Is this abusive or not? Your opinion, please

George,
This is exactly the same type of case that my HOA went to court on. The HOA lost the case against the 2 Escalades, which we claimed were pickups and the owners claimed they were SUVs. I'll have to find the actual case name and number for ya'll to read. Cost?? About $60,000 which included their high profile attorney fees.

Nicole,
The covenant states that NO pickup trucks shall be parked in the driveways other than service people doing service at that resident. We all had 3 car garages so there was not really a space issue for the trucks to be INSIDE of the garage. That was the Covenant. The 2 guys who challenged were owners of Cadillac Escalade EXTs which are pickups or SUVs depending on who classified them. The Judge said that they were SUVs, therefore they did not have to park in the garages but the Fords, Chevys and all other pickups did. That doesn't sound fair to me either but to change the cov to allow trucks outside met with very strong opinions against the change to allow them out.

please define "pickup truck"

is it a truck used to make pickups?

if so, a plymouth voyager (classified by the DOT as a light truck) would also be included

look inside the driver's door frame for the DOT vehicle classification:
a passenger vehicle is not specifically defined but most SUVs (most crossovers excluded)are actually classed as light trucks

ps. my compact (passenger) Suzuki Aerio has a load capacity of 987 lbs, a (SUV) Ford Escape has 800 lbs

we HOA members all need to get real lives

read it and weep

As with almost all of these situations, the answer depends upon what is in the CC&Rs.

Typically, the CC&Rs define what kind of vehicles can be parked, and further may define that certain types of equipment must be in garages. If there are no restrictions, there are no restrictions — as Yogi would say.

Also the CC&Rs must define what authority the Association, or its Board, has to issue rules and regulations. If no authority is assigned, then there is no authority.

Normally, CC&Rs are interpreted for free use of property with ambiguities resolved against the party seeking enforcement.

More information about the CC&Rs is needed.

Jan,

"I think PPL should be able to drive and park whatever vehicle of their choosing" Well, there are alot of things that I think that I or you should be able to do BUT when we live in a HOA with CC&Rs, we do what we are required to do or not to do. That's the nature of the beast(HOA) It is not for us to argue whether we want to or not. Trucks, pools, fences, house paint color,, the list could fill pages of things that we might not like. But it is our choice to live that way or not.

I am just amazed daily at some of the situations people get themselves into with their rules or their Boards. So either get with the program or get out. Change what can be changed or accept it as the norm. From reading this site for a year, I know that many States are lax with little or no Laws or Statutes and others might be too much involved with the running of HOAs in their States. I wish for a happy medium.

Donna,

I certainly agree with what you have said, but this case is much different. This is an example of selective enforcement. The board only allows the "high-end" p/u's to be parked on the driveway. Fords and Chevy's don't qualify as classy enough to be seen on a driveway in their upscale neighborhood! Apparently this is a new rule.

Sorry! :-(

Sadly, this is what happens in many upscale neighborhoods. Some of the residents feel the need to flaunt their wealth and portray the image of being better than everyone else. I see it all the time where I live. Like I tell my grandchildren, just because someone lives in a fancy house, drives a fancy car and wears fancy clothes doesn't mean they're wealthy. Oftentimes many of these people don't have much money in the bank because all their money is spent on paying for the fancy house, car and clothes. Those are the type of people on this BOD, IMO. Everything is centered on the "image" portrayed. We can't have Chevy's parked in the driveway because it will make our neighborhood look lower class!

Sort of like Kingwood in the Houston area?

I have also been to court on this issue. In my case and many others, district and appellate courts have ruled that subject bylaws and oridinances are unresonable,unconstitutional, and in violation of individuals rights when it comes to the restricion of personal use passenger trucks. As for the language of HOA bylaws when it comes to the parking of commercial vehilcles most are arbitrary and ambiguous. However if the bylaw staes no pickup trucks then one has to abide by the rule or amend it.
I have done alot of research on this issue and found that most HOA boards assume the pickup is to be restricted even though the bylaws do not state restriction by model of truck. Which brings me to the fact that automobile manufacturers produce two types of passenger vehicles.
Cars which consist of the models sedan coupe and wagon. Trucks consting of the models suv pickup van. Commercial vehicles are not considered passenger vehicles. However, passenger vehicles can have the appearance of a commercial vehicle when signs are attached and equipment is attached. But as far as a pickup being considered a commercial vehicle is a personal opinion. A pickup is a passenger vehicle.

