HOA Manager, A Loose Cannon? (Phoenix: landscaping, gated communities, cost)

[Kimballette]

Originally Posted by Zippyman

It isn't the hoa enforcing the city's laws, they're enforcing deed restrictions that the property owner agreed to at the time of purchase. The city can enforce its ordinances, the hoa can enforce the cc&rs, and they can both exercise that authority at any time.

Agree 100%. This is a recurring theme in these forums - people who don't read the CC&Rs before signing on the dotted line. Then, something like this happens, and they're outraged. And, no, I'm not a lawyer, so I can't speak to the legal issues, but it certainly seems like a matter of common sense. If you agreed to abide by the CC&Rs, and you don't, then you should expect consequences.

[jimj]

As for the HOA enforcing it's CC&R's on city streets, there was a bill that was recently defeated that would have stripped the power from the HOA's to do so.

[Bummer]

Originally Posted by jimj

As for the HOA enforcing it's CC&R's on city streets, there was a bill that was recently defeated that would have stripped the power from the HOA's to do so.

The key term here is "city streets," JimJ . . .

Many, if not most, HOA communities have private, not public or city streets.

[JayManne]

Originally Posted by Kimballette

Your HOA CC&Rs will have the answer to this question, but it wouldn't surprise me if they include a provision about expired registration. The MVD even has a process in place for reporting violators here --> Motor Vehicle Division.

What this guy said. If it is in your CC&Rs, it's as good as law.

I don't have any sympathy for people who live in Arizona for years and won't go to the DMV to get plates. You are just being cheap and anti-social. It's not that expensive anyway.

I don't like the idea of over-reaching HOAs, but I don't see a problem with this one. Those vehicle owners should be THANKING the HOA for the warning, rather than just having been reported to the DMV right away.

FYI, I have reported people using that system before, back in 2006 I think it was: IT WORKS. The ten or more violators in my condo complex (who had lived there for more than a year) all suddenly had new AZ license plates about four weeks later.

[IC_deLight]

Originally Posted by Zippyman

Unregistered = not legal to operate = inoperable.

Operating an unregistered vehicle might get you a ticket but an unregistered vehicle is not inoperable. If it were then it wouldn't be possible to get a ticket for operating an unregistered vehicle. Arizona has laws that impose fines for operating an unregistered vehicle. The existence of such laws and the ability to operate the vehicle undermine your incorrect definition of "inoperable".

It isn't the hoa enforcing the city's laws, they're enforcing deed restrictions that the property owner agreed to at the time of purchase. The city can enforce its ordinances, the hoa can enforce the cc&rs, and they can both exercise that authority at any time.

The deed restriction is limited to "inoperable" not "unregistered" or "unlicensed".

It's kinda simple, and more than fair, if you've ever had to look at a neighbor's junker before.

Not really at all. You are inherently claiming an entitlement you have no right to...and if the "junker" is operable then there is no complaint to be had.

It goes both ways though - I have personally been cited for an "abandoned" vehicle parked in my old city... It was ugly, but it had plates & ( incredibly expensive!) insurance & was driven every day. The cop wasn't happy, but my ugly, rusty, drippy old pickup was just as legal as my neighbors caddy. I wasn't in the mood to buy anything "pretty" just to have it stolen, so I drove the ugliest car on the block.

So contrary to the implications of your earlier statement, the appearance of the car is actually quite irrelevant. Like the cop, the HOA is overstepping its bounds. So long as the vehicle is operable, the CCRs do not prohibit it from being located on the owner's property.

As far as your "rights", and "trespassing", it's covered in the cc&rs everyone signs when they buy the property.

They don't sign any "CCR" contract. Moreover, to the extent the HOA corp or its agents operate outside of the express limitations in the CCRs, the HOA corp and its agents are trespassing on the real property and converting/trespassing to personal property. On the criminal side, if the HOA board and its agents follow through with the threat then they will have entered the property with the intent of divesting the owner of the control and custody of the vehicle. That's two crimes: criminal trespass and theft, and should be prosecuted as such in addition to any civil liability that the owner would pursue. The letter illustrates the intent.

