Rule interpretation please

Thanks to all that help out on this site, always good feedback.

There is a parking rule which we need help in interpreting

"No garage or carport shall be converted to living quarters or used for storage, hobbies or
recreational activities if those conversions or nonparking uses will prevent the parking of the
number of vehicles within the garage or carport for which it was designed."

"Each resident owner shall park at least one (1) Authorized Vehicle within
the unit’s garage or carport before parking any additional vehicles with the common area."

All of our units have either a 2 car garage or a 1 car garage/1 car carport.

Several of us argue that this means you can't use half of your parking area for storing junk, then park 1 car in the other space, and be in compliance. We feel that the other space still needs to be able to accomodate a vehicle, whether or not you choose to park a vehicle there.

So using 1 space for parking and 1 for storage or a carport conversion is not OK.

I might read it different;

"Each resident owner shall park at least one (1) Authorized Vehicle within
the unit’s garage or carport before parking any additional vehicles with the common area."

If I have at least one vehicle parked in the carport (no matter how big the carport and/or vehicle) then I can now park the 2nd vehicle in the common area.

Carports/garages of not that long ago were never designed (as in big enough) to park a humongous SUV in. I doubt two humongous SUV's could fit in a carport once designed for two cars.

In my last two car garage home, only one of our vehicles could fit in on one side. Thus if we had two vehicles of the same size, only one of them could have fit in our two car garage.

Fitting side by side an unable to open doors is not fitting in..........LOL

I see it as a poorly written rule.

"No garage or carport shall be converted to living quarters or used for storage, hobbies or recreational activities if those conversions or nonparking uses will prevent the parking of the number of vehicles within the garage or carport for which it was designed."

The first citation is better and, in my opinion, properly worded. The garage/carport may not be used for anything that will prevent the garage/carport from housing the number of vehicles it was designed for (1 car, 2 cars, etc.). Unfortunately that one paragraph does not require the vehicles to be physically parked in the garage. It only prevents the garage from being used for anything that would prevent vehicles from being parked there. I suspect that the author expected that if the space is available, members would use it to park vehicles. Good intent, poor wording.

"Each resident owner shall park at least one (1) Authorized Vehicle within the unit’s garage or carport before parking any additional vehicles with the common area."

This second citation appears to be an attempt to clarify the first. Unfortunately this attempt failed. This section is very clear that only one vehicle must be parked within the garage (even if it is a multi-car garage/carport). The author of this section intentionally (because they wanted the extra space in the garage) or unintentionally (because they didn't think of multi-car garages) failed to require multi-car garages to house more than one vehicle. Personally, by use of the words "at least" I believe that it was intentional.

Therefore, based on the language used, I would interpret it this way:

Garages/carports may not be used for anything that prevents the garage/carport from housing the number of vehicles it was designed for. However, irregardless of the design, only one vehicle must be parked within the structure before other parking options (common area) may be used.

BTW did anyone notice that the second section only applies to "resident owners" and not all residents? Again, a poor choice of words used when adopting that rule.

If the board wants to require Garages/carports to be used for the number of spaces they are designed to hold prior to using common area parking spaces, then the second citation needs to be amended. Perhaps to (hopefully this will work):

Each resident owner shall park at least one (1) Authorized Vehicles within the unit’s garage or carport, utilizing the full designed capacity of the garage or carport before parking any additional vehicles with the common area."

If the strike through didn't work:

Each resident shall park authorized Vehicles within the unit’s garage or carport, utilizing the full designed capacity of the garage or carport, before parking any additional vehicles with the common area.

Hope this helps,

Tim

Great input, we do not have driveways.

People do use the excuse about vehicle size, too often frankly.

My interpretation is:

A car in 1 side and junk/boxes/workbench/coke machine, etc. in the other is against the meaning of the rule.

If you only have 1 car, the other side of the garage still needs to be clear.

If you have a carport/garage setup, a car needs to be able to fit in each.

Thomas

You also said:

"No garage or carport shall be converted to living quarters or used for storage, hobbies or recreational activities if those conversions or nonparking uses will prevent the parking of the number of vehicles within the garage or carport for which it was designed."

One could park two of the newer small cars (Chrysler, Fiat 500) and still have room for a wrokbench, coke machine, etc.

As some have said. The rules need review and modifying.

How about something like this?

1. If a property owner requests additional parking space in the common area, their existing parking spaces are to be used only for the parking of vehicles.

2. The Association Compliance Inspector will verify that the above rule is being implemented.

3. Requests for parking vehicles not able to fit in existing parking spaces in the common area will be reviewed on an individual case basis by the Board of Directors.

Paul T

Thomas

The problems with this association are far, far, far beyond someone parking to few or to many vehicles in their carport.

Sorry to say but I would call it a trash, low rent neighborhood.

My advice is get out of it ASAP.

I didn't see John's post before my last one. I was trying to be polite but John has it right, bullseye, John.

Paul T

Thomas,

You would have to prove that your home lost value due to actions of the Board vs. anything else (like the economy, housing bubble, bad loans, politics, rise in crime, taxes, cost of utilities, school system, etc.). Typically an impossibility.

To be fair, even if you prove it was due to the Boards failure to enforce rules then you and your neighbors would also be responsible as, similar to the Board, the documents gave you the authority to enforce the rules through the courts but you chose not to (just as your board is choosing not to enforce). Remember being authorized to do something is not the same thing as being required to do it.

If you do prove it was partially caused by actions of the Board, the Board is typically insulated by the business judgment rule. Providing the board acts for the purposes of the cooperative, within the scope of its authority and in good faith, courts will not substitute their judgment for the board’s. It is not illegal to err or even cause financial loss or other harm provided that the board can demonstrate reasonable investigation, consideration, thoroughness, and good business judgment in reaching its decisions. A complainant must establish that a board acted negligently, willfully in bad faith, outside of its authority, or for discriminatory purposes. The mere fact that a decision turned out to be unwise or incorrect does not make Board members liable for any resulting harm or loss.

FYI: Here is a link to CA Corporate Code Sections 300-318 which addresses the business judgement rule in California.