Parking Regulations in an Affordable Housing Common Interest Community
Verna v. The Links at Valleybrook Neighborhood Association, Inc.
In this matter, the Defendant, a common interest community homeowner’s association, was able to retain its authority to enforce their parking rules and regulations even though it had previously ceded the jurisdiction of its streets to the municipality.
Reader interactions
7 Replies to “Parking Regulations in an Affordable Housing Common Interest Community”
Comments are closed.
The roads of many associations are public. In fact, associations generally attempt to “dedicate” their roads to the particular municipality. “Dedication” allow associations to avoid costs associated with roads and the portions of the water/sewer systems situated underneath them because these costs are shifted to the municipality. One drawback associated with “dedication” has always been the ability of the association to enforce its rules and/or covenants, with respect to the roads, once those roads become public. For instance, can an association still enforce a restrictive covenant prohibiting commercial vehicles without Board written approval on roads that were once private, but have since become public?
Until recently, the answer to that question was unclear. However, a New Jersey Appellate Court recently held that a homeowners association was empowered to enforce its ban of commercial vehicles with respect to the public roads situated within it. The court in Verna v. Links at Valleybrook Neighborhood Association, Inc., agreed with the association that its rules and covenants governed certain lands and that so long as those lands were within the area “covered” by the association, they were subject to the association’s and covenants, regardless of whether those lands were public or private. The Court further agreed that such parking-related covenants do not interfere with the government’s regulatory powers.
The association conceded, as probably all associations must given the current state of the law, that its authority over the public roads extended only to court orders, injunctive relief and the like – that is, because the roads are public, only the government can, for instance, tow a commercial vehicle off a public road, parked in violation of an association’s rules and/or covenants. In turn, this decision means that an association can get a court order compelling the owner of a commercial vehicle to remove that vehicle from a public road. However, it does not mean that an association itself can tow the offending vehicle from the public roads.
The Appellate Court in the Verna case also ruled that a candidate for an association’s Board of Trustees is a “public figure” for purposes of a defamation claim. Here, Mr. Verna “thrust himself into a spotlight which justified viewing him as a public figure for the limited purpose of his candidacy”. More specifically, a candidate for an association’s Board of Trustees is now a “limited purpose public figure”. In turn, any such person must establish clear and convincing proof of actual malice in order to make out a defamation claim.
Because the Verna decision is a reported Appellate Court case, it is binding on all courts in New Jersey. This case constitutes a big victory for private communities across New Jersey. Now, an association can be confident that the “dedication” of its roads will not necessarily cost it the right to prohibit, or control, commercial vehicles. An association can also be confident that it is not necessarily true that its “private” character will not be sacrificed should a part of it become public. Additionally, our communities will now be largely free from troublesome and costly defamation suits.
That seems really dumb. The person obviously already went through the trouble to have the right to make the regulations and the state or whoever it was got in thier way and prevented them from doing so. It was there choice and they were stripped of their rights in this case and its probably happenned many times before and will happen many times after. This situation and many others must be prevented from causing supreme court cases.
If homeowners in a development decide to form a Homeowners association can they force all homeowners to join?
Hi Leslie. I am a shareholder of Stark & Stark, P.C. and I received and reviewed your blog comment. The simple answer is no. If, though, owners agree, documents can be prepared and deeds executed by which future owners would be bound. I hope that this has been helpful.
Dave Byrne
Can a condo assoc have a condo owner’s vehicle towed for failure to pay monthly maintenance fees. Revoked parking priveleges.
It is dificult to be precise without knowing more facts and without having read your condo’s gov. documents but generally speaking a condominium is allowed to tow the cars of delinquent owners from the common elements. Also, generally speaking, a condominium can change policies without owner approval at all, let alone without 2/3 approval. I hope that I have been helpful.