re: Anyone know a good HOA attorney in Slidell/Northshore area?

quote:

---

et’s place some bets...

My money is on the HOA in this case with the evidence so far...

---

I'll lay $50 on the homeowner.

Due to:
No “addition” - floating wood floor, pool table, bar. All reversible. Covenant does not say you have to park in your garage. I can do what I want in my garage. Attorney agrees.

There are other HOAs that are more specific - I believe Oak Harbor’s state “functional” garage, some state that you must park in your garage, etc. I just need to “have” one. I do. It’s pretty. It’s got wood floors. It’s right behind my secured garage door. And let’s not forget it’s been there over a decade and La. has a 2 year enforcement law.

I don't like converted garages, but I'll side with you.
If the covenant doesn't state that cars must be parked in the garage and the garage door must be kept closed,etc. there should be no leg to stand on for the HOA.
Only attempt could be made is they can argue you don't "have"a garage anymore, although you could convert it back.
TBH, why is there an issue to convert it back? It can't cost much, and like I said I don't like a converted garage, I'd rather have space to park my cars inside, rather than always having to park in the driveway. May be a selling point for others, as well. Kind of like a pool. Some like them, some don't, some steer away from them.

Michael Bradley- Covington
He lives for HOA cases and has battled and won many incl. Renaissance.

My buyer very much wants the garage to stay exactly as it is. It is intentionally reversible, but I’m fighting to NOT reverse it.

How is the snake population?

The op is dead on with the best plan of attack with his issue. You guys can quit trying to change the fricking definition of a garage. A garage is a place where you can park a car. Period. It's not a room, with a garage looking door, where you play pool. However, the op might could build two ramps that would allow him to put a car in his pool room to have a stronger argument on that front.

I still think it's a loser though, bc the HOA act supercedes the cc building restricts, and the former defines terms in favor of the restrictions.

quote:

---

Generally, doubt as to the existence, validity, or extent of building restrictions is resolved in favor of the unrestricted use of the immovable. See La. C.C. art. 783. However, the provisions of the Louisiana Homeowners Association Act, La. R.S. 9:1141.1, et seq., supersede the Civil Code articles on building restrictions in the event of a conflict. La. C.C. art. 783. Regarding interpretation of building restrictions on property regulated by a homeowners association, La. R.S. 9:1141.4 provides that “[t]he existence, validity, or extent of a building restriction affecting any association property shall be liberally construed to give effect to its purpose and intent.”

---

Back to your best argument. You don't seem dumb, and you can read, so you should be able to see how your situation is similar to the following quoted text. Although, this court didn't really have to hinge their decision on the neighbors who came to the painting party prior to the tro, bc that didn't occur long enough before to have a prescription issue, but they seemed to hint at that possibly being enough to meet that noticeable violation element.

I believe I read that former neighbors and/or board members visited your house more than 2 years ago? Your attorney might love you if you can get those former board members and neighbors to agree to execute an affidavit stating that they saw your pool room years ago. I'm not researching your situation, but your attorney will definitely know if this is the right course of action, whether just neighbors is enough, or if you need a former board member to meet that noticeable violation part.

quote:

---

While this appeal was pending, Mrs. Stuntz filed a peremptory exception raising the objection of prescription directly with this court. In the exception, Mrs. Stuntz argues that even if the art lessons she conducts in her home are considered a commercial enterprise, the Association should be precluded from enforcing restriction 5.1.1 and denied injunctive relief based on the liberative prescription provided under La. C.C. art. 781. That article states:

No action for injunction or for damages on account of the violation of a building restriction may be brought after two years from the commencement of a noticeable violation. After the lapse of this period, the immovable on which the violation occurred is freed of the restriction that has been violated. [Emphasis added .]

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 2163 allows an appellate court to consider a peremptory exception filed for the first time in that court, if pleaded prior to a submission of the case for a decision, and if proof of the ground of the exception appears of record. Thus, the exception is properly before this court.

As previously stated, Mrs. Stuntz testified that she has been giving art lessons in her home since moving into the subdivision in October 2006. Moreover, she has maintained several websites, wherein she advertises the art lessons she provides, since 2002. Accordingly, Mrs. Stuntz asserts that the Association should be barred from enforcing restriction 5.1.1 and receiving injunctive relief because she has openly been providing art lessons in the subdivision in excess of the two-year prescriptive period contained in La. C.C. art. 781.

