Florida MRTA Revitalization Attempt

Kevin,

Have you sought or obtained a declaratory judgment on your claim that the covenants are expired? In my expert opinion, such a judgment is the only way I know of to end this fight forever.

Kevin,

There is already one thread about MRTA on this forum that is up to something like 8 pages. I suspect that I am not the only person here who doe not want to see another such thread.

It is time to either move your bowels or remove yourself from the bathroom.

You continue to fight the same old battle in this forum instead of the correct forum: a courtroom. I am sympathetic to your cause and you probably have a strong case but this is not the place to make your arguments.

Then it's a good thing you're not the one who gets to decide what is and is not appropriate here, Larry. I welcome another thread about it. The old one is unwieldy and a patchwork quilt of many different peoples' issues.

If you don't want to read about MRTA then nobody is forcing you to do so. There is no rule on this site that I'm aware of that restricts discussion of a given topic to one and only one thread.

Somewhat true. My original complaint came from a "mandatory maintenance" conversion of my first neighborhood. That concluded with a judgement ruling involving MRTA. The 2nd neighborhood matter started with some enforcement issues that also turned into MRTA. I got my handling on the matter and I would ask questions here and there to get varying perspectives but at the time nobody was really from Florida so while I would get some sympathetic comments I had nobody to bounce things off of. Sure I could have sued but I was trying my best to avoid a lawsuit and work with my neighbors and it seemed that goal was almost achieved... but then the board of directors changed.

The first board of directors amended the covenants to force membership. The second board got a new attorney, failed at preservation but continued to enforce the old covenants. After my first interaction with them they left me alone until a new board took over and brought in a new property manager. I dealt with them and things seemed okay. Then another board was elected (some from the 1st and 2nd board). They hired new management and attorneys and tried again.

Also, the other thread is very huge, started out as a particular issue and turned into the MRTA corralling pen. I started this thread to have a specific discussion on the revitalization process to get some ideas.

Kevin,

Why did you start a new thread vs. continued posting in the MRTA thread?

MRTA is unique to FL and, I believe, it's important to keep all relevant info in the same thread in order to help those who are looking for assistance on the issue.

Because that thread was getting lengthy and there were numerous issues being dicussed and while that thread had touched up on things like revitalization, preservation, situation updates, or common stories, I felt it was not the place. There are numerous topics on this forum that overlap but have separate threads. This is one of them and deals solely with the revitalization process, which has just been initiated. Technically the other post has been hijacked by all us MRTA folks and not every MRTA case has been created equal. My two neighborhoods had two completely different histories that led to two very different understandings of the law.

...also, I am not a grumpy old Florida person. While my neighborhood was a former retirement community, I came to own my property when I was 19 and it has only been recently that younger people started purchasing into the neighborhood. I have found that the two distinct demographics here (the elderly and the new, young homeowners) have a hard time navigating FL HOA'S in general. The old folks here believe they were grandfathered and can do whatever they want, sometimes causing conflict with the board, while the younger folks have been told one thing by their realtor and the board and never bothered to ask any questions. They are the most apathetic bunch. Only a few have done so because of the information I have relayed to them from this website and my attorney.

TimB4 posted: There is already one thread about MRTA on this forum that is up to something like 8 pages. I suspect that I am not the only person here who doe not want to see another such thread.

And I, the OP, agree that the Florida Covenant Expiration thread has run its course and is now unwieldy. I also agree with Geno's thoughts. The thread was intended as a longitudinal report of one community affected by MRTA and how that problem resolved. I believe that goal has been met.

The next stage of the MRTA story is revitalization. My community has just announced the formation of a BOD-appointed Organizing Committee to revitalize the covenants.

Kevin did what I intended to do soon--start a new thread related to revitalization. Thanks, Kevin. Your story demonstrates the breadth and depth of HOA history and legal considerations underlying the MRTA law. At your own expense, you retained an attorney to defend your parcels from unlawful capture by your HOA rather than filing a lawsuit at the expense of all owners. Unlike you, I was forced to file suit because my HOA refused to remove their unlawful Preservation. Like you, I did not get a Declaratory Judgement.

