FL: Man Suing Neighbors Over Alleged Illegal HOA

Kevin,
Very interesting,I am in FL, and I believe our property is in the same situation, here, but the Board refuses to admit it,and want to keep running as if they do have a right? Could y direct me to the public files,or if y know how the judge came about determining it? The problem is I dont want to take it that far, because is costing me a lot of money.

You can visit the website for the lawsuit or contact the plaintiff of the case - he may be of some help. I don't have all the documentation but he may be able to forward relevant information.

The website is http://www.sandlakehillslawsuit.com

He has posted some excerpts from the judge that sort of show the HOA talking out of their rear end...

This is sometimes how the rulings work. They apply to the individual and no one else. I don't agree with it but it would depend on the actual wording of the ruling.

If the ruling is worded only for the individual, I would recommend that someone gather the other members together and file the same complaint (and use the same attorney) as a group. They would cite the initial case as another example.

Question: Are the covenants still attached to the deed?

I had tried to contact the HOA and their attorney but they won't respond. The HOA deleted all of their emails except their president's, and eliminated reference to their amended C&Rs or by-laws. They are holding a meeting which they state they are kind enough to open it up to all homeowners, but they say that a "recent ruling by the Court which was specific to one property in SLH, but has some implications regarding the operations of the HOA going forward" will be mentioned.

I am confused, being the judge's words were pretty clear - the C&Rs expired on the properties and the HOA is voluntary, so what else is there to explain to the homeowners?!

It is my understanding that Florida MRTA laws effect the automatic renewal clauses in C&Rs.

And even though the decision references a single lot, the situation surrounding the particular property is identical to every other property in the neighborhood, with the only difference being the date of which the C&Rs were recorded.

Also, the deal about the HOA is that regardless of membership, they are claiming they can force non-members - even those who never joined - to pay any assessments, fines, etc.

When my family requested information regarding their amended C&Rs, they threatened legal action and cited a collections case from another neighborhood under different circumstances.

Their plan has a "roach motel clause," as in once you join, you can never leave.

The only thing membership gets you is a vote, but to prevent people from becoming voluntary members to gain voting privileges right before elections, they held secret meetings and required people to become members in good standing weeks before the meeting - and they would announce a meeting after the required date to become a member in good standing. Any non-member who was "mandated" was denied access to the meetings.

There is more - the HOA doesn't follow their articles of incorporation. They dictate board make up must be made from people in Section 2, but the pres doesn't own a home, the VP lives in a different neighborhood altogether, and the other board members are from different subdivisions. They don't even meet required number of board members, and to solve that, they took on a couple new people but never recorded them with the state.

Their amended C&Rs were also notarized improperly, as determined by the office of the governor...

There is also the issue of the lies - the board claimed the need to maintain common property as a reason to mandate neighbors to pay, but in court they admitted to owning no common property.

There is just a lot of details to this case that don't add up.

I read that section differently to mean that since it wasn't an HOA, then they did not have the authority to file the amended CC&Rs however, the auto-renewal would still exist as it was a part of the initial CC&Rs. However, I am not well versed in FL laws.

To comment on your earlier posting, I agree that every other lot in section 3 has similar conditions to yours. However, since the ruling only specified the single lot, then every other lot would need to go through the same procedure to have them legally removed from their deeds as the court ruling does not do this.

Tim

The board member was referring to a pre-trial ruling from a previous judge before it advanced to the last judge. That ruling was not set in stone.

The HOA also claimed that the covenants and restrictions were not their own, but were the individual property owners. They withheld information from the previous judge during discovery, which is resulted in the pre-trail ruling. The final judge took a more detailed look at the case.

The homeowners the plaintiff is suing are in Section 3 neighborhood. The HOA is in Section 2. The judge ruled they had no authority to act over section 3. I would see that the lawsuit against the homeowners may have merits because the individual homeowners were granting authority to an illegal entity which then attempted to impose its rules on every homeowner. The homeowners were therefor responsible

Hi Kevin:

I'm curious as to what does the HOA maintain? The news video stated common property, but one of the comments below the news article states there is no common property maintained by the HOA.

So ... what is your opinion on this and what would you prefer to see? Do you feel there should be or do you want to have an HOA?

I personally do not like HOAs. Sure, in some neighborhoods they work, but I generally disagree with the concept. At one time, I was indifferent and didn't mind them.

