|
Also, reminds me of a fantastic parking ticket I got to prosecute once: Guy came in all huffy and angry. Big, bald grumpy gus who obviously had spent his life getting what he wanted by intimidating people. Little did he know, I'm dead inside and don't give a poo poo. He righteously informed me that I would be dismissing both of his parking tickets. Without looking at his file, I said, as long as the offending vehicle is gone now and you can show me pictures, I'll dismiss one, you pay the other; standard agreement, basically what I offer anyone with multiple tickets for the same offense. "No, you're going to dismiss them both! As you can see good sir [the author is paraphrasing here], I got a ticket for this gooseneck trailer parked on the street for 3 days, and I ALSO got a ticket for the front end loader perched atop my fine trailer! " "Ok, and?" "They cannot give me two tickets for two vehicles because one of the vehicles is not touching the ground!" [Author's note: the pride in this man's eyes, at having Matlock-ed his rear end-round-backwards into this bit of genius argument, was truly heartwarming.] [Second note: be advised, this is a residential neighborhood street, wide enough for 3 cars to fit across, and this dude had a 30 foot long, 10 foot wide commercial flatbed trailer sitting across half of the goddamn street for 3 days, with a 10 ton excavator sitting on top of it, and got 2 warnings about it before finally getting the tickets.] I think he expected me to be bowled over by his intellectual coup, and it made him even angrier that I wasn't. It probably didn't help that I was so glib when I said, "Yeah, but its two vehicles. Two vehicles, two tickets." Sensing a need to change course, and perhaps hedging his bets on the first argument, he threw a curveball, "Well, but a trailer isn't a 'vehicle!'" I recited to him the definition of 'vehicle' in the relevant statute, which included trailers. Back to his trump card, "But still, the tractor isn't actually touching the ground!" I told him, "So if you owned a hovercraft, that floated 6 inches off the ground, you could never get a parking ticket no matter where you left it?" This did not convince him, and in fact, only confused him and made him angrier. The matter was resolved when I reminded him that under any theory, I had already offered to dismiss one ticket, and he at least admitted to the other ticket being valid so if he wanted to pay the trailer ticket and go have a trial over the tractor ticket that I had offered to dismiss, we could do that. He unhappily acquiesced and left and 2 months later came back with a trash/rubbish/other debris ticket because he had a big ol pile of scrap metal and construction refuse in his front yard that he yelled about getting a ticket for because, "Well they never gave me any warnings that I COULDN'T dump two tons of scrap metal, wood, and shingles in a pile in my front yard in a residential neighborhood!"
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2020 15:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 15:05 |
|
|
I think I just got a whiff of indignant fatneck halitosis from that post, uncomfortably close to being at work
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2020 15:26
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Also, I've never seen a car get towed by the HOA we did have one towed. It was in a pool parking spot (not a public street) that had clearly marked signs limiting the parking time, had out of state plates, flat tires, and hadn’t moved for weeks. We slapped a notice on the windshield and towed it a week later when no one even touched the notice. I also had another abandoned vehicle towed off of the street in front of my house, but I personally called the city and had them do it rather than do it as the HOA (because I hated the parking rules and eventually got them removed). Again, out of state plates, and I let that one sit for months before I called. The city ticketed it and towed it 3 days later. I get the HOA hate, though. The only reason I’m even remotely tolerant of mine is that I’m on the board and get to shoot down dumb ideas. Most of the stuff you really want to avoid is already covered by city/county statutes, so why not just use them? I did let the ban on yard signs stand, though. Mainly because I’m a liberal in Utah, and the last thing I wanted was to see even more Trump signs. TheMadMilkman fucked around with this message at 15:41 on Jul 1, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2020 15:35
|
|
|
Parking ordinances here revolve mostly around safety and abandoned vehicles. Barring signage otherwise, there is nothing I've seen that prohibits overnight or general parking as long as the road is wide enough, you're not blocking something (driveway, fire hydrant, etc.), and you park like a civilized human being. I think 7 days is when they consider a vehicle abandoned, so anything less than that is fair game. I agree that towing would likely cause a shitstorm, but the neighboring HOA seems to be threatening to do just that. Seems like it should be more complicated than, "you agreed to let us tow your car from public streets," but here we are. To my understanding, state/city laws do NOT support private (read: non-government) entities towing a vehicle from public spaces unless you are the vehicle owner (but I can't see that they explicitly prohibit it, so  ).blarzgh posted:
