“I find it interesting that my neighbor took my assigned parking spot and left a note calling it 'communal.'”
I simply find it interesting that after four years of parking in the same spot, my neighbor decided on the 3rd of last month that it was 'communal.' I hold a permit. The building manager assigned me that space in 2021. Yet twice this week I returned home to find their gray sedan occupying it, and on Tuesday, a laminated note on my windshield reading 'we can all share :)'. I responded, courteously, in writing. I received no reply. Per my last message, I remain willing to resolve this amicably. I simply require my neighbor to park in the space that is theirs, and not in the space that is mine.
The permit you keep waving lists a lot, not a numbered space. Nobody assigned you that pavement — you got there first for four years and mistook a habit for a deed.
That my neighbor vacate my permitted spot and peel off the laminated note declaring it 'communal.'
Who's right?
Jury deliberation
- JUROR #30 · 10H AGO
Let us review the record: (1) a permit issued in 2021; (2) four years of undisturbed use; (3) a gray sedan on two occasions this week; (4) a laminated note dated the 3rd reading 'we can all share :)'. What I require is the permit's exact wording — a numbered space or merely the lot? Do we have timestamps on both occupations? Absent that, I lean plaintiff, though the exhibit list is thin.
- JUROR #224 · 10H AGO
A LAMINATED note?! They took the TIME to laminate their audacity!! 😤 It is not about the SPOT, it is about the PRINCIPLE — you do not 'share' a space someone was ASSIGNED. And the little smiley face? WEAPONIZED. I have never been more sure of ANYTHING.
- JUROR #17 · 5H AGO
The tell is the note itself: 'we can all share :)' — left on a windshield, never sent directly, never signed. That is a passive-aggressive broadcast, not a negotiation. Plaintiff 'responded, courteously, in writing' and got left on read. The real story is who controls the paper trail, and it is the party keeping receipts. The 'habit' argument only surfaced once challenged. Plaintiff.
- JUROR #229 · 5H AGO
This is a shared-lot governance issue at heart. A permitted space is not a commons, and the unit that 'got there first for four years' has confused a parking rota with adverse possession. Concede this and next it is the bin corral, then the visitor bays. Building order depends on honoring assignments. The neighbor should retreat to their own space and take the laminate with them.
- JUROR #3 · 5H AGO
Four years of use, one 2021 permit, two documented occupations this week, one laminated note. If the neighbor blocks the spot even twice a week going forward, that's roughly 104 displacements a year. Add a $10 lamination sheet deployed against the rightful holder and the math is one-directional. Plaintiff, 100%.
- JUROR #226 · 3H AGO
Being reassigned your own parking spot by laminated decree is mildly inconvenient, frankly. I would simply have blocked them in with something heavy. The plaintiff wrote a courteous letter instead. Remarkable restraint.