Don't bother. It's the board that hires the management company that enforces the rules. I doubt that the board will overturn your fines. As I explained earlier, people who live in HOAs give up a certain amount of freedom and rights in exchange for the security that a private gated community provides.
When you rent in an HOA you do the same. Your right to due process is what the HOA says it is, not the due process you are entitled to outside the HOA enclave.
You failed to control your vehicle. Doesn't matter whether you were wearing sunglasses, had a bag over your head, were on your phone or engaging in anything else that distracted you. For that you had to pay for the damage and were fined $50. $50 is a darn sight less than you would have to pay for a comparable infraction outside of the HOA. I say comparable because the HOA version doesn't have to match, word for word, the state statute.
§ 46.2-853. Driving vehicle which is not under control; faulty brakes
Outside the HOA your fine would have been a couple of hundred, would have gotten points on your driving record and increased insurance rates.
You were also cited for destruction of property. That doesn't have to match a statute either which, incidentally, is a lot more serious than what the HOA charged you $50 for.
§ 18.2-137. Injuring, etc., any property, monument, etc
You got fined for what you did do. And for a fraction of the consequences that would have befallen you had it happened outside the HOA.
So, yes, you were given a gift by only being charged $50 each.
Frankly, if you don't like what happened you should find a place to rent somewhere that doesn't have an HOA.
Remember, he who gives up freedom (and rights) for security deserves neither.
I strongly disagree with your post.
"Your right to due process is what the HOA says it is, not the due process you are entitled to outside the HOA enclave."
False. The United States Constitution, the Virgina State Constitution, and Virginia law trump any HOA procedures. I assume that HOA's are required by law to offer equitable due process procedures, regardless of what those procedures are. The HOA is not offering adequate due process through their own guidelines. I am not giving up any "freedom" or "rights." I of course have to abide by the contract that I agreed to, but they are not fulfilling their end of their contract.
"You failed to control your vehicle."
Yes, but everyone that gets into an accident "fails to control their vehicle." Everyone that gets into an accident cannot be charged with a crime, can they? Is that what you are suggesting? (this is not a rhetorical question, I would really like for you to respond). That is not the law anywhere in the United States. I cited Virginia case law that notes this. I did not break any laws. Outside the HOA, I would not have been cited for anything, because the cops would have presumably been smarter than the security guards here and understood the law (2 different lawyers told me this). If I had been cited, it would have also been done inappropriately, and the charges would have been tossed in District Court. The Virginia Supreme Court has established clear law on this matter, which you obviously don't seem to understand. See "Powers v. Commonwealth" and "Bacon v. Commonwealth."
"2. "Recklessly" as used in statute imparts a disregard by the driver of a motor vehicle for the consequences of his act and an indifference to the safety of life, limb or property. Speed alone is not a violation of the statute. Mere happening of an accident does not give rise to an inference of reckless driving. Evidence that accused's car traveled in an erratic course for more than 900 feet and struck tree with such force that the motor was wrenched from it and defendant was thrown clear of car and injured, does not raise inference of reckless driving. Record does not disclose how and why accident happened. Momentum of automobile and its erratic course may be attributed to other causes. Evidence leaves much to speculation and conjecture and does not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence."
"Defendant's explanation that he was forced off the highway by another vehicle is not contradicted. If his statement is true, then the defendant was confronted with a sudden emergency that was not caused by his own negligence. If we reject his statement, we are left without any explanation of how the accident occurred and can only speculate or guess that it was due to excessive speed, to inattention by the driver, or to alcohol."
"We cannot say that the defendant's explanation of how the accident occurred and of what caused him to lose control of his car is incredible on unworthy of belief. The evidence neither excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence nor is it consistent only with the guilt of defendant. The fact that the defendant was found guilty of improper driving, which indicates a slight degree of culpability, is not material. Both reckless driving and improper driving are criminal offenses and to sustain a conviction of either the Commonwealth's evidence must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."
Virginia law does not require you to be in complete control of your vehicle at all times.
Kennedy v. Commonwealth
""[T]he driver of a vehicle has a duty to use ordinary care to keep his vehicle under proper control."
Meeks v. Hodge, 226 Va. 106, 109,
306 S.E.2d 879, 881 (1983) (citing
Voight v. Reber, 187 Va. 157, 164,
46 S.E.2d 15, 19 (1948)). The law does not impose the duty upon a driver to keep his automobile under
complete control at
all times.
Gale v. Wilber, 163 Va. 211, 221,
175 S.E. 739, 743 (1934)."
I of course was not in "complete control" of my vehicle, or I would not have been in an accident. The law does not require me to be. It only requires me to exercise proper care, which I did. I was blinded by the sun and had an accident. This is not a crime. To say that this is a crime is absurd.
"You were also cited for destruction of property. That doesn't have to match a statute either which, incidentally, is a lot more serious than what the HOA charged you $50 for."
Destruction of property is also a crime in Virginia, which can be charged if a person damages property based on their "reckless" or intentional behavior. As I stated, I wasn't driving recklessly or negligently. It was accidental damage, which I paid for.
"Doesn't matter whether you were wearing sunglasses, had a bag over your head, were on your phone or engaging in anything else that distracted you."
Yes it does matter, which the case law I cited illustrates (Powers v. Commonwealth, Bacon v. Commonwealth, Kennedy v. Commonwealth). It completely matters according to the Virginia Supreme Court. It may not matter to my HOA, but the Virginia Supreme Court trumps my HOA's interpretation of the law.
"Remember, he who gives up freedom (and rights) for security deserves neither."
This seems to be your mantra, and appear to be a gross overgeneralization. I am not living in an HOA for "security." I live in the middle of the country, where I also work. There is no crime in the country. The HOA runs one of the only communities that is close to my workplace, with affordable housing and is very scenic with many amenities. Quality, affordable housing is very scarce around here, with the most basic homes selling for about $300,000. Many sell for $600,000+, and I am not rich. I don't understand why you dismiss people's concerns simply because of their living situation. Everyone deserves rights, and everyone deserves security.