That's kinda where I see it getting wonky from an enforcement perspective. If you only take action against the car, you risk taking action against a non-HOA member. If you only take action against the homeowner whose property the car parked in front of, then I can see someone buying a junker and parking in front of neighbors they hate just to rack up fines for them. edit: So stupid follow-up hypothetical: Let's say the HOA has authority to tow your car from the public street in front of your house. Legally, where does this authority end? If your CC&Rs say that you can't park on public streets within 10 miles of your home, even though the subdivision is only 1/2 mile wide, can they still tow/fine you when you park 9.9 miles away? I know it's ridiculous, but it's kind of a thought experiment to figure out the boundaries of the CC&Rs on my deed (if they even exist). edit again: TheMadMilkman posted:I did let the ban on yard signs stand, though. Mainly because I’m a liberal in Utah, and the last thing I wanted was to see even more Trump signs. In NC, political signs can only be banned by an HOA if the CC&Rs contain very specific language. Ours does not contain that specific language, but nobody really cares in our neighborhood. People put up random signs all the time and nobody cares, so the board doesn't do anything about it. Though there is one ultra-conservative house that puts up stuff like pro-bathroom bill signs, but they're technically in the next subdivision over. Kind of odd in that the subdivisions bleed together and share common roads, and actually 2 houses down the road from me is the next subdivision. You only know the division because the mailboxes change color. DaveSauce fucked around with this message at 16:33 on Jul 1, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2020 15:46
|
|
|
TheMadMilkman posted:I get the HOA hate, though. The only reason I’m even remotely tolerant of mine is that I’m on the board and get to shoot down dumb ideas. HOAs are like an immune system: when they're working as intended, you don't even really notice they're there. When they get out of hand, however... DaveSauce posted:So stupid follow-up hypothetical: Let's say the HOA has authority to tow your car from the public street in front of your house. Legally, where does this authority end? If your CC&Rs say that you can't park on public streets within 10 miles of your home, even though the subdivision is only 1/2 mile wide, can they still tow/fine you when you park 9.9 miles away? Covenants "touch and concern" (yes this is real, old timey language, and yes it makes me giggle to this day) property, which means they can only affect the property to which they attach, like the specific metes and bounds. One inch outside the boundary of all the lots covered by the CCRs, is a lot owned by someone else, who's not a party to the CCR.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2020 17:00
|
|
|
Just to be careful: The idea of a “private road” is nonsensical. You could be talking about an egress into someone’s land (a driveway). But I don’t think that what people are talking about. A road used by people to travel that happens to be on someone’s land isn’t really “private” as there are like 700 years of property law that define uses of that road Also the idea of a public road is very nuanced. Public roads are often 100% on private land but the township has a right of way or similar. Or not. Many “public roads” are built by developers and start out as “private” and become “public” when the township or city takes over maintenance. To summarize it just because something is called a “private” road doesn’t mean you can’t drive on it or park on it and just because it’s “public” doesn’t mean you can park on it. Those Nazis in St. Louis were totally unlawful With their brandishmebt and the protestors were allowed to walk down the road to protest Also HOAs aren’t usually contracts but deed restrictions that run with the land.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2020 17:13
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:If the car is not actually a guest of any house, just some rando who wanted to park on that street, then the issue is a different issue altogether - has nothing to do with the HOA. Many many cities also have the "no parking on a residential street overnight/for 24 hours" ordinance that applies irrespective of any HOA. I think this is the scenario blarzgh posted:Covenants "touch and concern" (yes this is real, old timey language, and yes it makes me giggle to this day) property, which means they can only affect the property to which they attach, like the specific metes and bounds. One inch outside the boundary of all the lots covered by the CCRs, is a lot owned by someone else, who's not a party to the CCR. ...like, say for example, a public street..? TheMadMilkman posted:I did let the ban on yard signs stand, though. Mainly because I’m a liberal in Utah, and the last thing I wanted was to see even more Trump signs. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/13-502.html e. maybe it's a legal rule because it's not content-based, and because the HOA isn't the government? Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 17:17 on Jul 1, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2020 17:14
|
|
|
I'm in escrow to a home and set to close at the end of the month. In the process of renewing the home insurance, I found out I can save money on my car insurance too. Before signing the documents for car insurance, I realized the address listed on the insurance card is the address of the new home, not my current residence. If I change the address to the current, the payment increases by like forty dollars. I called my insurance agent who said it should not be an issue as I'm in the process of closing. Everything is paperless, so I don't have to worry about my mail being stolen. He also mentioned if the VIN number matches up and make and model, there won't be an issue getting coverage for the car. Is this true? I just want to cover all my bases before signing off on any documentation and unknowingly committing insurance fraud.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2020 17:16
|
|
|
Well, when does the renewed auto insurance go into effect? I assume you're renewing before it expired. Is the start date of the renewed policy after your closing date? I mean, if the agent said it's fine, it's probably fine, worst case you call them up when the closing fails because of plumbing issues and tell them you need to change the address on your policy and they ding you for the extra $40.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2020 17:20
