A Community Association's Duty to Provide Security
The issue of providing security can be a real dilemma for community associations. If you do nothing, there may be liability and if you do something you may be sued for not doing enough. In Atrium Unit Owners Association v. King, 266 Va. 288 (2003), the Virginia Supreme Court found that an Association was not liable for a unit burglary which may have occurred by use of the "convenience key" placed with the Associations' management. Liability was escaped only because there was no proof that that was how entrance to the unit was obtained by the thieves. While the Supreme Court's word was the last on the subject, it is worth noting that in doing so the Court was reversing a jury which found the lack of checks and security for the extra keys was negligent on the part of the Association and made a hefty award to the Unit Owner. Perhaps with slightly different facts the Supreme Court would not have reversed the decision.
I think we can all agree that the best way to resolve these questions is to insulate the Association BEFORE there is ever a problem. In Bradford Square Condominium Association, Inc. v. Miller, 258 Ga. App. 240 (2002), the Georgia appeals court entered summary judgment for an Association declaring that there was no duty to provide security. In that case, one owner was killed and another badly injured during a robbery in a common area parking lot. In refusing to impose liability, the Court noted that the owners had specifically amended the Declaration to include a provision that there was no duty to provide security and that the Association would not be liable for inadequate or ineffective security measures. Another important drafting note was that the Amended Declaration not only limited the liability of the Association but made clear that the responsibility for security was delegated to each owner.
Since Virginia courts have upheld the effectiveness of limitations of association liability in the past (Nido v. Ocean Owners' Council, 237 Va. 664, (1989)) and have been reluctant to impose liability for criminal acts of third parties, it is likely such a provision would prove effective in the Commonwealth. So next time you're reviewing your documents, make sure you are protected from liability and if you are not, maybe it's time to amend - now - before an unfortunate event occurs.
In my community, a board member pushed to create a No Parking Zone in order to punish another homeowner. (The area is no different than 90% of the community) He rules this area -(2 blocks from his house)-with a heavy hand and harasses me and my neighbors if anyone even parks with a front fender encroaching. Is this legal and how can we stop him ?
RESPONSE: Aside from the Board Member's punishment motives you suspect, you mentioned that the Board Member in question has "pushed for" the creation of this zone. Thus, you recognize that this Board Member does not have the authority to pass such a rule by himself, and must gain support from the other Members of the Board. My advice would be for you to do the same: speak to the Board as a whole, and explain why you think this selective "No-Parking" zone is inappropriate.
If the measure is passed by the Board, your condominium documents may allow the owners in the community 'veto' rights if you can gather enough support. If not, then you may be stuck with the new rule until the next Board elections come around, at which time you must lobby to replace those in charge.
Outside of these suggestions, there may be some possibility that you could challenge the validity of the new "no parking" zone in court based on an argument of "selective enforcement," but I would need to know more of the details of how the parking arrangements are arranged in the community, the history of parking enforcement, and whether or not your other governing documents have conflicting language about parking enforcement. You should be aware, however, that such a challenge by you would not have a great chance of success, since Board rules (if passed correctly from a procedural point of view) are given the presumption of validity and you would be forced to carry the burden to show that it is somehow unlawful (and nothing you have mentioned so far suggests that it is).