@JohnC46: I thought you were finished with MRTA-yet here you go again! Name-calling contributors on this important topic "Grumpy Old Folks from Florida Talk".

@TimB4: In case you were not aware, there are at least 19 other states with HOA's that have laws similar to Florida's MRTA law. It is a topic that was, until recently, virtually unresearchable on the internet. HOATalk Forum now has a substantial body of information to assist people who are affected by MRTA, including HOA boards.

Sadly I had not had a judgement for this neighborhood. It seems the revitalization campaign popped out of nowhere. I find it funny that they claimed eliminating the HOA would cost homeowners much more a month in costs and that it only a meter of X dollars, but an astute abserver would realize the HOA is full of it. They claimed water bills would nearly double, lawn mowing would cost almost 100/month and county right of ways would go into disrepair. I haven't been a member and mowing costs a fraction of what they claim, my water stayed the same, and I know that if they end their use agreement with the county the county would assume maintenance (which is already paid for by taxes).

It seems like every time there was an under standing a new set of morons took over. The current president came to me when she was upset about an election. I detailed everything for her and she didn't understand. She wanted to do things her way regardless of what the law said.

Do the owners want revitalization? I understand that it is not valid even if they do want it, but do you think a majority want an HOA or no HOA?

Not sure. There are a mix. I think we have but 200 homes. At one time we had about 40 people who were not members but over the last 15 years we have been told we have to be members or face a law suit. When talking to everyone there appears to be an assumption that there has to be a HOA and when explaining things like MRTA usually is confronted with confusion. There are some who want a HOA though and they have a better misinformation campign. They use attorneys and property managers to sound official.

But the thing is not really wanting a HOA. The way the HOA came about is all messed up. The association was not in the covenants. Then half the owners released the original documents and made new ones to set up a voluntary association. Then 22 years later another half of the homeowners set up a mandatory association. That requires 100% approval - not 51%. And now they are trying to preserve an invalid amended restriction.

Try explaining that to someone.

My HOA attempted a revitalization in February. It has almost 800 homes and packets 2" thick were prepared and distributed/mailed after a brief meeting. The Ballot was faulty and an Owner notified the HOA attorney at the meeting in writing. The ballot was not pulled and went out with the packet after the meeting. Subsequently, a lawsuit mediation caused the faulty Ballot to be vacated and the entire process has to be re-started.

With regard to how many wanted revitalization, the result was 72% FOR and that is enough to submit the revitalization to the Dept of Econ Opp in FL for approval. That leaves a significant 28% that objected to revitalization or failed to return a ballot. The Ballot was actually a CONSENT document and, by signing and returning it, you consented to re-encumbering your parcel if revitalized. The Ballot did not give owners the option to indicate their approval of revitalization WITHOUT CONSENT to encumber. This was not understood by many owners who thought it was simply a vote For or Against revitalization. However, word did get out that returning the ballot was a consent and to discard it if you did not consent. It is unknown what that 28% of "non-consenters" is composed of--were they true non-consenters or apathetic owners who did not care either way?

The Board has just formed a new Organizing Committee to repeat the process and it will be interesting to see what the FOR count is the second time around.

f I don't return a consent form is my property left alone? I know the law allows revitalization for less properties than before.

Also, as I have mentioned before, they are trying to revitalize a new set of covenants. Going through property records, the previous homeowner from 1980 never consented to that document and I never consented to their later amendments to make it mandatory when I owned the property.

I understand that. That is why I got all the information available, made it easier to understand, and had been very careful not to sound like the crazy kook in the neighborhood. Plus the HOA has a very good misinformation campaign. Considering they have got monthly newsletters, realtors saying they are mandatory, threatening attorneys, property managers, etc. It makes my job a lot more difficult.

