A parking dispute lawsuit involving a Mebane homeowner and his HOA has advanced to the state Court of Appeals. The homeowner argues that recent parking restrictions in Manorfield subdivision’s common areas violate his property rights and city ordinances. The dispute centers on whether the HOA’s actions and the city’s involvement align with local and state regulations.
Details of the Parking Dispute Lawsuit
James Crandall, a homeowner in Mebane’s Manorfield subdivision, filed the parking dispute lawsuit after the property owners association prohibited residents from parking in three common areas in 2019. Crandall contends that no such restrictions existed when he purchased his home in 2017. He also said that the new rules violate the subdivision’s covenants and restrictions as well as the city’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
The case initially included both the city of Mebane and the POA as defendants. However, a special superior court judge dismissed the city from the case earlier this year, citing a lack of jurisdiction. The judge allowed the lawsuit against the POA to proceed, leading to Crandall’s appeal to reinstate the city as a defendant.
Claims and Counterarguments
Crandall argues that the HOA’s parking restrictions conflict with a UDO provision guaranteeing homeowners access to and enjoyment of common areas, including parking. He claims that these rights were integral to his decision to purchase his home. Additionally, he asserts that the city failed to enforce its own ordinances by allowing the POA to implement these restrictions.
In response, the city has argued that it was not responsible for regulating HOA rules concerning common areas. The city stated that the restrictions were consistent with the UDO.
Mediation and Ongoing Legal Battle
Initially, all parties were ordered to resolve the dispute through mediation by January 2024. However, the judge’s dismissal of the city from the case and Crandall’s appeal have delayed progress.
The three disputed parking areas are located on a combination of public and private streets within the subdivision. Crandall’s original lawsuit described their orientation as perpendicular to the streets in two locations. It also detailed that the new restrictions posed challenges to access.
The Court of Appeals will now determine whether the city’s dismissal from the case was appropriate and whether Crandall’s property rights were infringed.
