Restricted Parking in AL

I know this subject has been discussed before, but I'm going to ask again in hopes of getting some suggestions. So, here's the short summary of my problem.

Our HOA recently decided that within the month, they are going to begin fining residents in violation of their "no parking on the street covenant."

The streets are county/city controlled, not HOA controlled.

Here the issue: This covenant was NOT in the original CRRs that the majority of the homeowners here signed and agreed to when the properties were purchased. It was added, by the developer at the request of a select few residents shortly before he turned the HOA over to the residents/elected board. There was never a vote by the residents or by an elected board to add this restriction.

They proposed "options", some of which may work for some residents to extend their driveway--basically adding concrete or pavers to the sides (which is limited as these are garden homes) to include more room for an additional vehicle. Problem being, some homes, like mine, have the big green utility boxes next to the driveway which makes the proposed solution impossible.

And advice would be appreciated.

Misty, unfortunately, if the Developer added the amendment BEFORE the turnover, it is very likely a legitimate and enforceable amendment.

Developers generally have the upper hand in amendments and also have the "votes" to carry any amendment to the covenants before turnover.

Many do exactly that. You may want to check and see if the amendment was actually properly filed in the deed room, however. If not, that may be an opening for you. But if it is, you are, as they say, S.O.L.

Also, it makes no difference if the streets are city-owned or public roads. All that means is that the local police won't enforce the HOA's covenants, not that HOA can't enforce them.

In many developments, the HOAs are entitled to enforce parking restrictions as per covenants, regardless of who actually owns the road.

All that being said, absent an improperly FILED amendment, the advice I would give you is to find a way to make room in your garage to properly store your vehicles in the garage and/or on the driveway.

SteveM9: With all due respect, you are more knee-jerk and reactionary than I am, and that's saying something. I have an excuse for my "roid rage," as I'm on prescription steroids. What's yours?

Who said anything about towing? You are getting all macho and "Imma gonna sue!" when nobody even said anything about towing! Misty said they are going to enforce with FINES.

But for the record, our documents allow us to tow. (And we have public/county-owned streets)

We, however, do not do so until we get a court order from a judge allowing us to enforce that particular covenant. We have not had to do it, but if and when we do, someone like you will have little luck winning any judgment, much less towing costs, legal costs or loss of income.

Macho man. sheesh.

Good, because "macho man" went out in the '80s, and macho men are NOT something women are attracted to, especially this one.

Nice to see you have your ego in check and can admit when you are wrong (no apology about jumping to the towing rant?) /sarcasm

Misty another way to go is to get enough like minded homeowners together to call a special meeting and vote to remove that covenant.

That doesn't make sense. An association has no authority over and shall not regulate any roadway, easement or other area for which the ownership or use has been dedicated to a governmental entity or that is otherwise under the legal authority of a governmental entity. An association has jurisdiction over only those roadways, easements and other areas that remain under the ownership of the association.

So while an association may make rules/covenants against things such as this, and people may pay them to "conform" they cannot be enforced in a court of law.

Thanks everyone for the suggestions. No, I have not posted abouts this issue here before. I did search and found several similar discussions, but none that were *exactly* the same.

I have checked, and yes, the ammendment adding this covenant as well as a few other specific ones were legitimately filed with the county before the developer actually turned the assn. over.

I WISH I did have a garage and that was an option. Of the 740 homes in the neighborhood, probably 75% of them have double garages and driveways big enoough for AT LEAST 2 more cars if not more. Unfortunately, for the other 25% of us, that is not the case. We have no garage and a driveway that BARELY fits two cars--our personal vehicles. Add to that my husband's (small) company car that he drives everyday, and we have no other options. We went over the CRRs prior to moving in to ensure there was nothing the would prevent his street parking the 3rd car--if there had been, we'd have never moved here. Our only option is to move, or for him to quit his job and enter an different line of work.

From what I can gather, there are a large number of residents that are not in agreement with this change. I think maybe my best option is to contact some of them and see if we can get together a petition or set a time to attend one of the monthy board meetings to try to push to have the matter voted on.
I have contacted the City to see if they had any input--doubtful, but it never hurts, right?

I will look into what you have suggested...thanks.

Approx 2 months prior to turning everything over, the developer instated a group of hand selected members on a "Interim Board" which were were told were to simply organize an election for a perm. board. Once elected, the dev. would turn everything over, which he did. It was at the request of 2 of these 'temp board' members that the changes were made by the developer. At the time, they expressed concern that if "it wasn't added now then it would have to be voted on and might not be passed." That was the extent of any "input".

Misty,
I have no reason to doubt your word and no authority to right any wrongs, but fact is fact, and your association, as an association accepted the documents from the developer. We can believe this action was the action of the developer because he had control of the Board, no matter who was on it and he had the authority to make the changes at the Court house.

To try and equate the " 2 temp board members" at that time, to the elected Board members of your association is just not productive. They are different animals, those two temp members answered to the developer....... bottom line. Now you are faced with a situation you don't like after your association accepted those documents with no recorded exceptions........I guess. If true, you need support to make a change, whether it be in your documents, or with the city or some innovative adjustment. Things are as they are because things can be changed, you need some more brain power of like minded owners to come up with some proposals. If your board won't do it. If the board says it is not their problem, then get support and make it the peoples problem.