Time to dumb down your message like a political campaign with slogans. Tell them their fees will rise to cover legal fees, etc.

If you can't convince them now, they deserve what they get, even if it is invalid.

Also, the problem is that while they deserve what they get, their actions impact my property and my life.

@KevinK7 posted: Now here is an interesting question: do these signatures invalidate the entire document?

My opinion is NO, bad signatures do not automatically null the entire document--but the age of the signatures DOES.

The submission to DEO must be within 60 days of signatures approving the attempt and obviously, that was not followed.

720.406(1) No later than 60 days after the date the proposed revived declaration and other governing documents are approved by the affected parcel owners, the organizing committee or its designee must submit the proposed revived governing documents and supporting materials to the Department of Economic Opportunity to review...

KevinK7posted: My understanding is that revitalization is only permitted for mandatory associations.

TRUE. To be eligible to revitalize, FS720 requires that it meet the definition of a HOA:

720.301(9) “Homeowners’ association” or “association” means a Florida corporation responsible for the operation of a community or a mobile home subdivision in which the voting membership is made up of parcel owners or their agents, or a combination thereof, and in which membership is a mandatory condition of parcel ownership, and which is authorized to impose assessments that, if unpaid, may become a lien on the parcel. The term “homeowners’ association” does not include a community development district or other similar special taxing district created pursuant to statute.

Further,

720.404 Eligible residential communities; requirements for revival of declaration.—Parcel owners in a community are eligible to seek approval from the Department of Economic Opportunity to revive a declaration of covenants under this act if all of the following requirements are met:
(1) All parcels to be governed by the revived declaration must have been once governed by a previous declaration that has ceased to govern some or all of the parcels in the community;
(2) The revived declaration must be approved in the manner provided in s. 720.405(6); and
(3) The revived declaration may not contain covenants that are more restrictive on the parcel owners than the covenants contained in the previous declaration, except that the declaration may:
(a) Have an effective term of longer duration than the term of the previous declaration;
(b) Omit restrictions contained in the previous declaration;
(c) Govern fewer than all of the parcels governed by the previous declaration;
(d) Provide for amendments to the declaration and other governing documents; and
(e) Contain provisions required by this chapter for new declarations that were not contained in the previous declaration.

The MRTA law, 712.01(4) says: The term “homeowners’ association” means a homeowners’ association as defined in s. 720.301, or an association of parcel owners which is authorized to enforce use restrictions that are imposed on the parcels.

Section 712.11 ("Covenant Revitalization") allows "homeowners associations" defined under either ss. 712.01(4) or 720.301(9) to initiate the revitalization process.

If an HOA meets either the 720.301 definition of an HOA or an HOA that is authorized to enforce use restrictions i.e. have fining authority and lien/foreclosure authority.

My HOA does not meet the criteria and therefore, is not a statutory HOA. Yet they are spending Owner money to attempt a revitalization for the 2nd time.

Finally, as you can see, MRTA requires that amendments be incorporated into the revitalized document. (Rarely are amendments found in a chain of title.)

720.406(1) The submission to the department (DEO) must include:

(b) A verified copy of the previous declaration of covenants and other previous governing documents for the community, including any amendments thereto;

Perhaps I am being dense, but I am not certain, or do not recall, the "angle i.e. that the association improperly filed their amendment in 2002?

These signatures were from 13 years ago. They aren't the revitalization documents. Those have just been distributed.

I was trying to find out some information. I had no idea that they were planning revitalization or indexing my property.

It may have been discussed in board or membership meetings but I am not a member. It bothers me that someone could just include my property in some documents that will get filed.

Send them a "growl" and a demand letter that your parcel NOT be indexed in the revitalization and that you do not consent to revitalization. Copy your attorney. It might not prevent them indexing your property but you will have even more to support what looks to be very likely--a legal challenge to the encumbrance of your parcel.

KevinK7 posted: If a homeowner requsets removal is the association obligated?