As for this particular situation, when my family purchased the home, we bought it understanding there was no HOA (we did understand certain C&Rs though), but then there came this group asking for donations to pay for a police patrol. We donated voluntarily and at the time we were under the understanding that they were THE HOA, but then things started to change (as a side note, that was an argument the HOA's attorney used in court - since people believed it was the HOA, despite records or law, it was only right that it be ruled that they are). A new board was elected and they wanted to "change" things. They wanted to spend lots more money then what the neighborhood was taking in to improve property values. When people rejected their ideas they changed lawyers and started sending violation notices and volunteers asking for signatures to change the rules - if you refused they would threaten you saying your property will be annexed by their organization and will be forced to pay. Many of my neighbors signed because they did not want to be bothered with any legal hassles or extra costs.

The whole process didn't sit right with my family so we stopped voluntarily donating and sent a letter explaining our dissatisfaction. Over a couple years, the board kept a cumulative tally of signatures, even as homeownership changed, and when they got 50% of my neighbors' signatures, they filed documents with the county and demanded we pay or face legal actions. We asked for information nicely but were threatened with legal action - their lawyer told us it was the "fair" thing to do. The HOA then instructed their attorney to cease communication with us and told us to lawyer up if we wanted any documentation from them.

We attended a meeting but the board refused to take questions from anyone who asked about details of their plans. We tried to attend a second meeting but the board denied access to the meeting, and then later changed venues and lied as to why they moved (they claimed the county started charging fees to use the library when in fact the building was free and owned by a local non-profit).

Eventually, the board stopped announcing their meetings and only invited members in good standing. (It didn't make a difference because the board would issue proxies granting the board discretion over the vote and at every meeting, they would claim to have enough proxies to have quorum and enough to have a majority vote).

Basically, every time we asked a question or did any research, we walked away with several contradictions. We were attacked for not wanting to pay our "fair share" when it was not that at all, but the limitless power the HOA wanted to grant themselves so that they could transform the neighborhood to be more like our wealthier neighborhoods, like the famous Bay Hill or Islesworth (known for their celebrities and golf tournaments).

My opinion is that had the board heeded sound legal advice, they could have improved the neighborhood and continue to be voluntary, and people like my family would still be contributing, but as soon as they made these changes, membership dropped off. They didn't take a hint and now the neighborhood is more divided then ever. They really shot themselves in the foot and I think because they did things completely wrong, this particular HOA cannot continue in its present state - maybe they can continue as a voluntary social club but not a HOA (they aren't even established under HOA laws). They have turned me off to the idea of having a HOA completely.

Comparatively, I have another home in another neighborhood. The same lawfirm did the same conversion to a mandatory neighborhood and since then, assessments have risen every year while the surrounding villages that remained voluntary have assessments at half the cost and they offer more services. It is basic economics...

They are also the HOA for anyone from section 3 who voluntarily joins that Association as the ruling didn't prevent anyone from joining that Association.

Keven, all I'm saying is don't read anything in the ruling that isn't there.

As with anything, the devil is in the details. In the case of laws and legalize the details are what is said, how it is said and what is not said.

Tim

This is a big mess … I think if I were a homeowner and the HOA does not own anything to maintain Tim’s suggestion is what I potentially would follow. I would take the court info to an attorney and see if he could file some kind of motion and have my property title cleared. The other reason I would have it cleared is also because of a statement Susan made above.

Here is where this one also potentially gets interesting as Susan posted above:


This is true to an extent as the HOA is generally a Non-Profit Corporation. However, it is comprised of Members whom are homeowners. When the attorney makes the statement of MOST likely individual homeowners would not be responsible, just the association … where does the association acquire its funds? It acquires the money from the homeowners.

Now in this case here where it could get interesting is the HOA is a voluntary one and not mandatory. In a mandatory HOA the association essentially passes costs for association to the homeowner’s property. In a voluntary HOA the homeowner’s are not required to pay association fees and you cannot lien the property. The association was the defendant in this lawsuit and if attorney fees are potentially awarded what then happens when they have no money to pay said attorney fees?

Am I missing something here?

KevinK7

Very very interesting, question do you happen to know the name of the firm representing the Plaintiff?

I would like to pay for a consultation with them, my situation here sounds similar in a smaller scale.

Thank you, for sharing the case with us.

I checked but it does not show the attorney's.

Than you

I am very grateful for the information. Thank you