Covenants and Trucks

Don't know what the point of posting this is. But in any case, it doesn't much matter what "most legal commentators" think. It only matters what the court says.

It means that, in most cases, the Covenant will stand intact and be enforceable.

passenger class vehicle, even if you add ladder racks or a utility bed, it is still a passenger class vehicle unless the utility bed exceeds the GVR.
The HOA can ban passenger class 4 cylinder vehicles if they wanted, it don't make it right and would be costly to defend and uphold.
Even if an HOA said no commercial plated or logo vehicles can be packed in the driveway, park it in the garage.

Many Judges are among the 'legal commentators' referenced in the quote.

Barring an 'over-riding' public concern the Covenant will stand. Possibly on appeal, but, it will stand.

Supposing one uses their Ford F-550 Pick-Up to haul merchandise ?



The original point was: A Covenant banning trucks WILL stand in court even if said truck is 'registered' noncommercial (passenger vehicle).

What if the judge owns an F-150 and knows the difference between a pickup and a truck? I mean, what if the judge DID have common sense??

Hey, it could happen!

The US government via the DOT has defined each individual vehicle with a 'sticker' inside the door jamb.

The Title to the vehicle has its 'class' listed.

A member may twist and squirm but the vehicle is identified by 'parties' outside the HOA.

Should the BOD decide otherwise the attorneys will profit at the HOA's expense.

I simply quoted a major law firm's understanding of the prevailing legal 'wind'.

ps. A person who uses a truck as a passenger vehicle is risking their, and their family's, safety.

I state the above with absolute certainty that there is no legal ramification to myself from the statement.

DOT classified trucks are NOT built to, nor do they need to meet, many of the minimum passenger vehicle safety standards - they are TRUCKS which 'may' carry, but are not primarily designed to, carry passengers.

While this may be an inconvenient truth, it is truth none-the-less.

As per the US DOT:

+ Table of US GVWR classifications

Class 5 Medium truck 16,001–19,500 pounds (7,258–8,845 kg) Ram 5500, GMC 5500, Ford F-550, International TerraStar

Further:

from: the NHTSA

..... Due to differences in federal regulation of passenger cars and LTs, this shift in ownership and use is marked by reductions in fleetwide fuel economy, relative increases in pollutant emissions, and changes in crash frequency and severity. .....

We are not trying to define commercial vehicle.

We are debating the definition of truck.

A truck may or may not be used in commerce.

A passenger vehicle may or may not be used in commerce.

There is another thread where, by Covenant, trucks are prohibited from ....... .

Not commercial vehicles, but trucks.

imo: the INTENT was to prohibit pickups as well as 'biggies'

No, because society can not afford them:

from: the NHTSA

..... Due to differences in federal regulation of passenger cars and LTs, this shift in ownership and use is marked by reductions in fleetwide fuel economy, relative increases in pollutant emissions, and changes in crash frequency and severity. .....

A 'pickup' and 'most' SUVs are Light Trucks (LTs).

The point is: If YOUR CONTRACT, a/k/a Covenant, restricts them, then THEY ARE RESTRICTED.

The 'reason(s)' for the restriction are immaterial.

To repeat the original post from this thread:

To re-repeat:

Freedom of contract is the vital legal principle at stake here, and
most legal commentators agree the government should not interfere in
parties' privately agreed contractual arrangements unless those terms
seriously conflict with public policy, to the extent that their
enforcement would be unconscionable.

I typed the "i'm out" one post too soon.

If it's not for passengers, then why so many doors??

http://macandchris.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/F350-400x300.jpg

You would lose in court, simple.

As I stated before, once you get up into the 550 gvwr rating, yes, it's a truck as defined by DOT regs. Not an F-150 or 250, or 1500, 2500 etc. Even my F350 is considered non-comercial. DOT does NOT consider me a "truck".

Okay, now I'm out.

While it may, or may not, depending upon use and registration, be commercial it is still, in fact, a light truck.

All vehicles sold in the USA must have a DOT required VIN / class 'sticker' affixed to the driver's door jamb.

examples:

truck;

http://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.ford-trucks.com-vbulletin/2000x1504/80-img_5412_04edc404fef31fedd5a240362dd081e0258b3062.jpg

http://www.vtcoa.com/forums/attachments/f7/25916d1209767604-black-rc-build-date-04-05-06-dscn1864.jpg

multi purpose vehicle (M.P.V.);

http://playtoysclassiccars.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/6412-Vin-Sticker.jpg

passenger;
http://car-bone.pl/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/carbone_vin_sticker_1994_993_99370111206_2-600x630.jpg

http://www.sspmustang.org/images/93_ssp_door_sticker_for_web_example.jpg

note that under or next to the VIN is the vehicle TYPE

see also: https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=vin+door+sticker&qpvt=vin+door+sticker&FORM=IGRE

These are the FACTS - The Federal Government has clearly what is and what is not a truck.

While it may be possible to register a truck as a non-commercial passenger carrying vehicle IT REMAINS A TRUCK.

(In NY State my 1989 light truck Dodge Caravan was registered as a suburban, but it remained a DOT LIGHT TRUCK not used for commerce.)

A HOA restriction on commercial vehicles is problematic and arguable.

A HOA restriction stating:

is 'crystal clear', unambiguous, and ENFORCEABLE against any and ALL trucks.

Just curious how much longer the horse is going to be beaten?

Apparently, a while longer...

