The Cadillac EXTs and Court case > HOA Forum

Unanswered

Active Topics

Forums

Forums > Homeowner Association > HOA Discussions

Subject: The Cadillac EXTs and Court case

Prev Next

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Author

Messages

DonnaS
(Tennessee)

Posts:2299

04/17/2008 10:04 AM
Those of you who regularly are on this site might have remembered our court case against 2 owners of Cadillac Escalade EXTs and our NO PARKING OF TRUCKS ouside of the garages enforcement issue. After 2 years, 2 mediations and a 3 day court case that cost the association $65,000, the Judge ordered that the EXT's were NOT pick ups and could remain parked outside of their garages. Wouldn't you know or couldn't we have figured, both of these Dudes are out of the community. One got lucky and sold his home but the other one is in foreclosure and had to leave. So we lost the case but gained some sanity back in the community. By the way, the Judge told us that the covenant WAS enforceable and we continue to do so with no problems.

MikeS1
(Virginia)

Posts:614

04/17/2008 10:33 AM
Sorry - I'm confused here... What was the covenant?.. and why was it enforcable. It sounds as if you were trying to say that the EXTs were trucks and therefore could not be parked outside the home. Straighten me out here.. pls.

HaroldS
(Arizona)

Posts:904

04/17/2008 10:36 AM
Well at least those two Escalade dudes will not have to pay their share of your $65,000 special assessment to pay for your loss. Were they or anyone defending the lawsuit? Do you have to pay those costs?

DonnaS
(Tennessee)

Posts:2299

04/17/2008 10:50 AM
Sorry Mike, This has been a topic of mine a couple of times. Our cov says that no pickup trucks may be parked outside of the garages. The 2 EXT guys said that they were NOT pick-ups and we were okay with that . Then their Lawyer neighbor, who could not get along with them or most others, sent a letter to our Board and copy to the association lawyer, that she would sue the Board for NOT enforcing the pick-up cov. She stated that because she was a lawyer, she could outlast us and we believed that she could and would. We did 2 mediations that were unsuccessful and ended up in court. The Judge ruled that the EXT's were not pick-ups but that the covenant that we had was correct, understandable and enforceable. Because we initiated the suit, we paid. It was a 3 day trial with tons of witnesses from G.M,, Cadillac,depositions from everyone, thus the high cost.

MikeS1
(Virginia)

Posts:614

04/17/2008 11:13 AM
So when you say that they covenant is corrent and enforcable, does this mean that the coventants were allowed or disallowed? We're stumbling over a similar problem in that our outdated docs specify that a commercial vehicle is commercial if it's defined as a 3/4 ton (or higher) vehicle. Our docs dont' disallow pickups per se, unless they are 3/4 ton +. Our spaces are designed for compacts so if you park 3/4 SUVs and or pickups side by side, it leaves about 14 inches between the vehicles. Not cool, considering the oost.

DonnaS
(Tennessee)

Posts:2299

04/17/2008 11:20 AM
Mike, The covenants were allowed. In the testimony part, the defendants had suppoenaed the original Developer to testify what his "intent" was for that no pick-up covenant. He did not help the HOA because he said that he wanted to keep commercial type vehicles inside of the garages but after he was done, the Judge said that he felt that the wording was very clear and it meant No pick-ups outside, period. There is another thread on "Intent" of the rules and covs which is a whole nother story. This goes on forever and probably will never have resolution in HOAs

BrianB
(California)

Posts:1591

04/17/2008 11:21 AM
what donna is saying is that the judge stated their covenant WERE enforceable, however, that Cadillac EXT's were not trucks, and thus, although enforceable, the covenant didn't apply. So, they now know that if someone ELSE parks a TRUCK in the driveway, the would win in court. But an EXT is not, in the eyes of this judge, a truck.

MikeS1
(Virginia)

Posts:614

04/17/2008 1:13 PM
Thanks Brian! ..and Donna.. and what would you call my GMC Yukon XL Denali? I'm curious...

