I believe that is what they told the OP when he asked for a definition after they complained about the size.
The definition in the Florida law speaking to oversized vehicles and rules and permits and such when travelling on the roadways does not apply to a private enterprise on private property nor this situation in general.
I guess the question is; what are you looking for here?
Your options have been explained to you. There is one I don’t thing I’ve read here but that is you proactively suing the hoa seeking a declaratory judgment on the matter.
So, you either wait until they do something and then deal with it, as described previously, or you lawyer up and sue seeking a court’s opinion now.
That’s a silly argument. That’s like saying the vehicle can’t be over 7 feet tall but since I don’t have a tape measure handy it can’t apply to me. Whether you have a carport or not, “fits in a carport” is defining the size. If you want accurate measurements, get out your tape measure and measure a carport.
I suppose they could ask...So how does an owner, current of prospective, understand that the intent of oversized means "fits in a carport"? Moreover, how does someone who otherwise would not be able to fit their car into the carport, have the foresight of this unwritten rule before they buy a condo inside the association? That's my argument. Or is that just tough luck, they are stuck with the problem of having to remove their personal vehicle because of an unwritten rule that they never knew about? There are other vehicles that are actual trucks that would not fit under the carport. How do these people know this will be an issue for them BEFORE they purchase a condo?
That’s not what I was saying though. Given the situation, no definition in the law would apply. Trying to argue it isn’t defined in the law doesn’t help because the laws don’t apply here.
But, in the op’s typical manner, he has alluded to the possibility “oversized” is in fact defined. Somewhere he came up with this;
Must fit in a carport is defining the size. If that was just an oral interpretation by the board member, then it’s meaningless. If it is written in the rules, it’s pretty defining
And while op wants to argue there is an E-350 van in the development, If it is standard height, it isn’t comparable to op’s van.
THAT is what would make you ask. I suppose one could simply say "hey, if everyone else is doing it, it must be ok because every organization everywhere always has 100% enforcement at all times of every single rule", but that wouldn't be wise, would it?I think I see the confusion here.
The actual rule STATES "No oversized trucks..." No definition of what is meant by oversized.
That’s why I wrote of both possibilities.The actual rule STATES "No oversized trucks..." No definition of what is meant by oversized.
That’s why I wrote of both possibilities.
So, the question still is:
What are you looking for here?
Your options have been laid out.
If the board has done nothing:
1. Do nothing
2. Seem counsel with a laywer
3. Sue the board seeking a declarative ruling.
If the board has cited you;
1. Fight it
A. If you win- party time
B. If you lose
1. Accept it and take action to remedy the violation
2. Appeal it
If appeal is won- continue the fight.
If appeal is lost
1. Accept it
2. Appeal to a higher power
If appeal is lost
a. Accept it
b. Appeal to a higher authority
And on and on ad nauseum
If the board has towed...
Well. Hopefully you get the point. The ball is in your court.
Givin the facts at hand, you may prevail in seeking a court’s opinion the criteria is ill defined and as such unenforceable. Of course nobody here has all the information needed to make anything close to a dependable answer.