Matlock in the Making
I’ve always wanted to be a lawyer. At least, my mom has always wanted me to be a lawyer, or a doctor, or an astronaut, or the President. I guess that’s what mom’s do, hope that their children take up amazing professions and make lots of money so that the parents will be taken care of in their old age. Well, I considered being a lawyer, I even took the LSAT, which is the admittance test for law school.
The LSAT, as it tends to do, didn’t even have the common decency to lube up before it had its way with me. It was not a pleasant experience. And yet, I’m still considering going into law school, and I have several friends who agree with that notion. It would fit in well with my current career, but of course, it’s expensive and takes a lot of time.
And why bother going to law school when you can sue somebody without going? You just have to make sure you sue somebody for less than $5000, which is what I’m doing.
Here’s the story. It all started about six months ago, the condo where my girlfriend lives instituted a new parking policy. There are about 20 communal parking spots, and they were switched from a free-for-all to a permit-only visitor’s lot. Every unit was issued a parking pass, except the royal “they” had a list of all of the cars of the residents, so no resident could use the visitor’s pass, unless they didn’t register their car.
The parking lot went from being empty during the day, but mostly full at night, to being empty all the time. Since none of the three people living in the apartment could use the visitor’s lot, I got to use it every time I came over (I should mention that there are three people living in that apartment, and only two parking spots - the third person is forced to park a quarter of a mile away on county roads).
So I parked without any problems. And then in July cars starting getting towed. First one roommate - that’s how we figured out they had a list of resident’s cars. Then the other roommate - she parked in another visitor’s lot for which her pass apparently did not grant access. Both of them were reasonably towed, they were residents and residents aren’t allowed to park there. It’s a horrendous policy, but it is policy.
Then I was towed.
I was displaying a valid pass at the time, which was still hanging in my window when I picked up my car from the impound. I asked the guy there why I had been towed and he told me it was because of a management request. I asked him who specifically requested it, because the passes are issued by the Condo Association, but the lot is monitored by the Homeowners Association. He didn’t know, but he gave me the contact information for a guy at the location where the HOA had their towing contract.
That guy was no help.
Then I called the Condo Association. They were no help. Then I called the Homeowners Association, and finally I got somewhere. She said that somebody on the Board of Directors requested my car be towed. She of course couldn’t say who that was, but I suspect it is the neighbor that sits in his garage at night with the lights out monitoring the parking lot.
I hope I am not like that when I grow old. So sad and pathetic that I have to monitor a parking lot that doesn’t require monitoring. Or so drunk for power that I need to see cars get towed to appease my desire to get back at my boss for exerting his authority over me. Who knows what his problem is.
So now, despite the fact that I should be able to park in the visitor’s lot, I am unable and I have to park a quarter of a mile away on county roads. And wouldn’t you know it, a day after that happens, my car gets broken into.
So I write a letter to the Board of Directors. I ask them to reimburse me for my towing and the cost of the window. I figured I wouldn’t get back the cost of the window, but I am entitled to the money from the towing.
I get all of my evidence together, type out a nice succinct, factually explicit three page letter, and send everything in. I get in front of the board and plead my case. I tell them that the clause they cited as a reason to tow me:
“A vehicle may be parked in a visitor space for a maximum of 72 hours.“
can only be interpreted to mean 72 consecutive hours. Well, after berating me for several minutes about how it’s inappropriate to be an overnight guest so frequently, the President of the Board then tells me that the clause in the policy applies to the life of a vehicle. So if I parked there for ten hours a week, on the eighth week, I would be breaking the policy.
Two people on the Board agreed with him, and the vote was split 3-3. They revoted and got the same result. It was explained to me that this meant that I lost.
I tried to resolve this amicably with them, but they were not reasonable, so I was forced to sue them. I found out in the process that they are incorporated, so I am actually suing their attorney in the name of the HOA.
I just filed the suit today, it cost me $53, and I get to go to court the day after my birthday.
I can tell you one thing for sure, no matter how this turns out, I am getting silly that night.
Other posts by Justin
July 31st, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Good Luck with that, Let me know when you when go to court
August 11th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
It seems to me that you would be wise to invoke the “reasonable man” approach in your case. The following in essence describes it:
The reasonable man or reasonable person standard is a legal fiction used
mostly in the common law in which a hypothetical individual whose view of
things is consulted in decisions of law. It has been criticized and terms
“the reasonable old man” and compared with the “reasonable woman”. The
question, “How would a reasonable person have acted under the
circumstances?” performs a critical role in legal analysis in areas such as
negligence and contract law. The basic rationale behind the reasonable
person doctrine is that because the law exists to serve the public at large
it must deal with a member of the public that is rational, i.e., reasonable.
A reasonable persona may be one who has some foresight, plans his or her
acts, and is able to get along with others.
The reasonable man is not the average man: this is not a democratic measure.
To predict the appropriate sense of responsibility and other standards of
the reasonable man, “what is reasonable” has to be appropriate to the issue.
What the “average man” thinks or might do is irrelevant to a case concerning
medicine, for example. But the reasonable man is informed, capable, aware of
the law, and fair-minded. He might do something extraordinary under certain
circumstances, but whatever he does or thinks is always reasonable.
A related notion, used in common law contract law, is that of a reasonable
bystander or reasonable third party. It is also known as the objective
theory of contract formation and it is distinguished from the subjective
theory of contract formation that is accepted in most civil law
jurisdictions. Sometimes, particularly in the context of verbal contracts,
the existence of a contract is disputed because one party declares that he
or she did not intend to be legally bound. Since it would be impractical for
the court to try to determine the truth of this statement, it uses the
following test instead: if the outward conduct of the parties would have
indicated to a reasonable bystander a serious intention to enter into an
agreement, then the contract is deemed legally binding. Another circumstance
where the reasonable bystander is used occurs when one party has
inadvertently misstated the terms of the contract, and the other party sues
to enforce those terms: if it would have been clear to a reasonable
bystander that a mistake had been made, then the contract is voidable by the
party who made the error; otherwise, the contract is binding.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:07 am
I actually used the reasonable man argument I in the letter I sent to the board. But what incentive do they have to be reasonable? It’s their own money they would be throwing away by issuing me a refund.
My only regret about the letter I sent was that I didn’t threaten legal action - I forget that often times the world does not share the same view as me, and I didn’t think subtle threats of a lawsuit would be necessary.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
But now you can use that “reasonable man” argument in court, and judges are quite apt to listen to that — after all, it comes up a lot in legal arguments. As you say, the condo board has no reason to listen to you or spend their money.
And in most small claims venues — and I believe this applies to you — an individual person appearing before the court can do so pro se, but an incorporated entity or business has to be represented by counsel, so the board, I would think, will have to hire an attorney to represent them. If they choose not to, you will win by default. Of course, then you have the joy of trying to collect the award of the court from the board!?! Have fun!!!!