Orten & Hindman recently obtained a successful outcome on behalf of an association who sought to enjoin an owner from parking his vehicles on the streets of the association. The streets where the owner was parking (in front of his house) were previously dedicated to and monitored the County. The case offers insights into a judge’s perspective and guidance to associations in pursuing covenant enforcement disputes.
 
Background
The declaration for the association prohibits owners from parking their vehicles on the streets of the association, unless there is temporary inadequate space in the garage or driveway which is not caused by a permanent or semi-permanent condition. The developer of the association dedicated the streets within the community to the County after it recorded the declaration. The county maintains the streets.
 
An owner was repeatedly violating this restriction and parking vehicles on the street in front of his house when there was space available in his garage or driveway. The association sent numerous violation notices to the owner starting in 1997. The owner’s responses ranged from “you can’t enforce your restrictions on public streets,” to “there is inadequate space in my garage because I am storing items in there.”
 
The association brought suit against the owner seeking an order requiring him to park his vehicles on his driveway or in his garage unless there is truly inadequate space in his garage or driveway.
 
Trial
The manager for the association testified as to the underlying covenant violation - that the owner indeed parked his vehicles on the streets when there was space in his garage or driveway. The association then argued that it could enforce its parking restrictions on the public streets of the community because it was clear that the developer’s underlying intent was to have the association retain that authority, even though the streets were dedicated to the County. This intent was shown from the plat map for the association, recorded after the declaration, which provided in the dedication that it was subject to, among other things, the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions.

The defendant/owner, through his counsel, argued that the declaration’s language showed it was the developer’s intent to not permit the association to enforce its restrictions on public properties. The specific language in the declaration provided that the restrictions would not apply to any properties while owned by the County or other political subdivision of the State. The association argued that reading that interpretation with the language that prohibited parking vehicles on the streets of the association would make the document meaningless and courts are to give effect to the document as a whole in a manner that would best harmonize the language and intent of the document.

Decision
The Court found the association’s argument more persuasive and ruled that the association had the right to enforce its parking restrictions on the public streets of the association. The Court found that the developer’s underlying intent was to protect the property values of the association, as set forth in the declaration. The Court further found that the developer’s intent in dedicating the streets was for maintenance, law enforcement and other purposes, but with the intent to retain authority to enforce parking restrictions for the association because the plat map’s language specifically made the dedication subject to the restrictions in the declaration. Moreover, the Court found that if it did not give effect to the prohibition on parking cars on the streets expressly set forth in the declaration, then it would not be harmonizing the provisions of the declaration with the purpose set forth therein and would not be giving effect to the document as a whole.

With regard to the underlying violation at issue in this case, the Court found that the association proved the owner was in violation. The Court had stated before the trial began that if the owner’s only defense to that violation was that he was storing items in his garage and thus had inadequate space, that that defense would not stand. The Court stated that if an owner creates his own inadequate space by storing items, he could not turn around and use that reason as the necessity for parking in the street. Further, the Court found persuasive the association’s argument that the temporary inadequate space cannot be a permanent or semi-permanent condition, which that would be.
 
Practice Pointers
This issue is document specific. If the declaration for your association prohibits parking vehicles on the streets of the association, and specifically refers to the term “streets,” there is a stronger chance of winning this argument than if the declaration merely states the association can adopt rules and regulations regarding the properties and the association just adopts a rule prohibiting cars on the streets. It is helpful, and may even be dispositive, to have the term “streets” in the declaration itself. In addition, in this case, the plat map specifically made the dedication of the streets subject to the declaration’s restrictions. That may not always be the case.
 
If you have an issue in your association with a restriction, whether covenant or rule, prohibiting parking on the streets and your streets are public, you should consult with legal counsel to see if you have the right to enforce the restrictions. There is no binding precedent in Colorado one way or another on this issue. If this case is appealed, there will be.