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I think this is the scenario Euphronius touched on that a lot, but 'public streets' are not necessarily owned by the city and are often encumbrances on private land. The extent that a HOA's power over the street in front of it is going to depend entirely on state and local rules. If all the land that the road runs through is encumbered by the HOA provisions, then they likely will be able to exert some sort of control over the street itself even if it is "public" and not owned by the HOA or the homeowners. Many of the places where these entities have such power also have strict signage requirements and such to put non-residents on notice. There are parts of this country where if you do not have a particular permit showing that you a resident, you cannot park on some public streets or the municipality itself will tow you. Whether or not you can get towed by an HOA is going to depend very much on specific local ordnance and state statute. If you look up your local municipality ordnance website, I'm sure you'll see something about towing and there may even be something in there about HOA powers regarding towing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2020 17:50
|
|
|
What happens in the majority of cases with a neighborhood is that the developer buys up a big rectangle of land, draws up a plan in the shape of the neighborhood with roads and everything, takes that Plan to the city and asks the City to give them a plat that recognizes the new division of the properties. Along with this plat and plan for development, the city executes a contemporaneous document with the Developer call the "Development Plan." Its a contract of sorts, the deals with everything from where the water and electricity and sewage will tie in to the city mains, who will build the roads and at whos expense, internet service, architectural standards, and a million other things. Its like a master plan that intertweaves what used to be an empty lot into a neighborhood, with all the trappings of city services. The standard practice is that the roads are built by the developer (but done so in accordance with City Code, under the Development Plan) prior to building houses on the lots bc all the construction guys need to haul poo poo in and out. After the roads and lots are a certain % built out, the Developer will typically "dedicate" the streets to the City, and also "dedicate" a sidewalk and utility easement to the city, again as part of the Development Plan. Dedication is a form of grant, in fee, but not a typical defeasible fee, inasmuch that underlying covenants that run with the land still attach to the adjoining lots. This is not the case 100% of the time, and there are plenty of other ways to skin this particular cat, but all this is to say that the idea of "Public" roads vs. "Private Roads" is not so black and white in the context of a Planned Development, i.e. a subdivision.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2020 19:49
|
|
|
Also ask me about "Implied Dedication By Prescription" no don't ask me about that its ridiculous
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2020 19:51
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Also ask me about "Implied Dedication By Prescription" no don't ask me about that its ridiculous what's "Implied Dedication By Prescription"?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2020 19:56
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Also ask me about "Implied Dedication By Prescription" no don't ask me about that its ridiculous Tell us about "Implied Dedication By Prescription," blarzgh!
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2020 19:56
|
|
|
Tell me about, uhh, *squints at smudged ink on hand* Implicated Defecation by Prostration?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2020 19:57
|
|
|
A Public easement is one that is granted to the general public for use, and not limited solely to a private person. Public easements are those easements to which the right of enjoyment and use vested in the public generally or in an entire community. Aside from purchasing, there are three ways public easements may be created. Each method is unique a as different requirements. The three ways public easements may arise without purchasing are: (1) by dedication, (2) by prescription and (3) by condemnation. All common law dedications require the following four elements: (1) a person competent to dedicate, (2) a public purpose served by the dedication, (3) an offer or tender of the dedication and (4) an acceptance of the offer or tender. As to the element of public purpose, the dedication must be for a use beneficial to the public and not prohibited by statute. If the easement is reserved for a specific group, then there is no public purpose involved and no dedication of a public easement can occur. See, City of San Antonio v. Grandjean, 91 Tex. 430, 41 S.W. 477, 44 S.W. 476; Williams v. Thompson, 152 Tex. 270, 277, 256 S.W.2d 399, 402 (1953). The way the offer is communicated to the public determines whether or not it constitutes an express or implied common law dedication. Whichever way is used, both the manifestation and communication must be so clear and convincing that a reasonable person would be induced to act in reliance thereon. Id. Implied common law dedications may be communicated to the public in two ways. One is by the affirmative acts of the owner, the other by inactions or acquiescence on the owner’s part. If affirmative acts are the means of communication, the acts must amount to an invitation or encouragement to the public to use the land. For instance, opening property to public use or even fencing off part of the land and making repairs thereon convenient for the public’s use have been held sufficient affirmative acts to give rise to an implied dedication. See, City of San Antonio v. Grandjean, 91 Tex. 430, 41 S.W. 477, 44 S.W. 476; Williams v. Thompson, 152 Tex. 270, 277, 256 S.W.2d 399, 402 (1953). You can create an implied, Public easement by prescription (Or an Implied Dedication by Prescription) when you establish that the easment was obtained obtained by proving the elements of adverse possession. Moody v. White, 593 S.W.2d 372 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1979, no writ); see also Othen v. Rosier, 148 Tex. 485, 226 S.W.2d 622 (1950); City of Houston v. Church, 554 S.W.2d 242 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1977, writ ref'd n.r.e.). In order to successfully claim an easement by prescription on behalf of the public, the State must show: (1) possession of the land; (2) use or enjoyment of it; (3) an adverse or hostile claim; (4) an inclusive dominion over the area and appropriation of it for public use and benefit; and, (5) for more than the ten year statutory period. Moody v. White, 593 S.W.2d at 377; see also Ortiz v. Spann, 671 S.W.2d 909 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Seaway Co. v. Attorney General, 375 S.W.2d at 937; Villa Nova Resort, Inc. v. State, 711 S.W.2d 120, 127 (Tex. App. 1986). All the other requirements remain the same. The use of the land must be hostile and adverse to the owner of the land. The use must be open and notorious. The use must be exclusive. Finally, the use must be continuous and uninterrupted for ten years. Id.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2020 20:16
