A HOMEOWNER has been fighting back against his homeowner’s association (HOA) after being told where he can and cannot park.

James Crandall is now locked in legal matters with his North Carolina HOA at Manorfield subdivision in Mebane over where he is allowed to park.

He bought his single-family home in July 2017 at 1,685 square feet on .13 acres.

Years later, his HOA informed him that he was not allowed to park in the area he had been doing for years, claiming it was for visitors only.

Crandall filed the suit when his HOA threatened to fine him for parking in these areas.

The lawsuit is based on “unreasonable regulation” of parking where Crandall claims there are three public common areas for parking in a “combination of public and private streets.”

His suit alleges that there were no parking restrictions at the time of his property purchase and he should be allowed to park his company vehicle in any of the identified common areas.  

“The disputed parking areas are oriented such that vehicles park perpendicular to the streets in two of those locations,” the complaint read.

“The third location is configured as a parking lot serving a gazebo and related amenities that are part of the Common Area.”

Read Related Also: Moment ‘incel’ gunman Jake Davison viciously attacks 16-year-old boy

He also names the City of Mebane as a defendant for not enforcing the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) “in such a manner as to compel the Association to allow Crandall,” to park in these public areas.

The UDO is explained by Crandall’s suit as: “Easements over the common areas for access, ingress from and to public streets and walkways and easements for enjoyment of the common areas, as well as for parking, shall be granted to each owner of a residential site.”

He is seeking both a ruling on signage and for monetary compensation.

Primarily this includes that, “any rule or regulation or erection of any signage” by the HOA is not allowed.

This comes as the association posted, “Visitor Parking Only. Resident Parking Unauthorized,” signs in August of 2019.

Then he is seeking $25,000 “for the unlawful confiscation of Crandall’s property right,” which refers to his parking space.

Crandall’s HOA counter-filed for dismissal under the argument that parking is, “governed by the restrictive covenants, bylaws, and articles of incorporation of the Association, and by law…and there is no law to support,” his claims.

The HOA further stated that Crandall had not properly included other stakeholders, namely other residents, in his suit.

This case was not dismissed and the court has ordered the parties involved to come to an agreement through mediation by January 10, 2024.