how to get rid of HOA?

i live in a new community(3 years) of 24 homes.out of the 24homes,18 homeowners want to dissolve the hoa for the simple fact that we pay to up keep county retention pond nothing else. 19 homes have liens on them for this reason.what can i(we)do ..thanks for your time

Your documents should outline what it takes to "dissolve" your HOA Corporation.

But if you "own" a retention bay, how are you going to get rid of it? What kind of upkeep did you have to do on a county-owned retention pond? Do you mean tht the county built it, and you maintain it/

Shawn,

Number one!!!! Get an Attorney involved. The 19 homes with liens on them have made this too complicated for laymans advice. You have common property--the retention ponds. Do you not have an entrance or some other area of common ownership? Those ponds are owned by your association but the County does monitor them. They will not take them from you without all kinds of catches.

Secondly, Florida Statutes 617, which is your Corporation filing is where you have to read. I have copied just the first part but this is your governing document as to "How To Dissolve"

617.1402 Dissolution of corporation.--A corporation desiring to dissolve and wind up its affairs must adopt a resolution to dissolve in the following manner:

(1) If the corporation has members entitled to vote on a resolution to dissolve, and unless the board of directors determines that because of a conflict of interest or other substantial reason it should not make any recommendation, the board of directors must adopt a resolution recommending that the corporation be dissolved and directing that the question of such dissolution be submitted to a vote at a meeting of members entitled to vote thereon, which may be either an annual or special meeting. Written notice stating that the purpose, or one of the purposes, of such meeting is to consider the advisability of dissolving the corporation must be given to each member entitled to vote at such meeting in accordance with the articles of incorporation or the bylaws. A resolution to dissolve the corporation shall be adopted upon receiving at least a majority of the votes which members present at such meeting or represented by proxy are entitled to cast.

(2) If the corporation has no members or if its members are not entitled to vote on a resolution to dissolve, the dissolution of the corporation may be authorized at a meeting of the board of directors by a majority vote of the directors then in office.

History.--s. 76, ch. 90-179.

Copyright © 1995-2008 The Florida Legislature • Privacy Statement • Contact Us

bridgette's point is good, and you can add to that: should the county take over, they can (and likely would) simply assess a special tax/fee on all homes in the area to pay for the upkeep of the ponds, at county pay rates plus overhead.

AS long as your county government is more efficient, budget conscious, and practical than your HOA, it can be a cost savings. And we all know that government agencies are very efficient at saving our money and spending wisely.

I guess I'm the only one who does think the government can and does operate efficiently on many levels.

Sure, we all have our own horror stories, but the fact is that much of government DOES work well, regardless of the myth we've been fed for years on end.

Ask any fireman, teacher, policeman, EMS worker, social worker, zoning enforcement officers, military men and women, etc etc etc etc etc

There are good and bad areas and good and bad stories, just as there is in the private sector.

Hey Michele...

FEMA

TSA

Patriot Act

DOD

need i continue?

I believe that would be the exception that proves the rule.

The PATRIOT ACT is a policy, not an agency.

However, the FBI is another excellent government agency that works pretty well.

And I think FEMA was an AWESOME agency for many many years, until it was purposely set up to fail in the last 8.

Same with the DoD.

I still feel that the myth exists, and that "the gubbment" is pathetic at anything is a falsehood we like to believe because it makes a great sound bite, we can all nod and grumble, and bond in our bogus misery.

For every stupid thing one can bring up government-related ($700 hammers), I can bring up just as many, or more, from the private sector.

The fact is, MOST of government works and works well. The parts that don't simply need to be fixed, not simply done away with.

It still amazes me that for $.42 I can send the same letter to my neighbor next door, or to my great aunt in Massachusetts.

And Glen, I worked in a privately owned company for 2 decades where all our departments did the EXACT same thing come budget time. One year the department where I worked bought 6 crates of cotton balls. We were an adult beverage company, and this was the wine marketing department. We needed to spend up to our budget or loose it. I have no idea HOW they managed to "justify" cotton balls. But they did. We ended up donating the cotton balls to a local treatment center.

It has nothing to do with whether it was a government agency/department, it's the nature of "budgets," regardless of whether it's the public or private sector.

Michele that’s ok I think he got his question answered. I'll agree that not every person who works for a government agency is bad or out to defraud the taxpayer but enough are to make it a problem requiring eternal vigilance. The sad fact is that Government is not designed to be run efficiently and that most of the vast amounts of money the government collects to do these things disappear into administering the money instead of where it is truly needed, I've heard different figures ranging from 55-75%. And while I think the FBI for the most part does an excellent job don't forget Ruby Ridge or Waco.

BrianB, I understood there are backup planes to AirForce1 and the designation only applies to whichever plane the Prez is on at the time. So I guess there is an AirForce2 and so on.