As a board member, we are in the middle of a huge mess in regards to this exact issue. Our CCR's state "commercial vehicles" The past board interpets this as big trucks with signage. The member that was fined has a pickup with signage. The board fines over and over, member states that CCR is ambiguous and says that the Rules and Regs state that all CA Vehicle Codes apply. He brings in the Vehicle Code and he is right. The CA Vehicle Code does define a commercial vehicle as anything that is able to transport a load and does state pickups are commercial vehicles. He even tells board to look on their truck registratin and it will say it is commercial vehicle. I did and he is right. Board disagrees and after months and months and several hearings the board changes the violation to say no home based business. Member says he does business on job sites, and only paperwork is done at his home. No signage, customers, deliveries, ect.
I come into this mess trying to figure out what is what. Meanwhile, board sends attorney bills to member, liens home, and this is where we are at.
This member was the one to tell me about this website and has posted hear several times on this issue. Of course there are 2 sides to every story but I have spent the past 3 days reading CCR's, state laws, vehicle codes, and trying to calm all parties. As of late last night, the member says remove the fines within 21 days or they will file suit. After reading all the infor talking to both sides, I tend to agree with the member, this board screwed up. Problem that the board is split 3-2 on continuing the fight. I really beleive that it is an ego problem now and being on of the 2 board memebers what do?

I think this issue gets at the very heart of association governance. One must ask, "Just what kind of community do we want to live in? Do we want to live in a community that is governed by covenants that are absolute, or do we want to be governed by an elected board which uses its wisdom and best judgment to create a community of neighbors.

In Jose's situation, you are not only talking about a neighbor's home, but also his means of employment.

But it is a double edged sword. A pick up truck is clearly defined as a commercial vehicle, and those are clearly prohibited. The homeowners should have known that before moving in.

At the same time, the definition of a pickup truck was likely made years and years ago, before the modern version of a pickup cum passenger vehicle emerged. Today, pickup trucks are as much passenger vehicles as are SUVs.

Have the neighbors complained? Is anyone other than a board member concerned about this violation? Is this a situation of "enforcing the rules, because "rules are rules'?" Or is there a legitimate reason to prohibit parking of a pickup truck?

So what do you do?

I would use extraordinary measures to avoid a lawsuit, even though there is a good probability that the homeowners association would prevail. The costs in terms of community spirit and neighborliness and other intangible elements is great. It pits owners against the association that is designed to serve them. That is not healthy.

If a lawsuit is filed, I would do everything in my power to delay it, hoping and working toward an out of court resolution that saves face for both sides.

This may be a situation where the association simply declines to take enforcement action, using its judgment that to pursue it would do more harm than the suit would solve. That is not "selective enforcement" as some would most certainly cry. It is using sound business judgment measuring the value of enforcement against the costs.

Egos on both sides need to stay out of this case.

Thankfully, in our community, the association has the right, but not the obligation to enforce covenant violations. Every homeowner as well as the association itself is empowered to sue for covenant violations. It means that the governing board does not have to be the covenant police, nor do they have to prosecute every violation.

The whole thing with what is a commercial vehicles depends on definition. If you want to be sure of a ban on the vehicles, then you define what a commercial vehicle is.

Since you don't have a definition, it would typically fall back to "common usage" though some states may decide that if their law has a definition this should take precedence.

A big issue that I see, is that the Board can't seem to make up its mind on what the issue is and now is fighting to be right. The unfortunate thing is that you are on the minority side of the Board.

I know you are really struggling with this issue. And it would appear that things are getting worse rather then better. You may need to take this fight to the ownership and engage in a recall effort for the remaining three members of the Board. Hopefully then you can figure out where you want to go.

I would recommend that you amend your documents to define what is a commercial vehicle. I don't see anything wrong with prohibiting signs on the vehicles. It would seem more fair then saying pickups. But make the definition something that is as clear as you can get.

My suggestion given what you have said (and not knowing all of the story) is that the issue really should be dropped and the terms defined.

