Cornwell v. Main Street Village Homeowners Ass'n

42 Va. Cir. 48, 1997 Va. Cir. LEXIS 80
CourtLoudoun County Circuit Court
DecidedJanuary 16, 1997
DocketCase No. (Chancery) 17227
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 42 Va. Cir. 48 (Cornwell v. Main Street Village Homeowners Ass'n) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Loudoun County Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cornwell v. Main Street Village Homeowners Ass'n, 42 Va. Cir. 48, 1997 Va. Cir. LEXIS 80 (Va. Super. Ct. 1997).

Opinion

By Judge James H. Chamblin

This declaratory judgment proceeding concerning the Parking Policy of Main Street Village, a subdivision in the Town of Purcellville, Loudoun County, Virginia, was tried on December 20,1996.

For reasons that follow, the Court finds that the Parking Policy concerning parking on the common areas of Main Street Village as adopted by the Board of Directors of the Main Street Village Homeowners Association, Inc., in July 1996, is invalid and unenforceable because it does not meet the requirements of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for Main Street Village and the Bylaws of the Association.

Factual Background

At trial, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Facts, and each party presented additional evidence. Only.facts either stipulated or found based on the evidence relevant to the decision herein are mentioned in this opinion.

Main Street Village is a residential community which is currently comprised of 120 townhouses, of which 56 have garages. The Complainant, Patsy A. Cornwell, is the owner of the townhome on Lot 3 (104 Hackley [49]*49Court) with a garage and a driveway located on her lot, and not on the Common Area.

In July 1996, the Board adopted Policy Resolution 96-1 concerning parking on the Common Area. Pursuant to the Policy, the Board has designated and numbered parking spaces on the Common Area. The Board has delayed enforcement of the Parking Policy because of this litigation.

The pertinent portions of the relevant documents are listed below.

The Declaration
Article I. Definitions
Section 2. “Owner” shall mean and refer to the record owner, whether one or more persons or entities, of a fee simple title to any Lot which is a part of the Property, including contract sellers, but excluding those having such interest merely as security for the performance of an obligation ....
Section 4. “Common Area” shall mean all real property owned or to be owned by the Association for the common use and enjoyment of the Owners ....
Article II. Property Rights
Section 1. Owner’s Easements of Enjoyment. Every Owner shall have a right and easement of enjoyment in and to the Common Area, which shall be appurtenant to and shall pass with the title to every Lot, subject to the following provisions ....
(c) The right of the Association to establish uniform rules and regulations pertaining to the use of the Common Area and the facilities thereon ....
(f) The right of the Association to regulate parking on the Common Area through the granting of easements or promulgation of rules and regulations ....
Section 3. Parking Rights. The Association shall have the right to permanently assign one (1) vehicular parking space for each Unit, should it so elect....
Article VI. Use Restrictions
Section 6. No motorized vehicle may be used or maintained on the yards or sidewalks of any Lot, and no unlicensed vehicles are allowed on the Property. The Board of Directors shall have the right to tow any [50]*50vehicle(s), the keeping or parking of which in the Common Area violates this Declaration upon forty-eight (48) hours notice.
The Bylaws
Article VII. Powers and Duties of the Board of Directors
Section 1. Powers. The Board of Directors shall have the power to: (a) adopt and publish rules and regulations governing the use of the Common Area and facilities, and the personal conduct of the members and their guests thereon, and to establish penalties for the infraction thereof....
Section 2. Duties. It shall be the duty of the Board of Directors to
(h) otherwise perform or cause to be performed the functions and obligations of the Board and the Association as provided for in the Declaration and the Articles of Incorporation and these Bylaws.
The Parking Policy
I. General Provisions
C. Owners will be allocated two (2) reserved parking spaces. The reserved spaces for each garage townhouse are the garage and the driveway, consistent with parking tabulation methodology utilized by Loudoun County in the plan review and approval process. All non-garage owners will be allocated two (2) parking tags which should be displayed on the rear view mirror.
D. Remaining parking spaces are allocated as follows: The remaining spaces will be utilized on a first come/first served space available basis for the residents of the community. Owners aire not permitted to use a visitor tag for parking their own car in “Visitor” designated parking spaces.
Enforcement
A. The Association will contract with a towing company to police the property on a periodic basis. This company will have the authority to remove vehicles which are illegally parked or in violation of this resolution.
B. Unauthorized vehicles parked in reserved spaces can be removed by contacting the towing company. All expenses for [51]*51retrieving the vehicle will be the responsibility of the owner of the car parked in violation of this Resolution.

Pursuant to the Parking Policy, the Association assigned two parking spaces in the Common Area for each lot without a garage. Each such space is marked “Reserved” and numbered. The remaining spaces are marked for “Visitor” parking. The driveway and garage were assigned as the parking spaces for a lot, such as the one owned by Ms. Cornwell, with a driveway and a garage. Under the Parking Policy, she is prevented from parking in the Common Area.

The Association presented considerable evidence of the process followed by the Board when it adopted the Parking Policy.

The evidence showed that there is no lack of sufficient parking spaces. Ms. Cornwell testified that she counted an average of fifty-nine vacant spaces each night since November 1995. The problem is one of convenience for each townhome owner who wants to park in front of his or her property.

Legal Analysis

The Complainant argues that, whether or not there is a parking problem, the Association must comply with the Declaration and the Bylaws in adopting any parking policy for the Common Area. On the other hand, the Association argues that all it must do is act reasonably in establishing parking regulations. Both are correct, but the initial inquiry must be whether the Association acted within the scope of its authority under the Declaration and the Bylaws. Reasonableness does not become an issue until it is determined that the Association did not violate the Declaration and the Bylaws.

As I mled at trial, the Association did not permanently assign any parking spaces. Therefore, the provisions of Article n, Section 3, of the Declaration concerning a permanent assignment of one parking space per Unit does not apply.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Dye v. Sully Station II Community Ass'n
47 Va. Cir. 188 (Fairfax County Circuit Court, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
42 Va. Cir. 48, 1997 Va. Cir. LEXIS 80, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cornwell-v-main-street-village-homeowners-assn-vaccloudoun-1997.