The cc&rs likely go much further than you suspect, I know my own cc&rs prohibit leaving my garage door open "any longer than is necessary to enter or leave the garage". Lots of little gems in there, read 'em and weep. Those are rights that you surrender when buying a property in a hoa neighborhood. If anything or any area of your property can be seen from any other property in the neighborhood, it's subject to the rules.

The CCRs at issue in this case addressed only inoperable vehicles and the vehicle in this case was not inoperable. The only thing you demonstrated is that individuals desiring control over all the rest of their neighbors will strive to re-define terms to suit their personal preferences. The management companies will also do so because they make money off of accusations of violations. An unregistered vehicle is not an inoperable vehicle.

[jimj]

Originally Posted by Bummer

The key term here is "city streets," JimJ . . .

Many, if not most, HOA communities have private, not public or city streets.

True enough, ours and all the subs around us have public (city) streets. Landscaping is covered by the HOA, actual street repairs etc are covered by the city/county.

[Zippyman]

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

Operating an unregistered vehicle might get you a ticket but an unregistered vehicle is not inoperable. If it were then it wouldn't be possible to get a ticket for operating an unregistered vehicle. Arizona has laws that impose fines for operating an unregistered vehicle. The existence of such laws and the ability to operate the vehicle undermine your incorrect definition of "inoperable".



The deed restriction is limited to "inoperable" not "unregistered" or "unlicensed".



Not really at all. You are inherently claiming an entitlement you have no right to...and if the "junker" is operable then there is no complaint to be had.



So contrary to the implications of your earlier statement, the appearance of the car is actually quite irrelevant. Like the cop, the HOA is overstepping its bounds. So long as the vehicle is operable, the CCRs do not prohibit it from being located on the owner's property.


They don't sign any "CCR" contract. Moreover, to the extent the HOA corp or its agents operate outside of the express limitations in the CCRs, the HOA corp and its agents are trespassing on the real property and converting/trespassing to personal property. On the criminal side, if the HOA board and its agents follow through with the threat then they will have entered the property with the intent of divesting the owner of the control and custody of the vehicle. That's two crimes: criminal trespass and theft, and should be prosecuted as such in addition to any civil liability that the owner would pursue. The letter illustrates the intent.



The CCRs at issue in this case addressed only inoperable vehicles and the vehicle in this case was not inoperable. The only thing you demonstrated is that individuals desiring control over all the rest of their neighbors will strive to re-define terms to suit their personal preferences. The management companies will also do so because they make money off of accusations of violations. An unregistered vehicle is not an inoperable vehicle.

You like to argue, I get that.

Read the cc&r's for yourself - mine have *both* of the words "inoperable" and "unlicensed" used together. My cc&r's also allow *the board* to define the words used in the document - it *isn't* a stretch at all to say that a vehicle that cannot *legally* be operated on the road in the state of Arizona is "inoperable", if you care to debate that with your HOA board, have fun.

If you win with the board, you'll still lose with the city, as our city ordinance in Phoenix prohibits unlicensed vehicles from being parked anywhere in view of your neighbors. Even if there's a car-cover on it. Even if it's in your driveway, and they have to "tresspass" to verify it isn't registered.

Heads you lose, tails you lose.

[rjrcm]

Originally Posted by Bummer

The key term here is "city streets," JimJ . . .

Many, if not most, HOA communities have private, not public or city streets.

Actually, around here, public streets in HOAs are more common. You mostly find private streets in gated communities.

[mjd2k]

My home town has a bylaw that your vehicle can be towed and ticketed if it is not moved for 48 hours. i like that even though mine were towed twice when I was younger. It is only enforced if someone complains and they use very reasonable discretion. My instances were junkers left in a bad area of town when I did not live there and it was after a few weeks of sitting there.

If someone parked a junker on my street for months, I'd probably complain and the city MAY do something.

[stevek64]

Originally Posted by Zippyman

You like to argue, I get that.

Read the cc&r's for yourself - mine have *both* of the words "inoperable" and "unlicensed" used together.

Good point....our cc&r's have the same wording.