who live in the neighborhood and want to keep the neighborhood protected from people who don't conform with the rules. Some people will break a rule that strictly prohibits certain behavior (i.e. start a car repair business in their driveway). What does that do for your neighbors? Maybe having a trailer in the yard is not as bad as a car repair business, but bottom line is if it's prohibited it's against the rules. Just my two cents worth.

[parmm]

One usually has a attorney/lawyer when one closes on a property. It is the responsibility of that attorney/lawyer to inform his client of the deed restrictions or hoa restrictions before the client signs on the dotted line. If the attorney/lawyer failed to do that, go after him, because you are stuck until you can unload the property (if you can). I threw the "if you can" in there because I know of one deed restriction which said the new property owner could not sell as long as the previous property owner was alive.

[JM]

One usually has a attorney/lawyer when one closes on a property. It is the responsibility of that attorney/lawyer to inform his client of the deed restrictions or hoa restrictions before the client signs on the dotted line. If the attorney/lawyer failed to do that, go after him, because you are stuck until you can unload the property (if you can). I threw the "if you can" in there because I know of one deed restriction which said the new property owner could not sell as long as the previous property owner was alive.

Interesting observation. Laws pertaining to real estate transactions vary from state to state. In some states an attorney is not involved in the transaction. It is a real estate agent if not by owner, escrow company that may perform the duties attorneys do in other states and a title company.

The owner may not have had the RV when he bought the house or thought he would ever own any so wouldn't have paid attention to that section. His financials could have change and he couldn't afford to buy a bigger house to accommodate a RV.

As I read the original article it appeared that the HOA's rules were not clear nor enforced consistently. The problem with laws or CC&R's is interpretation and if they were not specifically detailed in the HOA disclosure or applied equally to all in the association there in lies the problem. Use of the "vernacular" is a RV a motorhome, fifth wheel, boat trailer, motorcycle hauler etc? toemaytoe, toematoe,

Many a lawsuit had been derailed or defendant set free due to "loopholes" in the wording and or timing of law. Attention to detail is the secret and costly. The one with the most money can hire the most researchers to find the precedents they need. Job security for attorneys, no two people read the same thing just read witness reports. Though they saw the same crash their accounts can vary widely.

[pinger]

HOA's were started oujt to keep junk cars off the streets and lawns,but like anything else it wants more and more control of your life..I cannot wait to get out of my HOA. Never again..

[Jack Mayer]

HOAs can be good or bad. It mostly depends on the people doing it, and on the original covenants.

I have mixed feelings on the entire thing. We own property in a very upscale RV deeded lot community. It has pretty strict covenants, and an HOA. We bought into that development PRIMARILY because of the strict covenants. Yes, there are things I would like to be able to do that I can not because of the covenants. It goes with the territory.... But overall, I prefer the covenants, assuming they continue to be enforced. The alternative is a trashy, junky RV environment that will hurt my property values and resale. I can live with the "evils" of the covenants and HOA....at least for now. When I can not, I will sell.