|
|
|
Long Story Short, if Farmer Brown leaves his gate open for 10 years or more, and it appears he did so because he wanted to let the general public drive across the dirt road, then he will be found to have "dedicated" that road to the public. This is one of the 11 ways you can create an easement in Texas. Get hosed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2020 20:18
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Long Story Short, if Farmer Brown leaves his gate open for 10 years or more, and it appears he did so because he wanted to let the general public drive across the dirt road, then he will be found to have "dedicated" that road to the public. Please describe the other 10 now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2020 20:25
|
|
|
therobit posted:Please describe the other 10 now. a. Private Easements - Easements by Implication; Implied Grant - Easements by Implication; Reservation - Easement by Implication; Necessity - Easements by Estoppel; Statutory Landlocked Easement - Easements by Estoppel; Easement by Prescription b. Public Easements - Easement by Express Dedication - Easement by Common Law Dedication - Easement by Statutory Dedication - Easement by Implied Dedication - Easement by Prescription - Easement by Condemnation
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2020 20:33
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:What happens in the majority of cases with a neighborhood is that the developer buys up a big rectangle of land, draws up a plan in the shape of the neighborhood with roads and everything, takes that Plan to the city and asks the City to give them a plat that recognizes the new division of the properties. Along with this plat and plan for development, the city executes a contemporaneous document with the Developer call the "Development Plan." I’ve litigated these issues lmao It’s wild
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2020 20:33
|
|
|
And THOSE are just Easements Appurtenant; don't even get me started on Easements In Gross!
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2020 20:34
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I’ve litigated these issues lmao They're one of the few types of cases where your client and experts probably know more about the law than you do, lol Edit: unless your client is one of the homeowners, not the developer or the city, in which case good loving luck.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2020 20:35
|
|
|
California statue on towing vehicles has a bunch of stuff that applies to 'private property' (that seems mostly intended to regulate when and how you can tow a car that's in a parking lot or something like that). If Texas did that, does a public easement on privately owned land count? Bonus Question: California also has conflicting requirements for towing from a highway. If the highway is built on a public easement on privately owned land, which set of restrictions wins?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2020 20:43
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:a. Private Easements Esports, Estoppel, Erection?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2020 20:45
|
|
|
toplitzin posted:Esports, Estoppel, Erection? Estoppel is like, "Nu uh." When you act in a manner that causes someone else to respond a certain way, you are "estopped" from complaining later about it. I pay my law guy $50 every week to mow my lawn. Nothing is said between us these days, he always shows up on Wednesday, I open the gate for him, he mows, and I give him a check. One Wednesday, he shows up,I open the gate for him, and then he mows. However, instead of a check, I give him the palm out and say, "I didn't actually want you to mow today, sorry no $$$." He would argue in Court that I am "estopped" from claiming there was no contract to mow that week because we had always sort of done it that way, and by opening the gate for him, I implied that the deal was still on for that week. Not a perfect analogy, but thats the general idea.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2020 21:06
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:California statue on towing vehicles has a bunch of stuff that applies to 'private property' (that seems mostly intended to regulate when and how you can tow a car that's in a parking lot or something like that). If Texas did that, does a public easement on privately owned land count? That statute sounds like it pertains more to what constitutes "a breach of the peace" in the context of a repossession. If so, thats a UCC deal and a whole different can of worms. Edit: I'm reading it now, and it appears to be a bastardized modification of the right to self help of a trespass in the context of places otherwise "open to the public" like restaurants and malls and stuff. There are subsections buried in there that appear to modify the requirements as they pertain to single-family residential lots, and as to homeowner's associations. blarzgh fucked around with this message at 21:17 on Jul 1, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2020 21:08
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:They're one of the few types of cases where your client and experts probably know more about the law than you do, lol It was the homeowners but years later when the developer WHO WAS A TOWNSHIP SUPERVISOR refused to dedicate the streets to the township OF WHICH HE WAS A SUPERVISOR lmao hahaha He wasn’t a sophisticated developer or anything this was podunk PA
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2020 21:09
|
|
|
I forget even what cause of action I used ??? Tortious interference with a third party beneficiary ??