For the purpose of La. C.C. art. 781, some activity which is noticeable and apparent must occur on the lot, and at that point, the two-year prescriptive period commences. Investment Management Services, Inc. v. Village of Folsom, 00–0832, p. 7 (La.App. 1st Cir.5/11/01), 808 So.2d 597, 604. Moreover, it has been observed that La. C.C. art. 781 has been interpreted and applied to provide that:

The two-year prescription begins to run from the commencement of a noticeable violation rather than the day the plaintiff acquires knowledge of the violation. Ordinarily, the prescription commences when the violation of the restriction is neither secretive nor clandestine. An activity conducted on a modest scale may not be noticeable or may not be a violation at all; but the same type of activity, if expanded, may become a noticeable violation.

A.N. Yiannopoulos, Predial Servitudes § 197 at 455, in 4 Louisiana Civil Law Treatise (3d ed.2004) (footnotes omitted).

With these principles in mind, mere advertisement, without some correlating, noticeable activity on the immovable property at issue, would be insufficient to commence prescription under La. C.C. art. 781. Furthermore, we decline to hold that mere maintenance of a website or advertisement on the internet is sufficient to establish a noticeable violation.

Other than her assertion of the maintenance of various websites to advertise her services since 2002, Mrs. Stuntz's testimony at trial reveals that the earliest her actions of providing art lessons in her home became noticeable was in the fall of 2009. At trial, Mrs. Stuntz identified several members of the subdivision who had taken or were taking art lessons in her home, but she could not recall any member taking a lesson in her home before 2009. She explained that “[a]t that point[,] I wasn't aggressively marketing. It was all on the website, but it was very passive.” She also admitted that in fall 2009, she handed out postcards in the subdivision and placed a sign in her yard advertising her art lessons. When she received the letter from the Association Board in March 2010, indicating that she was in violation of the subdivision restrictions regarding the posting of signs and parking, in addition to restriction 5.1.1, Mrs. Stuntz stated she immediately removed the sign and made arrangements for parking. The Association filed its petition for injunctive relief on July 12, 2010, prior to the lapse of two years from the fall of 2009, when Mrs. Stuntz's actions of providing art lessons in her home became noticeable.

Thus, the Association's action for injunctive relief to enforce restriction 5.1.1 is not prescribed, and, accordingly, we overrule the exception.

---

I AM NOT YOUR ATTORNEY, AND YOURE RETARDED IF YOU TRY TO USE LEGAL ADVICE THAT YOU RECEIVE FROM A TROLL ON A COLLEGE SPORTS FORUM.

UNLIKE MOST OF THESE frickTARDS, YOU DONT SEEM LIKE A MORON THAT WOULD RISK LOSING YOUR BUYER TO SAVE A FEW HUNDRED BUCKS, SO THIS DISCLAIMER REALLY ISNT NECESSARY.

MAKE YOUR GOOD DECISION LIKE IT SEEMS LIKE YOU WILL, PAY YOUR FEW HUNDRED BUCKS TO HAVE YOUR INTERESTS PROTECTED BY AN EXPERT, SELL YOUR frickING HOUSE, AND GET A LITTLE LIQUORED UP BEFORE YOUR UPDATE THAT INCLUDES THE VIDEO OF YOUR HEARING WITH YOUR a-hole HOA.

Good luck, baw. Sorry you're going through some bullshite. This was the risk of bending the rules, and your attorney will help you get it figured out. Those years of playing pool made it worth it.

By good HOA attorney, do you mean one that is going to tell you the truth or one that is going to tell you what you want to hear? Cause the truth is you are going to lose just like 99% of every other idiot who litigates against their HOA.

quote:

---

This was the risk of bending the rules

---

What rules did he bend? There is no difference in what he did than say adding an epoxy floor covering, filling it with boxes. And parking in the driveway.

ETA: IM NOT YOUR frickING LAWYER, ASSHOE. IN FACT, IM NOT EVEN A DOUCEBAG LAWYER WHO THINKS THAT THEY HAVE TO PUT SOME bullshite DISCLAIMER ON THEIR ANONYMOUS POSTS.

quote:

---

I am paying an attorney $200/hr (money well spent imo based on principle alone)

---

That's not too bad. I'm glad you're willing to fight, bc most people aren't.

Your job right now is to make it as easy as possible for your attorney, which will save you money. Do you still have contact with those board members? Will any of them be willing to execute an affidavit for you? Is there any way that you can determine when they visited your home?

Have them ready to answer the phone when your attorney calls. They don't even have to live locally anymore.

Good luck.