Common Area Parking Spaces Must be Assigned Equally

The Court of Appeals of Virginia recently issued an opinion affirming a Circuit Court decision holding that common area parking spaces must be assigned equally.  The case involved a suit by a homeowner, Patrick Batt, against Manchester Oaks subdivision in Fairfax County.  The subdivision contained 57 townhouses, 30 of which were constructed with a garage and driveway (garaged lots) and 27 of which were constructed with an additional bedroom and bathroom in lieu of a garage (ungaraged lots). The subdivision included a common area with 72 parking spaces.

The subdivision was subject to a declaration, administered by the homeowners association that gave the association the right to designate a maximum of two parking spaces for the exclusive use of each lot owner.  However, the association was not required to ensure that parking spaces were available to any particular owner or to oversee use of the parking spaces.  Batt had purchased a garaged lot in 1990, before the subdivision was complete.  At that time, residents parked wherever they chose.  In 1993 or 1994, the developer began assigning two parking spaces to each ungaraged lot.  The remaining 18 parking spaces were designated as “visitor” parking, available to all lot owners on a first-come, first-served basis.

In 2009, the association issued one visitor parking permit to each lot owner and posted a parking policy on its website.  Any vehicle not displaying a permit while parked in the visitor parking spaces would be towed.  In December 2009, the association amended the declaration to provide that the association had the right to designate two parking spaces exclusively to each of the ungaraged lot owners on a non-uniform and preferential basis.  In June 2010, Batt sued the association, claiming that the unequal treatment of owners over parking space assignments violated the declaration.  The association argued that Batt’s suit was barred by the December 2009 amendment to the declaration.

The circuit court ruled in Batt’s favor, finding that the amendment was invalid for six reasons.  The association appealed.  The Court of Appeals ruled, in summary, that equality is inherent in the definition of “common area.”  A “common area” is defined as, “[a]n area owned and used in common by residents of a condominium, subdivision, or planned-unit development.”  Black’s Law Dictionary defines “in common” to mean “[s]hared equally with others, undivided into separately owned parts.”  Accordingly, the court held that the association must assign common area parking spaces to all lot owners equally, if at all, unless the declaration expressly provided otherwise.  In this case, the court did not find that unequal assignment was authorized.