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2020 21:11
|
|
|
I had an rear end in a top hat LA prosecutor and his cop friend neighbor tow my car on Christmas day for parking on a public street in front of their house, after they warned me not to by a letter in my front door. Unrestricted street, no signs of any kind. In this case there was no HOA that I was aware of, although I was renting so who knows, but if there had been they would have for sure used that during our argument.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2020 21:14
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Estoppel is like, "Nu uh." When you act in a manner that causes someone else to respond a certain way, you are "estopped" from complaining later about it. Man, I knew the job market for lawyers was bad but drat....
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2020 21:17
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I forget even what cause of action I used ??? In Texas I would say it would have been a "Trespass to Try Title" if the dedication was part of the PD (Development Agreement) or the CCRs; lots of lawyers here will try to use the Declaratory Judgment statute because that gives you attorneys fees, and twice I year I have to brief the same Supreme Court cases and file the same MSJ that says, "nu uh, can't do that" bc the Trespass to Try Title statute controls.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2020 21:20
|
|
|
i was working for a guy once who was real upset the city wouldn't hook up utilities unless he signed over a road zone to em. and they wanted a big ol fire truck turnaround at one end that would've taken up like 1/8 of the property. he was so dang mad, and i don't know how it turned out because they were still arguing about it when my job was done
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2020 21:21
|
|
|
I'm reminded of the story of the guy who bought a tank and parked it in front of his house. The HOA may have had the right to have it towed, but they didn't have the ability to do so, so the issue was moot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2020 22:18
|
|
|
sullat posted:I'm reminded of the story of the guy who bought a tank and parked it in front of his house. The HOA may have had the right to have it towed, but they didn't have the ability to do so, so the issue was moot. How did he not run afoul of the city for loving up the street?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2020 22:35
|
|
|
Probably the same way anyone else with a bigger car than me does
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2020 22:43
|
|
|
sullat posted:I'm reminded of the story of the guy who bought a tank and parked it in front of his house. The HOA may have had the right to have it towed, but they didn't have the ability to do so, so the issue was moot. That feels like one hell of a high stakes game. Almost anything can be moved with the right budget. If the HOA is petty and vindictive enough (it's an HOA, of course they are), and has access to enough cash (maybe a bigger concern but not unrealistic for an HOA to write a six figure check), tank guy might find himself with some big liens on his home for heavy construction crane rental and operation along with flatbed truck transportation for a tank.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2020 23:12
|
|
|
I first heard about the story in the middle of it and never bothered to go back and find out how it ended. It looks like he eventually moved it to his ranch (this was in Texas) after a couple of weeks of having it parked in front of his house. So the HOA won after all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2020 23:37
|
|
|
BonerGhost posted:How did he not run afoul of the city for loving up the street? I suspect that if they're willing to buy and park a spite tank that's the least of the cities concerns.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2020 23:51
|
|
|
There was a tiny subdivision some years back here in town that didn't bother to deed the streets to the city until a few years after the fact, upon which the city found out the streets were never built to code and had to be essentially ripped out and redone, and needless to say, the city was quite pissed, but as far as I know couldn't do much about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 02:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 15:05 |
|
|
BonerGhost posted:How did he not run afoul of the city for loving up the street? They make not-street-loving versions of tank treads, because often tanks need to be driven on roads. e. Here's two examples:   blarzgh posted:And THOSE are just Easements Appurtenant; don't even get me started on Easements In Gross! Get started on Easements In Gross, blarzgh! Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 02:24 on Jul 2, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 02:21
|
|