DonnaS
(Tennessee)

Posts:2299

04/17/2008 1:43 PM
BIG!!! Brian, Thanks for the easy explaination for me. Yes, we still enforce on all pick-ups. Here is where it gets tough. Chevy Avalanches and a Honda Ridgeline also have similar models of pick-up/Suvs The ruling was anything with a seperate bed, With the new Hybreds and all of the new models are driving this to an unknown classification of vehicles. The Cads and similars are UNIBODY, therefore the bed is NOT seperate from the cab. Now who here is not confused?

TracyT
(Maryland)

Posts:220

04/17/2008 2:36 PM
Thanks for the update Donna. What a shame though that your HOA had to react to a threat. Did you lawyer ever advise you that this was a bad move? In retro-spect it seems that you might have been better off defending your self against that apparently loony lawyer neighbor.

DonnaS
(Tennessee)

Posts:2299

04/17/2008 2:46 PM
Tracy, Defending ourselves against this neighbor/lawyer was always discussed, very regularly and it was devil if we do or devil if we don't with her. A personal injury gal, you know the type. But our very wise attorney said that in looking back at this, we did make the right decision to go after the trucks/ oops, suv's. There were Avalanches and Ridgelines and others who would have challenged the covenant so we really needed a difinitive answer. Too bad that it cost so much. What I got out of this was and I always have been on this idea, that these kind of trucks did not bother me being out. Big trucks that are obviously work trucks bothered me, junky ones and that sort were not okay with me but I am one out of 565 homes. Most people wanted enforcement but did not want to go to court. Oh well, ya gotta do what you gotta do.

BobT2
(California)

Posts:43

04/17/2008 3:06 PM
I am fighting my hoa on the same type issue so I find this very interesting. Our CCR's say trucks, not pickups. My hoa says they get to chose which trucks they say must be put behind a fence and which ones dont need to go behind Their stance is that pickups are fine but anything else is not. Since our CCR's have no definition of trucks we went to the CA Vehicle Code that defines which are trucks and which are not. Did you ever check your state codes for clarification and if so what did you come up with? I would like to get some more information to my hoa on this case and maybe keep us from going to court and spending anymore funds.Can you tell me where I can find this court case information? Thanks

JohnB7
(South Carolina)

Posts:31

04/17/2008 3:20 PM
Look at the DOT sticker behind the driver door. It will state either: Passenger Vehicle Light Truck (eg. Dodge Caravan) Truck If the covenants state 'no trucks' many SUVs would/will be included. If they state 'no pick-up trucks' all SUVs are OK. If they state 'no commercial vehicle' it would be a signage/ladder rack/tool box or REGISTRATION/license plate issue.

DonnaS
(Tennessee)

Posts:2299

04/17/2008 3:22 PM
Bob, Actually , our entire Covenant reads that "In event of a conflict in the classification of a vehicle, the State of Florida's vehicle classification shall prevail. In our case, 2002 EXTs were pick-up trucks and the 2004 EXTs were SUVs. G.M changed what they call them somewhere in between the 2 years because they "segmented" them. Anyone who pays $60,000 for a truck, doesn't want to call it a truck so that's where we got the goofiness. There are several court cases like this in Florida so just Google it.

BrianB
(California)

Posts:1591

04/17/2008 3:32 PM
Posted By JohnB7 on 04/17/2008 3:20 PM Look at the DOT sticker behind the driver door. It will state either: Passenger Vehicle Light Truck (eg. Dodge Caravan) Truck If the covenants state 'no trucks' many SUVs would/will be included. If they state 'no pick-up trucks' all SUVs are OK. If they state 'no commercial vehicle' it would be a signage/ladder rack/tool box or REGISTRATION/license plate issue. Except in California, where all pick up trucks are commercial vehicles (light truck or normal truck). All are commercial vehicles by DMV law.

HaroldS
(Arizona)

Posts:904

04/17/2008 3:44 PM
The confusion is in outdated covenants that refer to "pickup truck." Which kicks in HOA "interpretation rights", which kick in expensive challenges. I can see a cottage industry here for a clever attorney advertising nationwide "Has your vehicle been discriminated upon by your HOA board?" going around the country challenging HOAs' interpretations of "pickup truck," since the vehicle looked down upon as a "pickup truck" has evolved into something else today. Actually it looked like your HOA was okay with these vehicles, but was bullied by a member "lawyer" to pursue enforcement. She should be made to pay those expenses entirely.