To the OP, it sounds like you have 75% which depending on your docs may allow you to dissolve but that wouldn't necessarily remove the debt to which the liens apply and anyone remaining might still be able to enforce that debt against a property.

DJ while each set of CC&R's is different all of the documents I've ever seen requires 100% to dissolve the HOA, 75% is usually the threshold for amending the documents.

I think you are the only one. As for the military man, my brother is a career soldier and would never claim the Army is an example of efficiency. And I certainly didn't feel it was when I was in th Army either.

What I have learned over the years is that the bigger the organization, the less efficient it will become. And by the way, I don't believe for an instant that the FBI is an exception to that rule.

Brad,

I'm with you on this. If you don't like it, then move. You had the choice before so make another choice. Live with it or get out.

Only 75% required here.

DJ1,

I wonder how many of the 18 that want to get rid of the HOA will like it when after the HOA is dissolved will like it when everyone does their own thing...rusty old cars, people making all sorts of changes to the exteriors of their homes that insult their own taste, owners who could care less about the exterior of their homes by not repairing them, garbage cans left out for weeks, owners who do not keep their lawns mowed and I could go on. The HOA assessment is well worth it.

DJ,

These are not scare tactics and I realize every area is different. I have no idea what happens in Canada but I can tell you here in Florida we get lots of people moving here on a shoestring who only want a roof over their heads and could care less about maintaining a property. I am on the board of an HOA and would rather not be but I can tell you from past experience this place would look like a dump if we didn't try to enforce our docs. I am not the enforcer type. I retired to an HOA since I can no longer take care of a lawn, etc. and would prefer the "live and let live" approach. My home is my largest investment and I intend to keep the values up. We are a community of townhomes so don't expect a lot of owners but if their units siding is coming off, yes, we expect them to remedy that, if garbage cans are kept outside 24/7 we expect them to be put in garages, we don't want to see large commercial vehicles parked in driveways, we ask that owners of dogs "poop and scoop" tho that is only half successful and other minor things. This is what any good neighbor would do whether in or out of a HOA. The only difference is that a HOA can enforce these things while a stand alone property is just up the creek.

You make my point. Evidently your municipality does its job. We are not so lucky here in Jacksonville, Fl..I'm certain if you lived here you would have a different point of view. Services with the City are sorely lacking. Don't judge all areas by what happens in your city.

I lived in a community in South Florida that addressed all sorts of problems but Jacksonville is behind the times and too busy trying to solve our reputation as one of the largest murder cities in the US. They have little time to solve homeowners' problems. Different strokes for different folks.

Ellen, The municipality does it's job IF someone complains. My point was that there is recourse even without a HOA...which was contrary to your comment, "The only difference is that a HOA can enforce these things while a stand alone property is just up the creek."

Donna, "Oh--wait a minute, I remember you posting that yours doesn't care if you have hoops in the drives, trucks parked outside, etc. I think that you said once that you would never live in a place where the rules were so strict."

When we learned of the CCR's (incl multiple versions) our concern was not about having to pay fees for the clubhouse/common area maintenance, it WAS about how an Association was going to handle the turnover from the developer since the 'rule's' had gone unenforced for ~5-6 years. I asked a board member how they intended to handle it. In 2006 she said not to worry that they were only going to enforce certain of the rules. I saw this as selective enforcement that would, if they tried doing to some homeowners who wouldn't put up with this, result in lawsuits and challenges that would only raise fees and thus my individual costs as a member.

I READ the CCR's! I know how strict they are...IF THEY WERE ENFORCED AS WRITTEN.

I, unlike any other resident that I know, had in casual conversations with neighbours actually spoke about these concerns for a couple years, and in doing so I learned how few knew or had read or understood the CCR's, and I learned how different residents had different 'views' of what the neighborhood was supposed to be.

ie. One person didn't like that there were kids in the neighborhood cause the developer marketed it to her as an empty nest community...this despite several families with kids living here (including us) who this resident knew lived her since she bought ~2 years after us.

ie. One person who didn't like the style of fence of one neighbour. I cautioned that you better watch out what you wish for since, due to no enforcment by developer for years you have all kinds of violationsand if you enforce the fence rule (need approval from ARC before doing any improvements exterior to the house) you need to equally enforce all the other rules otherwise someone could sue for selective enforcement. Also the perception of bias in enforcing leading to all kinds of conflicts.

ie. The guy with the boat saying he would remove it (per CCRs) IF he saw enforcement of x,y,z that other residents were doing wrong, otherwise he would feel picked on.

Make no mistake I commended the group of volunteer residents for volunteering and who were doing what they thought was best, but it was an impossible situation to clean up the developers mess.

