Victory for Pick up Truck Owner

Odessa truck owner beats Eagles Master Association lawsuit
[Florida, not Texas]
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/article939209.ece

He accused the Eagles of selectively enforcing the deed restriction. In some instances, Vizzi said, SUV owners received clearance to park their vehicles in their driveways, even though the state Department of Motor Vehicles may have classified the automobiles as trucks.

Now, Vizzi says, his neighbors will be forced to pay legal fees for a fight over something he describes as "so trivial."

"They could have used that money to buy a park," he said. "They've been promising the community that for years."

George, this is in my neck of the woods and has been all over the news down here.

Times change...and this is proof. Vehicles change....again, proof.

In this case, we're not talking about a little shabby neighborhood, either. Nor a condo complex. It's a community of single family homes. Beautiful, nice homes.

I'm a "stickler" for rules, but sometimes the rules have to change; according to the times.

I'd just thought I'd reply since no one else did...LOL

Actually, I am quite surprised by the responses. I posted this thread more for informational purposes than anything else. I made no comment one way or the other regarding my opinion of its propriety or validity. It is a follow up to a lengthy discussion several weeks ago about a similar pickup truck situation in Texas that got off into a discussion of who likes Hummers parked in their neighbor's driveway.

In this case the judge ruled (apparently) that given the contemporary blurring of lines between classic passenger vehicles and classic trucks, the common sense view of the covenant restriction is to prohibit commercial vehicles. If such were, indeed, the concern of the board of directors, the board could have sought a declaratory judgment from the court at far less cost, rather than suing an association member to find out the same thing. Perhaps that was a course of action the attorney for the plaintiff advised, perhaps not.

For the association, this is an expensive way to learn. It gets back to the notion that enforcement of rules and covenants must be tempered by the value of the outcome. Sometimes, enforcement of covenant restrictions is not in the best interests of the association. It is up to the board of directors to use its collective judgment and wisdom to make such a determination (and do so in a consistent manner). Unlike a number of "enforce or change" advocates, I do not hold to the notion that "I have not seen a covenant that should not be enforced." It also gets back to an even more fundamental notion that the first duty of the board is to the members of the association, not to the association itself as a corporate entity.

George,
Well this little topic (so to speak) has opened the door to some fundamental principals governing all HOA's.
First, would we all have the knowledge, as you do, to be able to analyse all sorts of conflicts and pick the most effecient, cost effective way to solve them. For the most part we sort of stumble around (on the whole) because of the constant change and turnover in our assoc.

We are still faced with what is in front of our face and how we conduct our affairs. I certainly see the rationale behind your conclusion the first duty of the Board is to the members welfare and desires. I just don't agree because we are not a stable group of owners nor a stable group of owners charged with the formation, and enforcement of rules, regulations and life styles, to name a few.
The only thing stable in our closed society is the association. All Boards depend and defer to some degree on their covenants and their "treatment" of the members is dependent on their interpretation. From what I have absorbed out of the my knowledge base about HOA's I tend to support "enforce and change", maybe a small difference from "enforce or change". I also have come to realize time plays a big part in this residential business. There is probably little that is going to require any assoc to run out and conduct a fire drill about something in their documents. You are better served if there is a constant scruntiny by the management to take the pulse of these assoc. Too many boards seem content if no one complains, er. go. they must be happy. True, people do change but conditions are in a constant flux. I have no answers for anyone or any desire to be a right fighter. But over the years I derive more comfort in my documents than I do in my fellow owners (whoever they are at the moment)and members of the Board having the where-with-all to always make the right decisions.

But there are exceptions to the above, necessitated by the "man on the street" actions toward his desires and "rights" (or not rights). Ali said, Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee. Somehow this seems relevant at this time.

This type of comparison is generally ludicrous.

Characterizing my position as enabling an association board of directors to
"ignore" covenants creates a straw man (a fabricated or conveniently weak or innocuous person, object, matter, etc., used as a seeming adversary or argument), is not helpful in the discussion at hand.

I do not advocate (or even imply) that a board should "ignore" covenants in a decision to enforce or not. Indeed, I would advocate just the opposite: that a decision not to enforce should be done carefully, with rational discussion, full and thoughtful consideration, and documentation. It should also be consistently applied. Covenants, like laws, are best tempered with justice and wisdom. What is in the best interest of the members of the association (rather than a slavish adherence to a set of written restrictions) ought to be the principle guiding the board in any decision to enforce or not enforce.

Some might see my position on this principle to be inconsistent with my strict constructionist stand on the Constitution of the United States. But no, there are key differences, among them the lack of adequate and effective checks and balances and separation of powers which do not obtain, typically, in a homeowners association.

Aw folks,
I think you are a little tough on George. You don't have to agree with him all the time to appreciaite his skills and knowledge. I think he adds a great deal to this board.

I am sure we could pick apart any post we want, and even though George at times tends to come across as it is his way or the highway, I wouldn't want to discard all the good stuff he conveys. But I am also sure George can write his own defense and probably receive an acquital from the Judge, if we had one, but we don't.

I would agree more with Glen on this one and since he seems to be up all hours, like me, I also add a couple points in his favor for that. Domestic duty calls in my case and the joy of sleeping all night is not to be mine. But the benefits of the quietness of the night I find soothing at times and I find that people that post late at night are more reflective and quieter. I also believe that about Glen, but then what the hell do I know.

Michelle,

I second that! :-)

George you are a true political animal, decrying something as unfair while using it yourself; as my momma used to say. "Pot meet kettle, kettle meet pot." And if there is another way to interpret you saying: "Sometimes, enforcement of covenant restrictions is not in the best interests of the association. It is up to the board of directors to use its collective judgment and wisdom to make such a determination (and do so in a consistent manner). Unlike a number of "enforce or change" advocates, I do not hold to the notion that "I have not seen a covenant that should not be enforced." I truly do not see it.

I welcome everyone's viewpoint even if I don’t happen to agree with it, civil discourse is always welcomed here. While most here generally side with the HOA's point of view, I mean that is the point of the forum; when we think an HOA is in the wrong we let them know that too. While I can't guarantee I've read all of your posts, I have read the majority of them and they seem to fall into three categories:

A reprint of news stories where some HOA did something stupid.

Talk of how glad you are that Indiana courts have ruled that Covenants are unenforceable.

Pressing for legislation that seems designed to hamstring the day to day operation of HOA's.

Which is fine, we know where you are coming from and I for one like that but don't take umbrage when someone dares to disagree with you.

William,
I could ask the same of you. But I won't because I think you are part right and am one of the more guilty party's you refer to.

I hope that doesn't come as a shock that we are not perfect, you also forgot to mention that some of our advice may be in left field at times, guilty there also.

How in the world did you stand it to lurk around and are still lurking, or just came out of the closet. First, I really don't believe there is any of us that takes ourselve too seriously. We come, we go, some do good, some do bad. But, we sure don't all get together and decide to act in consort, so cut us a little slack, and join in, I think your posts have been helpful, just as I think this one is.

See I am learning already, not one nested quote.

Nested quotes. . . you mean like this?


Also, I'm sensing a round of pot and kettle calling. . .


So I guess we can re-direct the question back on you (I mean, given you just "judge[d]," "chastize[d]," AND "ridicule[d]" all in the same question...)

Does it make you feel better or more significant?