Residents et al. v. Pavilion Garage
73 U.Va 21 (2021)
J. Peterson delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented to the Court today is whether a garage, owned and operated by an apartment complex for the benefit of its residents, designed in an undeniably poor nature, and often plagued by disrespectful and entirely unwelcome interferences by both the community and what can only be assumed to be Pavilion’s own utilities, may be allowed to mar this community because, as defendants put it, “you get what you pay for.” The answer of the Court today, in accord with the lower courts before it, is no, no it absolutely may not.
Plaintiffs, the residents of the Pavilion, as well as those friends and acquaintances of theirs unlucky enough to have experienced the terrors of traversing The Pavilion’s (Pav) garage (Pav Garage), bring this suit in equity to request not only an injunction ordering Pav not only to tear down the Garage and erase all record of its existence from the annals of time, but also an order requiring Pav to reconstruct a new garage. Importantly, the new garage must include a straight path to the key-sensor to enter the garage, as any sane individual would think would already be the case. Additionally, the blueprints must include designs to better the visibility between the floors, widen turns around corners, and add a rooftop bar and grill for those unlucky enough to have to park on the fifth floor.
Due to the Court’s complete agreement with the plaintiffs in this case, it seems unnecessary to engage with the defendant’s arguments. However, in short, the “you get what you pay for” argument, while valid in other jurisdictions such as Ivy, has no place as a defense for an overpriced apartment scheme such as Pav. In fact, ironically, Pav’s argument functions exactly not as intended, much like many of the amenities and privileges offered there.
The plaintiffs cite specifically in their grievances, first, the “general awfulness of the typical drive through the [G]arage.” While this language of “general” seems directly in conflict with a reference to a specific grievance, if one has set foot in the Garage, it becomes immediately clear what the plaintiffs are talking about, specifically, when they say, “general awfulness.”
Second, the plaintiffs draw the Court’s attention to the danger and difficulty inherent in navigating the Garage. For example, the narrowness of the Garage when going up or down the roundabout turns is extreme. Additionally, the turns are completely blind unless one uses the mirrors placed on the walls, which creates a hazard for those driving up or down the garage while exercising their God-given right to pay zero attention to absolutely anything while behind the wheel. The Court agrees with the plaintiffs’ contention that it is untenable to expect the already school-plagued residents of Pav to pay any extra attention while driving, and thus believes that this is an issue which Pav is responsible for resolving.
Finally, the plaintiffs allege that, at best, when trying to leave the Garage, every driver’s view is obstructed by a utility box sitting on the left as one pulls out. At the worst, and as seen recently, third parties will leave large vehicles parked half-on the sidewalk alongside Pav, further obstructing the view of those trying to depart. This is unacceptable. This is America. The land of the free, the home of the brave, and the country where at one point we were required to get out of our cars to check to see if a train wasn’t coming. Allowing the visual obstructions present to persist any longer would be to return back to Holmes, back to imposing undue burdens upon our citizenry in favor of The Big Guy (like Pav), and away from the American dream we attempt to instill in every hallway, every garage, and every overpriced single apartment from sea to shining sea.
As such, the plaintiffs’ injunctions are granted in full. Pav must construct the garage per plaintiffs’ requests. This judge is certainly excited to make use of the rooftop bar.
And, lest there appear to be any trace of allowing politics to infect the decision of this court, I reference back to my own ruling in Residents of the Pavilion v. Pavilion, 73 U.Va 8 (2020), in which I allowed Pav to continue its current practices, much to the chagrin of its residents. As such, I believe my position, and the legitimacy of this Court today, remain unsullied.
Justice Birch, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
While the young justice makes admirable points, this justice must get out of my car and look around the garage corner to navigate the dangers inherent in the proposed remedy. To make plain, I concur that equitable remedy for the Plaintiff is wholly warranted and should be issued with expediency. The Garage is trafficked by many of the smartest minds our country has brought together under this University, but many of them have not applied their wit or wisdom to learning the art of driving. This, in combination with an already suspect design, compounds two issues together that creates a cause of action. Now, the Pav cannot control the actions or behaviors of its residents,[1] but it can control its own behaviors and designs. Making adjustments for the very foreseeable fact that highly-educated people are terrible drivers should have been done long ago, and it needs to be handled now.
However, I dissent from the young justice’s proposed remedy, being as short-sighted as the turns in the Garage currently are. I cannot fault the justice for his naivete, as my two additional semesters on this bench have clearly wizened me beyond my years. As a resident of the Pav and owner of a car, I have frequently experienced the atrocities that plague Plaintiffs. I have, however, also experienced what living in a building is like that is (1) under construction and (2) does not have a garage. I wish neither of these on the plaintiffs and encourage a more restrained order from my colleagues. The short-sighted nature of the remedy proposed ignores the two plain reasons the plaintiffs have a complaint in the first place: cost reduction and poor planning. It is in the defendant’s best interest to spend as little as possible while collecting high rent. And while the “you get what you pay for” argument may be applicable in Manhattan or San Francisco, in Charlottesville, Virginia, it is not. On top of that, this is a year where the amount spent on events, staff, and upkeep has outwardly dropped while rent has remained constant. The budget may contain the “surplus” needed to fund these changes. However, this justice recognizes that those finances have not been saved, but may have immediately disappeared without a trace.[2] The prior poor planning does not inspire confidence in the outcome of a new construction without significant judicial oversight, adding the additional burden on members of this court of coordinating with Pavilion management.
Therefore, I would order the Pavilion to reposition the card reader to the front point of the newly-installed barrier blocks, bar third party trucks from parking to the northeast of the entrance, reposition certain vehicles[3] that extend far out into the turn, and proceed with a full garage power wash and cleaning.[4] All of this will allow for many of the unskilled drivers to swipe their cards without popping a tire or hitting the gate arm, take turns with their usual abandon, and park their cars for more than two days without them becoming covered in dust.
As a personal aside in a vein similar to my colleague, “lest there appear to be any trace of allowing politics to infect the decision of this court,” I live in the Pav. I have taken an objective approach, recognized my bias, and continued anyways. I don’t want to lose a garage for the remainder of my tenure for sake of a few dangers that ultimately may still exist at the conclusion of the majority’s remedy.[5]
---
jtp4bw@virginia.edu
sfb9yu@virginia.edu
[1] Even though it has tried many times through sleep deprivation and sound therapy.
[2] Like license plates off cars on Floor 2
[3] Pick-up trucks
[4] For good measure
[5] I cannot urge this enough: I need that garage and hope my actions on this bench do not result in real-world consequences involving the named partie