I really like the way this one is written. It adds comedy to the absolutely stupid situation:

Article Courtesy of The St. Petersburg Times
By Daniel Ruth
Published April 2, 2010
It was a pitched battle as A.J. Vizzi faced an onslaught of fussbudgets, busybodies and, of course, the dreaded leviathan of paper pushers.

Oh, the David versus Gobbledygook of it all!

In 2001, Vizzi found himself cast as the Pretty Boy Floyd of fine print when he (perhaps this is a good time to remove any faint-hearted women and children from the room) had the reckless audacity to park his Ford F-350 in, of all places, his driveway.

Yes, he did. There. It had to be said.

Why in the time it took to say, "We are the knights who say ni," Vizzi's Eagles Master Association — the homeowners' association — leaped into action to demand their resident remove this foul object from public view.

Imagine the disgrace, the shame, the ill-repute the Eagles Master subdivisions in northwest Hillsborough were facing. One can only fathom the potential for scandal should an innocent visitor to Eagles Master, perhaps on the way to a contract bridge appointment, run the risk of passing by Vizzi's home and there, in full view, be exposed to the presence of a Ford F-350. Avert your eyes!

It didn't take long for the pinched Eagles Master homeowners' association to unleash the wrath of Aunt Bea on Vizzi as they thumped their rules, regulations and subparagraphs on the businessman, insisting, ordering and wailing that he remove his Ford F-350 from his driveway posthaste or sooner.

After all — someone might see it! Ooooey-goooey!

At issue was the Eagles Master homeowners' association judgment that Vizzi was in blatant, reckless disregard of the group's mandate that pickup trucks are expressively, forever and irrevocably forbidden from showing their bumpers in the sainted view of the neighborhood.

Cue the "Law & Order — Special Homeowner Association Unit" theme.

In short order, the hand-wringing homeowners' association started levying fines against the John Dillinger of driveways, even though Vizzi, who probably had a few ideas where the Eagles Master cluckers could park his truck, noted the vehicle wouldn't fit in his garage.

Yes, you are absolutely right. Enter the lawyers.

After years of back and forth between the glass company owner and the fretting HOA, and an additional six years of lawsuits — altogether nine years — Vizzi vs. Puckered Princes of Torts made its way through the legal system. The Bernie Madoff $13 billion Ponzi scheme case took less time to resolve in the courts. There are Guantanamo detainees who have been held in custody for fewer years. This legal brouhaha has spanned the administration of George W. Bush and well into Barack Obama's — all over a cockamamie pickup truck.

In 2008, a circuit court ruled in favor of Vizzi's right to park a truck in his driveway. And more recently, the 2nd District Court of Appeal also ruled in favor of Vizzi. All together now — Duh! As a result of the court decisions, the Eagles Master homeowner association is now on the hook to compensate Vizzi for $200,000 in legal fees expended to simply park his Ford F-350 on his private property.

I have a theory, which I've scribbled about in the past.

Quite simply, it is this: the United States will not fall and decline because of draconian recessions, or some invasion by a foreign power, or a plague of locusts, or some horrific natural disaster.

These real or imagined threats are but mere bagatelles compared to the foreboding menace posed by lanyard-wearing, kvetching keystone kops armed with their pocket protectors, their tape measures, their whistles, and their rule books, occupying their time measuring shrubbery, checking on the color of mailboxes or whether some real estate scofflaw has a pickup truck parked in his driveway.

Because the Eagles Master homeowners' association couldn't unwad their hoop skirts in the name of common sense, now the rest of the 1,130 residents of Orwell Estates may see their yearly dues used to pay off Vizzi's legal bills.

Just why anyone would want to live in some godforsaken subdivision home where one is under more surveillance than the FBI spying on a Michigan militia group of crackpots eludes me.

Over the course of his fight with the Eagles Master driveway Swiss Guards, Vizzi and his wife have attempted to sell their home, which only makes sense. After all, when you've become the Osama bin Laden of driveways, it probably doesn't make for particularly comfy neighborliness.

Alas, with a downer of a real estate market in recent years, they haven't had much luck in escaping from Potemkin Manor.

For the Vizzis' sake, one can only hope when they do find an eventual buyer the new resident comes equipped with that most important of all assets to please the Eagles Master homeowner association finger-waggers — a Smart Car For Two.

I actually agree.

A ban against 'commercial' is ambiguous.

A ban against PUs is vague (PU is slang).

But, a restriction which states (emphasis added) "No truck of any type......" is both clear and unambiguous.

My point is that a restriction which is clear and unambiguous will be found by most courts to be enforceable.

Else: contracts are meaningless

Tim,

The horse is now finished.

{1} They would be DOT classed as Multi Purpose Vehicle (MPV)

{2} Thank you for making my ORIGINAL point

now 94.5%

AND YET, courts rule against it all over this great land!!

Yes.

I too would like a definition of: no truck of any kind

Ahhhh... it must be nice to be so clueless.

Do you honestly believe that we exist in a world with a SINGLE, common definition of something as innocuous "motorcycle"?

"of any type" is a completely useless modifier to the prior noun. It means nothing. It adds nothing. It something is not considered a motorcycle (i.e. a moped) then adding "of any type" would never apply to a moped. You could prohibit motorcycles of any type all day long, but not exclude mopeds, which are not motorcycles.

You really don't get it, do you?

Tim,

The original point, which explains 'in general', why Covenants are enforceable: