Member's Adult Child Violating Covenants

Hello All,

We have a 138-member Association in Chester County Pennsylvania.

Late last summer, one of our Members started having a very large boat parked in their driveway. They received a warning, informing them that boats aren't allowed to be parked on the premises, and any future violation would result in a fine. Well, in early December the boat was back. So a letter was sent informing the Member that the original letter specified that any future infractions would result in a fine. The original letter and a bill for $25 were included.

Ten days later, the Board received a certified letter from the Member's adult son (who may have recently moved back home) requesting a hearing on the matter and stating that the Covenants DO allow boats to be packed "for short periods of time". His evidence was the section stating "for more than thirty (30) days." below, even though that clause occurs in a separate sentence:

"No boat, boat or utility trailer, motor home, house trailer in excess of 20 feet in length, or truck exceeding three-quarter (¾) ton capacity, shall be parked on any part of the premises. No unlicensed, uninspected, or inoperable motor vehicle may be stored on the premises or parked on any part thereof, for more than thirty (30) days."

His request for a hearing was denied, because his claim was not a valid one. I can "cherry-pick" various sentences our documents and recombine them to make them say anything I want, but that doesn't make my new sentences in any way valid.

I question whether the Board should be spending time going back and forth with this person, since he is not the homeowner. Does he even have standing to request a hearing? He has sent another certified letter arguing the interpretation of the section in question. I am tempted to refer him to the Association's attorney, but I don't feel that our community should have to pay for the consultation.

Any suggestions on how to handle this situation? His mother is an elderly lady, and I'd hate for her to get caught in the middle of this mess.

Thanks so much.

Peny,

I agree with Tim, a hearing should have been held. You were wrong to deny the request. The purpose of the hearing is to set the matter straight with regard to the different interpretations of the CCRs.

In most associations I am aware of, no fine can be levied without a hearing first. Usually, most CCRs and/or state laws require a hearing first. According to our attorney, here in Connecticut, the court will not uphold any fine that is levied prior to a hearing. In my opinion, you should have sent a notice of hearing and not a bill. Then, after explaining the proper interpretation to the unit owner, the unit owner should have been given an additional period to comply (10 days, 30 days, whatever) after which time the fine would be levied. You wouldn't want some police officer to issue you a citation without you having an opportunity to have a hearing before paying the fine, would you? You need to give the same opportunity to the unit owner.

Also, you should not be dealing with the son. You should be dealing with the unit owner(s).

It appears to me that your documents may be in conflict with Pennsylvania law and therefor may be unenforceable.

Both the Uniform Condominium Act (Sect. 3302) and the Uniform Planned Community Act (Sect. 5202) include a section that reads:

"Impose charges for late payment of assessments and, after notice and an opportunity to be heard, levy reasonable fines for violations of the declaration, bylaws and rules and regulations of the association."

By denying the request for a hearing, your board, in my opinion, violated this provision of law. The clause in your documents that a unit owner must provide a "valid" reason for a hearing is unenforceable because the purpose of a hearing is to determine the validity of the argument. Your board unilaterally determined that the argument was invalid without a hearing, which it cannot do.

My guess is that if the unit owner refuses to pay the fine and if the issue winds up in court, whether action is brought by the association or the unit owner, the association will lose.

I suggest the board reconsider and hold the hearing to protect itself. Better safe than sorry.

I agree with Susan. It appears to be two seperate rules.
Hopefully you at least sent a letter explaining the reason for the denial.
We only deal with the owner. I assume the fine and any communication was sent to the owner.

Peny,

First I want to point out that I agree with the Boards interpretation that the sentence used in the defense wasn't applicable. However, I kept trying to look at it from another perspective and I now see how an individual might have misinterpreted that one sentence:

Merriam Webster defines a motor vehicle as a motorized vehicle with wheels that is not used on rails. However, if you were to look at each word separately rather then as a group, you see that the dictionary defines motor as "a small compact engine" and vehicle as "a means of carrying or transporting something".

Therefore, it's possible that the member's son interpreted the second line to indicate any inoperable vehicle with a motor (aka the boat). Based on this possible interpretation, if the Boat was inoperable at the time, then the vehicle could be parked on the property for up to 30 days.

Board members who are use to seeing the legalize the documents are written in should always try to remember that what might be clear to them might not be to others who don't deal with the documents all the time.

Not knowing how far back this issue was, your Board might want to consider holding the hearing. The Board can simply state that they have reconsidered the request. The Board can still apply the fine but they might be building some good will by holding the hearing.

Tim