[WSBARP] HOA Enforcement of Prohibition Against On Street Parking - Public Street

Thu Oct 13 14:33:56 PDT 2016

The problem is usually that the City has no restrictions on parking along public roads within the subdivision.  Where the HOA has restrictions in the CCRs against on-street parking the City usually finds it to be a contractual matter, not something it is required to enforce.  I know it is a frustration in many neighborhoods, but have not seen it taken to a full battle here.

Jean M. McCoy | Attorney
[Description: Landerholm-mail-signature1665C]<http://www.landerholm.com/>
805 Broadway Street, Suite 1000
P.O. Box 1086
Vancouver, WA  98666-1086
T: 360-816-2526 (direct) | T: 503-283-3393 | F: 360-696-2122
www.landerholm.com<http://www.landerholm.com/>

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of scott scottgthomaslaw.com
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 2:15 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] HOA Enforcement of Prohibition Against On Street Parking - Public Street

"The City is required and empowered to make sure that subdivision developments are not inconsistent with the public health, safety and welfare and that they comply with the requirements of SEPA.  RCW 58.17.110<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000259&DocName=WAST58%2E17%2E110&FindType=L&AP=&RS=WLW4.09&VR=2.0&FN=_top&SV=Split&MT=Washington>; Loveless v. Yantis, 82 Wash.2d 754, 765, 513 P.2d 1023 (1973)<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=661&SerialNum=1973124806&FindType=Y&AP=&RS=WLW4.09&VR=2.0&FN=_top&SV=Split&MT=Washington>. It cannot avoid this responsibility and it cannot contract away its police power. Raymond Lumber Co. v. Raymond Light & Water Co., 92 Wash. 330, 159 P. 133 (1916)<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=660&SerialNum=1916002085&FindType=Y&AP=&RS=WLW4.09&VR=2.0&FN=_top&SV=Split&MT=Washington>; Terrace Heights Sewer Dist. of Yakima Cy. v. Young, 3 Wash.App. 206, 473 P.2d 414 (1970)<http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=661&SerialNum=1970132458&FindType=Y&AP=&RS=WLW4.09&VR=2.0&FN=_top&SV=Split&MT=Washington>."

Miller v. City of Port Angeles, 691 P.2d 229 Wash.App.,1984.
On October 13, 2016 at 12:36 PM Darrin Class <Darrin at rdclasslegal.com<mailto:Darrin at rdclasslegal.com>> wrote:

Listmates,

Looking for citations or thoughts on the ability of an HOA to enforce a prohibition in the CCR’s against on-street parking on public streets.

I’ve searched and found a Maryland and NJ case upholding the prohibition, but no local cases.

[cid:image003.png at 01D2255E.D4220AC0]

PO Box 173

Ridgefield WA 98642

Washington 360-953-4148/Oregon 503-208-5789

darrin at rdclasslegal.com<mailto:darrin at rdclasslegal.com>

This message and any files transmitted with it contains information intended for the specified individual(s) only. This information is confidential, may be privileged, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510-2521, or otherwise protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or taking any action based on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake, please advise the sender by e-mail reply, and delete it from your system.

_______________________________________________
WSBARP mailing list
WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com>
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp

----------------------------
This e-mail message (including attachments) is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s).  It contains confidential, proprietary or legally protected information which is the property of  Landerholm, P.S. or its clients.  Any unauthorized disclosure or use of the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of the original message.

----------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161013/de81b8a8/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 4361 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161013/de81b8a8/image001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 29833 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161013/de81b8a8/image003.png>