Misty,

As Michele says, since the amendment was made while the developer was in control, most likely he had the majority vote and could legally make the amendment w/o asking the members to vote. And, she is also right in saying that as long as the CCRs contain a "no parking" restriction it is legal and must be abided by.

Contrary to what Steve says, the HOA does have the authority to enforce a "no parking" restriction even though the streets are public. There is case law in MO upholding this restriction; however I don't know that it could be used in any other state. Therefore, until such a case is heard in AL the HOA can continue to enforce the "no parking" restriction. In fact, that holds true for any restriction contained in your CCRs -- the HOA has the right to enforce until such time as a court rules it is "not" enforceable or if it was in conflict with a state law!

No, Steve, they did not become void.

They are still valid in the covenants and still enforceable, and courts can and do order compliance all the time.

Question Michele,
If the HOA can enforce their parking regulations (restrictions, just like speeding), then wouldn't they be able to allow HOA stickered vehicles to park certain hours on the streets? Wouldn't this open up some valid parking for Homeowners. I am not suggesting all streets within the compound have on street parking but those homes that have parking problems. I think I remember that the places were sold with on street parking allowed.

So would you document which cars belong to your residents so that you could fine them in that situation?

I'm not really being snide. We've been getting complaints about on-street parking (which is a CC&R violation) for years, but the other Board members have been reluctant to try to enforce anything because of that argument (not knowing if the car belongs to a resident or not). I think I've finally gotten them to approve an enforcement policy, but that is still a lingering problem.

Dwight:

I'm sorry that your board doesn't want to invest the proper energy into enforcing the covenants, especially given that's part of their fiduciary responsibility. We don't get the luxury of ignoring covenant violations just because some might be harder to confirm or enforce.

But the reality is that, we would be documenting the vehicles anyway, because we (the board) must confirm the violation.

The homeowner would receive the notice of violation and the notice of fine, and it would be up to him to control his visitors and/or family members or tenants, etc.. If he doesn't he risks the fines.

Generally and practically speaking, the overnight or extended on-street parking would be an on-going problem for it to even be coming to the board's attention to begin with because we don't police for violations.

However, if we get a call about excessive on-street parking at a residence, it's usually a chronic issue. It likely wouldn't be a one-day or even a fairly infrequent thing. Remember, the board would have to confirm and document that a violation is occurring. By the time we may get the notice that someone is parking on the street over 4 hours or overnight, that person may be gone, so we cannot confirm the violation.

However, if we get the complaint, and see that a car is parked on the street, we record the date, time and details of the car.

We then check back a few hours later and do the same. If it's a different car, it doesn't matter. The "timer" doesn't reset by moving cars around.

We then check back in the evening, and record the same.

When it becomes clear with the logs that there is excessive or overnight parking at the residence, we send the courtesy reminder regarding the specific covenant, and let the resident know if the situation is not corrected, we will begin fines.

Generally the residents comply.

If we are able to document the on-street parking continuing we issue the fines.

Usually after the FIRST fine, the on-street parking stops.

Plus word gets around that we DO enforce, which means when and if we have to send to any other residents, they know they better fix the problem.

An example:

A few months ago we had a complaint about on-street parking. The board president drove by the next day and, sure enough, there was a car on the street. If this were just a one-time or fairly infrequent event, then nothing would happen because no confirmation would be obtained.

However, a car was there, so now we just have to determine if the parking is excessive or overnight.

The president logged the date, time, and the make, color, model and license plate number of the car.

Later in the day, he comes back and the car is either still there, or there again. Logs the details again. Other board members, as they come and go throughout the day also notice the car and log the details. It's clear after the logs that a car is being parked on the street at the lot in excess of 4 hours in the 24-hour period that began with the first log.

That night, the car goes in the driveway.

The next day, the same thing, the car is on the street throughout most of the day, but is pulled into the driveway at night.

A courtesy notice is sent to the resident.

The parking continues for the next few days.

We then get a call from the homeowner. He says he was on vacation that week and has no idea who would be parking in front of his house (even though the same car was in his driveway every night). Well, that may be true. If he isn't there, and some random stranger is parking in front of his house, there's not a lot we can do about it.

So we provide him with the car details. Opps. He realizes it was his daughter's boyfriend.

We waived the fines for him, but told him that if it happens again, we cannot and will not be able to waive them. As I've said before, our goal is compliance, not punishment.

That gives the homeowner the opportunity to make sure that his family and guests understand that his property needs to be in compliance and when they park on the street, he's the one to get dinged for it.

We have not had another complaint about on-street parking at this address.

Dwight...

if you parked your car in front of my house, and i got "notice" from the HOA (or the city), my first step would be to determine who owned said car. Then, i would decide if i liked that person and wanted to be neighborly.

if so, i would let them know that their car, parked in front of my house, was getting in trouble, and see if there were some remedies i could help with.

if i didn't want to be neighborly, then i would simply respond to said legal authority "WHatcha gonna do? Boot it? Tow it? Set it on fire? Do your worst, jerks." and sit back and enjoy.

And michele.. thanks for setting so much good information out in this thread. somewhere in the forum, there is a thread with links to at least one court case to back up the "HOA can enforce regs on city owned streets", i just can't find it. Bottom line is, we signed a contract that is enforceable between the two signatory parties.