GlenL
(Ohio)

Posts:1221

04/18/2008 1:00 AM
Donna you need something like what is in Ohio's condo law which lets homeowners bring suit against other H/O to enforce the covenants if the BOD fails to; that way the BOD could have ruled that the EXT's were not pickups and let lawyer lady sue, then she would be out her time and money. Sec. 5311.19. (A) All unit owners, their tenants, all persons lawfully in possession and control of any part of a condominium property, and the unit owners association of a condominium property shall comply with all covenants, conditions, and restrictions set forth in a deed to which they are subject or in the declaration, the bylaws, or the rules of the unit owners association, as lawfully amended. Violations of those covenants, conditions, or restrictions shall be grounds for the unit owners association or any unit owner to commence a civil action for damages, injunctive relief, or both, and an award of court costs and reasonable attorney's fees in both types of action. Sec. 5311.23. (A) A declarant, developer, agent, or unit owner, or any person entitled to occupy a unit is liable in damages in a civil action for harm caused to any person or to the unit owners association by that individual's failure to comply with any lawful provision of the condominium instruments. (B) Any interested person, including a unit owners association, may commence an action for a declaratory judgment to determine that person's legal relations under the condominium instruments or to obtain an injunction against a declarant, developer, agent, unit owner, or person entitled to occupy a unit who refuses to comply, or threatens to refuse to comply, with a provision of the condominium instruments. (C) In connection with either type of action described in this section, one or more unit owners may bring a class action on behalf of all unit owners. The lawful provisions of the condominium instruments, if necessary to carry out their purposes, may be enforced in either type of action against the condominium property or any person who owns or previously has owned any estate or interest in the condominium property. (D) An action by the unit owners association under this section may be commenced by the association in its own name, in the name of the board of directors, or in the name of the association's managing agent.

GlenL
(Ohio)

Posts:1221

04/18/2008 1:01 AM
Oops I meant sue them

DonnaS
(Tennessee)

Posts:2299

04/18/2008 3:58 AM
Actually Glen, we as homeowners DO have the right to sue each other for non compliances per our Documents and the State of Florida. The chink here was that she threatened to sue the Board and our D&O insurance would not cover that because we were doing our job. No negligence on our part. There were 2 different Boards involved as we tried mediation twice and this evolved over 3 years. But thanks for the Ohio version of it.We had a good attorney from Palm Beach but a Judge sees things different that the lawyers. Actually, our attorney had a fairly good case to appeal but the Board said that enough was enough.

MicheleD
(Kentucky)

Posts:1444

04/18/2008 6:09 AM
Donna, this confuses me: "The chink here was that she threatened to sue the Board and our D&O insurance would not cover that because we were doing our job. No negligence on our part." Why this confuses me is because I thought that's exactly what D&O insurance was for: to protect board members from issues that arose from board members doing their job? Did you mean that the D&O insurance would not cover paying for the lawsuit you initiated to avoid being sued by a resident? That I can understand.

DonnaS
(Tennessee)

Posts:2299

04/18/2008 7:17 AM
Yes, that was the reason, we initiated it .

DonnaS
(Tennessee)

Posts:2299

04/18/2008 7:28 AM
In hindsight, we probably should have let her sue the Board but everyone was way too passionate for the cause and we did not hire the attorney until after we had already started a response to her. By then the thinking gets murky and we were the complaintants. As I said, this started with our first Board after turnover and by the time, we, the 2nd Board got it, we were knee deep in the process. The 1st Board went Bye Bye until the supeonas showed up and then everyone's memories seemed to fail. The only good thing that we had going was that our P.M. had kept very good records and minutes from 3 years back so we had documentation of all of the threats and tricks that the 2 dudes had been involved in. That part of the case(selective enforcement, illegal unenforceable covenant, estople,) we won but in the end, it was decided by the courts, that the EXT's were NOT pick-up trucks, therefore there was no judgement against the Dudes. Case dismissed in favor of the defendants

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Forums > Homeowner Association > HOA Discussions > The Cadillac EXTs and Court case

ActiveForums 3.6