Anyone interested in resolving this issue please sign this inline petition. I will present the results to legislators. Please pass along ot anyne else having same interest.
http://gopetition.com/petitions/noncommercial-pickups.html

Enforcable only in communities where the bylaw actually states 'no pickup trucks', in communities where bylaws state 'trucks' in general,
this is where HOA boards assume pickups are to be restricted as in my case which went to the appellate level as did several other cases.
Regardless, it is an unfair rule just because someone or some people dislike the model of passenger vehicle one has chosen.
I understand what you are talking about. Good point.

I don't really think this is as much an issue about liking or not liking a particular model of passenger vehicle.

I think it has to do more with the idea that, in some localities, more often than not "pick up trucks," or "trucks" in general are more or less "service" or "work" trucks.

In our part of the world, trucks are generally more "run down" looking and beat-up looking than traditional passenger vehicles. Oh sure, you have your hoopdies, but trucks probably got nailed from the condition they get in from their more sweaty usage than simply because they are "trucks."

So while Abe and Victor may have a primo hot red, nice and shiney Ford FXXX, that looks as purty as the day they purchased them, Rupert, Samson, Treat, and Cletus have rusty, run-down, beat-up looking (or maybe just plain muddy) work trucks that only see water in the rain.

So as to not ucky up the curb appeal of the neighborhood, "trucks" in general, then, were restricted to the garage.

I could be wrong and I could be exaggerating a bit, but I'm guessing it does really have more to do with that aspect of a truck's "function" than anything else.

MOST CC&Rs are set up to resemble a shotgun approach than a targeted, zeroed-in rifle approach.

I'm guessing you may have just skimmed over my post and not read it thoroughly?

While it's true that passenger cars can get unkempt, in many locales, mine included, the "truck" has historically been used as a work vehicle. And it's not purty work.

Of course that's "old school" thinking and it's most likely that many of these boilerplate CC&Rs were drafted before "trucks" cost upwards of $20,000 to $35,000 and more and, as "big boys toys" are in better shape than most passenger cars.

It was just a guess on my part, but it's likely a shotgun approach in areas where "trucks" were pretty much a dirty deeds sort of vehicle and not something necessarily well-thought out or a dislike of "trucks" per se.

The point is, if the community does not have that shared organizational learning or memory of "trucks=ugliness" and the residents have no problem striking the restriction, then those who care might want to do the legwork to eliminate it.

In South Florida everybody is suing everybody.....too many lawyers. I lived there years ago.

Donna, did you drag your FL HOA to court while serving on the board ???

Sorry, got interupted. Anyhow, a personal injury lawyer lived across the street from the 2 vehicles in question. She was adamant that the HOA enforce the no truck parking. She wrote a letter to the HOA attorney and said "Enforce or I will sue the Board for not enforcing" Next door to her was a Ford pickup who had been forced to put his truck in the garage. He also pointed a finger at the Escallades as not being in compliance. We went to mediation -TWICE and failed to compromise. It had to go to court. This took 2 and a half years and 3 differnt Boards.

The BYLAWS stated that all pickup trucks were required to be parked inside of the structure, aka garages at all times except for ingress and egress. The then Board slacked off a little and let the trucks come and go for short times. The first Board asked the members if they should enforce the covenant. It was an overwhelming "YES"

Now for Dans post. There were 5 different charges in the filing of the case.

1) Were the Escallades pick up trucks?
2) Did the HOA enforce unequally--selective enforcement?
3) Was the Covenant clear and legal to enforce?
4) Did the HOA use Estopple?
5) I cannot remember but it was some undue action or something.

The HOA WON NUMBER 2 THRU 5. THE JUDGE RULED THAT THE HOA FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE ESCALLADES WERE PICKUPS. HE STATED THAT WE COULD ENFORCE AGAINST ALL PICKUPS BECAUSE THE COVENANT STATED THAT WE COULD.

Did the Board want to go this far? I can assure you that the answer was NO. The Escallade guys stated that we could have dropped the case but members were saying no to that. It caused many hard feelings amoung the members.

FOOTNOTE!! Both guys no longer live there. One was forclosed on by IRS and other "downsized "out into the boonies.