The Arizona Court of Appeals has said that IF THE SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS ARE MET, then the tow company’s recovery (if any) is against the PARKING VIOLATOR, as opposed to the vehicle owner. “A sign that complies with A.R.S. 9-499.05 creates a legally binding contract between the towing company and the PARKING VIOLATOR which would permit a towing company to seek relief for its contractual damages.” Adage Towing & Recovery, Inc. v. City of Tucson, 187 Ariz. 396, 398, 930 P.2d 473, 475 (App. 1996).

Regardless of who the alleged parking violator is, the tow company MUST release the car to the owner. When the Arizona Supreme Court addressed this issue, it held that a towing company commits theft when it tows a car that was parked on private property without the property owner’s permission and then refuses to release the car to the car’s owner.

“According to the undisputed facts, the petitioner [a towing company], without lawful authority, knowingly controlled the property of another with the intent to restore it only upon payment of compensation. We believe the elements of the crime as specified under A.R.S. § 13-1801(2) and § 13-1802(A) have been satisfied, and that the petitioner may be charged with theft.” Capson v. Superior Court of State of Ariz., In and For Maricopa County, 139 Ariz. 113, 116, 677 P.2d 276, 279 (1984).

——————-

ARS 9-499.05 states, in part, that:

B. The owner or agent of the owner of the private property shall be DEEMED TO HAVE GIVEN CONSENT TO UNRESTRICTED PARKING by the general public in any parking area of the private property UNLESS such parking area is posted with signs as prescribed by this subsection which are CLEARLY VISIBLE and READABLE from ANY POINT within the parking area and at each entrance.

——————-

That means that if there exists any point in the parking lot at which a parking sign is not clearly readable, then the lot owner — as a matter of law — is deemed to have granted permission to park there. Tempe municipal law is wholly irrelevant to whether a lot owner meets the requirements of the state statute. In other words, even if a lot owner fully complies with the Tempe ordinance, the lot owner might still fail to meet the state statute.

You still have it! This has been one of the more entertaining posts in recent memory. I hope you can change a seemingly rotten system.

As an aside, in 1984 and 1985, I spent some time at the Motorola Mesa plant working on starting up the 256k DRAM (yep, I am old). The MOS 5 guys must have told me a dozen times “be careful when you park anywhere around ASU; they’ll tow you in minutes.” So, even back then, it was considered to be a “parking trap”.

Regards.

**Charles´s last blog post..Las Vegas Housing Market: Foreclosures Down, Sales Up

Even if you take them to small claims court, please do so, and keep
us apprised of any new developments!

Follow the money….