HOW NOT TO HANDLE A PARKING DISPUTE
Parking questions come up often and the answers to those questions are not always obvious. Resolution of parking issues typically comes down to what was contemplated by the governing documents and how that relates to the actual situation on the ground. The recent Land Court case of Stahl v. Baker delves into this issue.
But the real lesson of the case is how not to handle a dispute with an owner. In this case, the board refused to work with the owner and was unwilling to do what was necessary to correct the issue, as only they were empowered to do.
The board’s inaction resulted in protracted litigation when working together with the owner likely would have resulted in a cheaper and faster resolution.
The case involves a condominium in Cambridge where Stahl owned an exclusive use easement for parking space No. 7 (what some may colloquially refer to as a deeded parking spot). Stahl did not own a unit at the condo. The original Master Deed contemplated 14 parking spots all which were depicted on a site plan recorded with the Registry of Deeds. Later on, the Master Deed was amended to add a fourth unit and three additional parking spots including No. 7. However, even though the new site plan was recorded, the plan was never integrated in real life. In other words, the parking lot was not re-drawn with new numbers to reflect the 17 spots on the new site plan.
In actuality, only 11 spaces were used by individuals and the boundaries of those spaces did not match the recorded site plan.
These issues came to the fore in 2020 when the Stahls tried to sell their space, nine years after purchasing it. The title company seeking to insure the transaction discovered the conflict between the recorded site plan and what existed on the ground and would not insure the space on that basis. To Make matters wors the condominium trustees refused to implement the recorded site plan—by re-lining the parking lot to match the plans—or to record a new plan reflecting the situation on the ground.
The trustees’ unreasonable failure to act resulted in the Stahls inability to sell their spot and the subsequent litigation.
Ultimately, the Land Court judge held that the Trustees were required to follow the recorded site plan. They had no other choice but to do so unless they got the necessary votes to amend the site plan and record a new one.
The Court rejected the Trustee’s proposal for the Court to adopt a newly proposed site plan as the Judge found this to be outside the Court’s authority.
If the owners wished to have a different parking arrangement, there was an existing mechanism to do that—amendment.
Trustees must follow the Master Deed and site plans when it comes to parking. The Trustees are not empowered to change exclusive use parking rights without the affected owner’s consent and without properly amending the docs/plan through an owner vote.
When an owner presents an issue that can only be resolved via the board’s intervention and action, the board must do so. Sure, it is expensive and time consuming to amend a site plan or to re-line a parking lot. But inaction was not an option and that is what led to an lawsuit which was very much avoidable.
By: Dean Lennon