The Cadillac EXTs and Court case

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.

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?

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We're stumbling over a similar problem in that our outdated docs specify that a commercial vehicle is commercial if it's defined as a 3/4 ton (or higher) vehicle.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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yes, that was the reason, we initiated it .