NO. It is not addressed in any HOA or MRTA statutes. The legislators' intent is to further the interest of the HOA--not protect consumer property rights. If the HOA does not voluntarily remove your parcel from the index, you can either suck it up or sue them.

I am in a similar situation but for me, there are no options. I have already sued my HOA once for slander of title with an invalid Preservation and prevailed in my complaints. All my fees were returned to me. I will sue them again (with my refunded fees) if they index my parcel and I will encourage my attorney to appeal to the judge for a joinder (class action).

I was just contacted by another upset homeowner who actually did some research on his own and was very mad that while they claimed they had no lien rights they had indeed filed liens against properties.

They really do not have rights but filed anyway.

I apologize to Tim - I meant Larry. My profound apology, Tim. I should be more careful in not mixing up names but there were so many critical comments.

No problem.

Larry lives in AZ and I was raised in AZ. So it's easy to mix the two of us up

KevinK7 posted:

I was just contacted by another upset homeowner who actually did some research on his own and was very mad that while they claimed they had no lien rights they had indeed filed liens against properties.

They really do not have rights but filed anyway.

This is fascinating stuff. I will be following the progress of your quasi-revitalization with great interest.

There were rights violated when snatchers entered the properties and removed the pamphlets. Trespass and theft--for starters.

And, the above is apparently the "norm". My association did exactly the same thing--liened and foreclosed without authority. In my community, someone complained to the foreclosing legal firm that their HOA client lacked authority to lien/foreclose and nothing has been filed for quite sometime.

My HOA lacks authority to lien/foreclose and is currently attempting (a second) revitalization anyway. Does the lawlessness ever stop? It tacitly admitted this lack of authority by submitting an amendment proposal to the Covenants to be voted on by members to add the missing provision two years ago. Prior to that, the HOA "added" a provision to the Bylaws, but Bylaws are corporate and do not "run with the land" and thus, are not enforceable. So, the HOA put language on the ballot to add/amend a provision. This "amendment" failed to pass; that was fortunate since the authority to amend the Covenants is also absent and as you are aware, such an new provision would require a threshold of 100+ approval of members + 3rd parties!

The attorneys in my lawsuit "mediated away" my future statutory objection to revitalization. That was a non-issue as there are 785 other parcels who can file an objection should the DEO approve a revitalization for a NON HOA. I would be shocked if revite passed the DEO. Your revite review will be preceeding ours so perhaps this issue will be front and center.

Do you know statute of limitations on challenging illegal HOA foreclosures? I have heard both 1 year and 5 years.

The HOA sent out another newsletter today pleading for people to return the consent forms. They say they only have 15 days left to gather the forms (to avoid a meeting) and said by not returning the form will hurt the community and cause their club to shut it's doors.

They actually mention MRTA but seem to get it off (as expected). They wrote that every 30 years every HOA must renew their existing restrictions. They do mention the new restrictions cannot be more restrictive but then go on to claim they did not change anything despite what people may have heard. They seem to believe that their new restrictions and amendments are considered existing and completely ignore the ones referenced by the deeds. They also seem to ignore the definition of a HOA by the law and the fact that th ey do not meet the legal requirements to revitalize. They also still insist dues must be paid.

They were contacted to request a name and property be removed from their index. They never responded.

I am still holding onto their consent forms from their mandatory amendment because records show they did not meet all the requirements to amend documents. I don't want them to do what my previous neighborhood did and try to re-file those other properties with new homeowners as an attempt to prove they met the threshold. I have implied that they didn't to other homeowners but opposition had sort of quieted down for now (perhaps preoccupied with the holidays).

That is why I haven't mentioned their invalid consent forms from their previous ammendment. I didn't want them to be extra careful this time around While they took several months last time and had almost 10 (roughly 5%). It was enough signatures to drop their percentage collected by a couple points. This time they have 60 days then DEO approval then file. So if they are seeking a simple majority, I am sure they will be so happy to send off their forms and stop at 50% +1.