A visiting superior court judge from Wake County has permanently dismissed a long-running lawsuit over parking restrictions in common areas within the Manorfield subdivision in Mebane.
James Crandall, who owns a home in Manorfield at 1404 Yellow Wood Drive, originally filed his suit against the Manorfield Property Owners Association and the city of Mebane in June 2023.
Crandall argued that the absence of any restrictions on parking in common areas within Manorfield when he bought his home in 2017 had been consistent with Mebane’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) and asked the city to enforce its UDO.
Mebane’s attorney, however, countered that the city lacked the legal authority to challenge the property owners’ association restrictions on parking areas within Manorfield, and the city was dismissed as a defendant to the suit following a hearing in Alamance County superior court in June 2024.
A three-judge panel for the state Court of Appeals subsequently declined to review the ruling dismissing the city as a defendant and dismissed Crandall’s appeal as premature in May 2025.
Crandall contended that, two years after he’d purchased his home in Manorfield, the property owners’ association erected signage prohibiting residents from parking in three common areas in August 2019. He claimed that the prohibition represented “an unlawful taking” of easement rights to use the common area parking spaces that had been granted to all property owners under the subdivision’s declaration of covenants and restrictions.
Crandall had sought a judgment declaring the restrictions to be an “unreasonable interference”; or an alternative judgment declaring his company vehicle a “visitor” to the subdivision, given that it is owned by his employer. He had also sought damages for the alleged confiscation of easement rights, as well as recovery of his costs for filing the lawsuit.
Last week, visiting superior court judge Sean Cole of Wake County entered an order granting the Manorfield Property Owners Association’s motion to dismiss the suit.
Crandall had parked his company vehicle in one of three common areas within Manorfield since buying his house in the subdivision in July 2019, according to his suit.
He contended that he was ultimately deprived of his “easement rights” as a homeowner to use the common areas was a violation, warning that he would be fined or towed for subsequent violations.
The plaintiff insisted that, “as a result of the unlawful, private ‘taking’” of his easement rights, he had been forced to forfeit the use of a company vehicle and instead use his own vehicle for work. The use of his personal vehicle for work caused wear and tear that rendered his $22,255 Ford Focus “now worthless,” based on a response to the motion to dismiss that Crandall filed in superior court earlier this month.
Crandall claimed that he had parked his company vehicle, “as well as other vehicles, in those spaces from time to time without issue between July 2017 and August 2019, according to his response to Manorfield’s motion to dismiss.
Crandall’s lawsuit wasn’t about an unlawful taking of his property – and he had sufficient parking on his own property to accommodate a company vehicle, according to a pretrial brief that was filed for the Manorfield Property Owners Association earlier this month.
Crandall’s property has four parking spaces: a two-car garage and a two-car driveway, according to the pretrial brief that was filed for the Property Owners Association.
“Other than a trailer for hauling his race car (which trailer is stored off-site), from August 2019 to date [the] plaintiff has simultaneously owned three cars: a Panoz race car, a Dodge Ram 3500 Heavy Duty truck, and a Ford Focus,” according to a deposition given by Crandall that is referenced in the pretrial brief for Manorfield.
“For about three years after the Parking Signs were erected, and all while owning the same Panoz, Dodge, and Ford, [Crandall] accepted a Chevrolet Traverse provided by his employer and drove that car as his own,” the brief states, asserting that Crandall changed employers in October 2022 and opted not to accept a company car he said his new employer had offered.
“With three cars in four parking spaces on his lot, and after having driven a company car for three years under the exact same circumstances, [the] plaintiff concluded in 2022 that he suddenly had nowhere to park the car offered by his new employer because three years ago, back in August 2019, [the] defendant had erected Parking Signs in the common areas,” Manorfield contended in its pretrial brief.
“Assuming [the] plaintiff was actually offered use of a company car by his new employer after October 2022, [he] could have accepted that company car just as he had with his prior employer for the preceding three years – while the same Parking Signs were in place and while he owned the same three other cars,” according to Manorfield’s pretrial brief. “Instead, he simply chose not to: [the] plaintiff admits that he ‘didn’t even attempt to do that.’”
A trial had been scheduled to begin in Alamance County superior court on September 8 but was canceled, according to the court file.
Cole concluded from the pleadings, excerpts from depositions taken in the case, affidavits, and discovery responses that there was “no genuine issue of material fact.”
He dismissed the suit and ordered each side to pay its own costs for the action, based on the order that Cole entered last Wednesday afternoon.
