Car towed from building apartment parking spot

[Taarna]

Jurisdiction

California

My car was non operational and parked in the spot assigned to me by my building apartment. The management towed it because they were painting the building and the notice they left, they did so on the car window- but since my car is non operational, I had no reason to go to my parking spot, therefore I never got the notice. Usually they leave notices on the door of the apartment for things like this. My question is: is it legal for them to tow my car with just the notice posted on my car window?

 

[adjusterjack]

is it legal for them to tow my car with just the notice posted on my car window?

Yes.

 

[zddoodah]

How long after the notice was put on the car was it towed? Did your landlord have any reason to know that your car was non-operational?

 

[justblue]

My car was non operational and parked in the spot assigned to me by my building apartment. The management towed it because they were painting the building and the notice they left, they did so on the car window- but since my car is non operational, I had no reason to go to my parking spot, therefore I never got the notice. Usually they leave notices on the door of the apartment for things like this. My question is: is it legal for them to tow my car with just the notice posted on my car window?

Was your car legal...registered/inspected/insured?

 

[mightymoose]

Check your lease. You may find something about non operational cars not being allowed on the property. I recall a lease of mine addressing that many years ago.
You will have to pay to get your car back, but if you think the landlord should pay you will have to either come to an agreement or take your argument into small claims.
You might ask them why they didn't call you or post the notice on the door of your residence since they knew the car belonged to you.

 

[zddoodah]

Was your car legal...registered/inspected/insured?

Inspected by whom? And whether it's insured is irrelevant -- especially since there is no legal obligation to insure a car (unless the car is financed, but that's entirely between the owner and the lender).

 

[Zigner]

Was your car legal...registered/inspected/insured?

There are no "inspections" in CA like they have in many states...however, your general point is valid. If the car was not legal to drive on the streets, then it is "non-operational" insofar as the apartment complex is concerned.

 

[Zigner]

Inspected by whom?

Right - no "inspections" in CA (save for SMOG inspections).

And whether it's insured is irrelevant -- especially since there is no legal obligation to insure a car (unless the car is financed, but that's entirely between the owner and the lender).

Actually, there IS a legal requirement in CA for the car to be insured. If it's not, the it's not an operable vehicle insofar as the complex is concerned. Of course, that raises the question of how the complex would even know...but it's possible that the complex requires valid proof of insurance for vehicles parked on their property by residents.[/QUOTE]

 

[zddoodah]

Actually, there IS a legal requirement in CA for the car to be insured.

I disagree. The driver of any vehicle must be covered by a policy of liability insurance. For a car "to be insured" means that it is covered by an auto collision and comprehensive policy, and there is no requirement that a vehicle owner carry collision and/or comprehensive coverage.

 

[Zigner]

I disagree. The driver of any vehicle must be covered by a policy of liability insurance. For a car "to be insured" means that it is covered by an auto collision and comprehensive policy, and there is no requirement that a vehicle owner carry collision and/or comprehensive coverage.

That is not correct. The VEHICLE must have liability insurance. FFVR 18

Trust me - if the CAR doesn't have insurance, the state will suspend the registration.

 

[zddoodah]

That is not correct. The VEHICLE must have liability insurance. FFVR 18

I have no idea what "FFVR" stands for, but it's not a law of the State of California. Nor is a page at the DMV's website law. While the DMV's website might say, "[f]inancial responsibility (commonly known as insurance) is required on all vehicles operated or parked on California roadways," that's not an accurate statement of the law. Nor is it a meaningful statement based on how auto liability policies are written.

The actual law is found in section 16000, et seq. of the Vehicle Code, and nowhere in there does it say that there is "a legal requirement in CA for the car to be insured." Nor is there any requirement anywhere in California law that a vehicle be covered by a policy that includes collision or comprehensive coverage.

Moreover, policies of liability insurance cover drivers, not cars. That's logical because drivers, not cars, are liable for accidents. A policy will cover particular named persons and will also call anyone driving a covered auto with the permission/consent of the owner.

Trust me - if the CAR doesn't have insurance, the state will suspend the registration.

I've been registering cars in California for 35 years and never once have had to prove to the DMV that I carried liability insurance (except when I was rear ended about 10 years ago and had to file an SR-1).

 

[Zigner]

I will agree that there is no legal requirement for the car to be "insured", but there must be "financial responsibility" that is in effect "for the vehicle". For the vast majority of privately owned vehicles, that "financial responsibility" takes the form of insurance.

This is from your own link:



16020
(a) All drivers and all owners of a motor vehicle shall at all times be able to establish financial responsibility pursuant to Section 16021, and shall at all times carry in the vehicle evidence of the form of financial responsibility in effect for the vehicle.

You can try to play with the words all you want, but aside from the fact that "insurance" isn't the right term, the fact is that the vehicle must, "at all times" be covered by some form of "financial responsibility".

Furthermore, at no time did I state that comp/collision was legally required (not sure where you got that from).

Lastly, you state that you've never had to provide proof of "insurance", but you were required to show proof of "financial responsibility", which, as stated above, is usually insurance. For many years, such proof has been transmitted electronically to the state by the insurer, so the prior way of doing things may have slipped your mind. For the past 30+ years I have overseen the registration of not only my own personal vehicles, but a sizable fleet of corporate vehicles as well, so these things are pretty fresh in my mind.

You should probably review the link I posted, as it is a link to the California DMV's web site relating to financial responsibility. I've typed it out here instead of allowing the forum to reduce it to a link. Granted, it's not a word-for-word recitation of the law, but it will help guide you (and it IS published by the DMV, as I pointed out above): www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffvr18

 

[zddoodah]

Furthermore, at no time did I state that comp/collision was legally required (not sure where you got that from).

I wrote (post #9):

I disagree. The driver of any vehicle must be covered by a policy of liability insurance. For a car "to be insured" means that it is covered by an auto collision and comprehensive policy, and there is no requirement that a vehicle owner carry collision and/or comprehensive coverage.

To which you responded (post #10):

That is not correct.

You quoted the entirety of my post #9 and claimed it was "not correct." Not that some of it was incorrect, but that "[t]hat is not correct."

As for the rest of this, I don't see the point in bickering further. The law says what it says, and cars are not covered by liability policies.

 

[Zigner]

I wrote (post #9):




To which you responded (post #10):




You quoted the entirety of my post #9 and claimed it was "not correct." Not that some of it was incorrect, but that "[t]hat is not correct."

Huh? It was VERY clear which portion of your post I was responding to.

As for the rest of this, I don't see the point in bickering further.

I see...instead of admitting you're wrong you just storm off.

The law says what it says

Agreed.

, and cars are not covered by liability policies.

Then perhaps you can explain most most proof of insurance (AKA Financial Responsibility) cards are issued for a specific vehicle?

I find it hard to believe that you've insured vehicles in California. If so, you would know these things and not try to hide behind obfuscation.
It's ok to admit you're wrong...really.