I suggested holding a meeting to essentially start over again to inform residents that what the developer had told individuals might not be what others had been told and so our different ideas about what the community was supposed to be may not be the same...essentially to to get everyone on the same page almost starting over with a blank page if you know what I mean. Only when everyone was informed that there were CCR's, what a HOA meant etc can you begin to get people onside. They refused then went door to door to 33 homes that didn't have the CCR's registered and told different people different things to 'convince' them to sign to join. I know based on the meeting I held in my yard the different 'stories' people were given. Inconsistent and shall we say EXTREME stretching of the truth..just to get people to sign. I think people deserve honest information to make an informed choice.

So to end, Donna, you asked,

"By the way, what Board position do you hold?"

Smugness and arrogance? You know the answer as I have stated our situation numerous times and accurately represented our situation for several years here now when it relates to a particular post.

I maintain that it isn't a HOA that is ever the problem, it is the people that make it up that can be.

I wonder how many of the 18 realize once they dissolve the HOA there has to be a caretaker assigned to the common property and that alone will probably cost more than what they are doing now...

If this association had our bylaws they would have to wait another 30 years, then get 18 of the 24 to sign a document dissolving the HOA. I still contend the easiest way is to sell and move.

DJ,
You still did not answer my question. What position do you hold on your Board? Unless you have walked in a Board members shoes, it is easy to sluff off issues such as Ellen and Pat have to deal with.

As far as I am concerned, I am done sparring with you. Thank You!

So what happens if you guys just pretend the HOA does not exist. I am living in a newer HOA with growing pains. My next door neighbor in the other direction is in a different HOA. They never started their HOA and everything is doing just fine. They have common area, it's behind some homes it's all grown up. Nobody there is worried about insurance on it. I do not know what would happen if there was a claim on that property. But so far, almost 10 years running, it's working fine for them.

DJ,

Our City does not respond IF there is a complaint. Do not judge our city by your municipality. We called when we in the early am morning saw two guys stealing lawn furniture held over their heads and were asked "what color are they?" we answered we couldn't see since they had the chairs over their heads..NO response. We called when we saw some older teen boys going through the neighborhood, also after dark, with pillow cases and walking behind properties on the lake (private property)..NO response. We also called when it seemed evident that a white truck was "casing" the neighborhood..NO response. Give me a break, if our city does not respond to these type of things are you telling me they will respond to HOA problems? We have had limited response from code enforcement but without our HOA enforcing our covenants I would not want to live here.

Geez, you people are all over the place. Air Force One? The question was, how do homeowners rid themselves of an HOA. The answer is simple.

If all of the homeowners in an HOA agree, they can simply file a document that disavows the HOA. It is that simple.

The restrictions placed on multiple properties are the same as a restriction placed on one property. That is, I can file a restriction on my own property - one lot. It will bind the buyer of my property if it is properly recorded and included in the abstract - of which the buyer has (presumed) knowledge. The thing is, I can rescind my restriction at any time when I own the property - and so can the buyer.

In the case of multiple properties, it works the same way. If ALL owners agree, they can remove all restrictions and, if they want, adopt totally new covenants. In a sense, the covenants on multiple properties act as a contract among the several owners. Each owner is relying on the others to keep the promises (restrictions) in the contract. Of course, as with any contract, the contracting parties can always change their mind and rescind the contract - as long as all parties agree.

Even though there might be a corporation and provisions in the documents for covenant amendments, etc., it becomes irrelevant if all homeowners reach a new agreement. It is their property and the courts will uphold their right to collectively remove any and all restrictions from their properties.

Billie,

AZ has passed laws to drastically reduce the property taxes for HOAs also.

But, it's just not as simple to dissolve an HOA as you make it appear. If there are common areas and amenities the HOA must come up with a plan to disperse of those assets. The members cannot just dissolve the HOA and walk away from their responsibility to maintain those common areas. Where I live in Glendale, AZ (next to Phx) the CCRs of many of the newer assn's have a clause that says maint. of the common areas cannot be terminated w/o the approval of the City of Glendale. What that means is that the HOA cannot dissolve unless the common areas are either sold or the owners agree to continue to maintain them even though the assn no longer exists. Perhaps form a voluntary HOA; but who's going to join? Would you join so you could pay to keep up the common areas and perhaps the majority of the other property owners want no part of the expense? No one is going to buy those parcels, most of which are water retention basins that cannot ever be used for anything else. And, the city is NOT going to accept ownership of those common areas and amenities -- that's why they require HOAs to maintain them in the first place. So, you see, it's just not a matter of getting the required % of members to agree to dissolve.

DJ,
NOT trying to be offensive or argumentive with you but I'd like to ask this question of you. WHAT IF ??? your association did not allow hoops at all? You probably would not have bought in that developement but what if?