HOA Class Action Lawsuit

Currently my HOA is involved in a lawsuit with a homeowner.
The lawsuit was recently started by this homeowner in response to a push to amend and restate our CC&Rs.
Is the HOA responsible for letting the neighborhood know about this lawsuit?

Our neighborhood is divided into 11 sections and this lawsuit currently only involves one section of our neighborhood. The lawyers had issued a 135 page summons to the HOA and all homeowners who signed the Joinder with the county. I know that people in that area of the neighborhood are familiar with what is going on but the association has made no mention of it. The organizers of this lawsuit have lawn signs to help spread the word but the association has been removing them or harassing the homeowners who have one in their yard. (I have one in my yard and have filmed my neighbor remove the sign every time she passes).

Because the lawsuit is a class action lawsuit and can potentially affect all the homeowners (in addition to the 99 already served), should the HOA address this issue?

Do your CC&Rs allow you to put signs in your yard other than ones announcing the sale of the lot?

If not, then even with the lawsuit, why are you posting signs in violation of the CC&R?

If it doesn't address them, not sure what the point of a yard sign about it is anyway.

I have no idea, however, if your governing documents require the board to keep all the members apprised of all lawsuits.

Ours does not.

We do, however, keep our insurance company in the loop.

Kevin has posted here before. I believe he and his brother inherited the property from his mother in what is apparently a voluntary HOA. The covenants are being rewritten in an effort to force people into a mandatory HOA. If I've got any of this wrong Kevin please correct me.

http://www.hoatalk.com/Forum/tabid/55/view/topic/forumid/1/postid/46174/Default.aspx

If you can prove you neighbor is taking the signs i.e. pictures or video of her doing it; call the police and have her cited for theft.

I agree with the two gentlemen on here, if there is no rule against placing signs I would continue to do so, only I would add one that says "No Trespassing, Private Property" just so they are aware that your yard isn't their play area. I would turn over the tape and asked that your sign is returned and she is cited by police.

I do think the HOA should inform the homeowners about what is going on, especially since it could have an impact on everyone or will eventually. That is a tough road to go down, but if the HOA just sticks to the facts and provides just a brief of the case without names then I think it is fine.

Kevin,

A sure fire way to cause most people to become irrational is to file a law suit against them. Many people are not capable of separating themselves personally from the matter of the suit. They see this as an attack on them personally.

As for the board keeping it quiet, I don't know your rules. I know that I would be upset with any board that tried to keep any quiet the existence of litigation. I would vote against MicheleD out of principle. I don't believe in hiding what is going on. I think it breeds distrust for obvious reasons. What else are they hiding?

That being said, I am sure the board wants to keep the thing quiet because the existence of the lawsuit could reduce people's enthusiasm in agreeing to the changes they seek. Of course from the sound of it, perhaps it should curb people's enthusiasm. I would feel that the suit should be settled before going too much further as if you are successful, then their charging forward will only make a judge more likely to "lower the boom" on the defendants.

From what I've become aware of, the resident who began the lawsuit is spending their own money to go against the HOA and represent any other homeowners as a class action suit (I think he is a retired lawyer). There has also been consideration of involving the ACLU. The HOA is retaliating by trying to form a class action defense having their lawyers represent the 99 homeowners also being sued. The HOA is also trying to get the plaintiffs lawyer off the case stating a conflict of interest because he represented another resident of our neighborhood against the HOA in the past. It sounds very messy and I believe can be fatal to the HOA. The legal fees alone must be excruciating.

Page one of the lawsuit states:

This is an action of slander of title, for declaratory relief, and for injunctive relief within the jurisdiction of this Court, which relates to an improper attempt to impose affirmative covenants, including an obligation to pay assessments or other charges, upon owners within a residential subdivision with neither their agreement nor consent.

I have yet to read the entire document, as it is quite lengthy to read as a PDF. From what I have read, it is quite interesting and if the board is trying to keep it quiet, I can see why. While wordy, it can be intimidating and the arguments made within are very detailed, drawing data from over 30 years of HOA existence.

Its sad that it has come to this and it literally has turned neighbor against neighbor. I am unsure if this is a case of a renegade board hijacking the HOA. Most participants and board members are from a couple of sections and being rather large with a diverse demographic, it surely is difficult to satisfy everyone's needs.

I personally believe that the board did not expect this kind of resistance, and being caught off guard has stalled their communication with the rest of the neighborhood. Its been two days and I have yet to have a response from the board as to whether they will address this issue in their next meeting or newsletter.

I believe the HOA made thee motions. One was conflict of interest. Another was to make a class defense allowing the HOA's lawyer to defend all the defendants (even though several homeowners have already obtained their own legal council). I cannot remember the third. From my understanding, the lawyer representing our HOA specializes in collections, not HOAs.

When we questioned their intent and what laws they were basing their decisions off of, they responded with a collections case from county court and avoided all questions we had asked.

One of the main themes is that the voluntary association is accessing mandatory fees regardless of membership. They also require membership to be mandatory for new owners, although stating that it is still a voluntary association (because people like me who weren't members can have the choice to remain non-members). While the HOA says membership is voluntary, in the lawsuit they state that it is mandatory and they have the "inherent power over anyone who owns a lot".

Other main themes are changing restrictive covenants to affirmative covenants with only a simple majority, and requiring fees for the upkeep of "common areas", when all roads are maintained by county and the HOA owns no real property.

Mary,

I've been reading all the messages you've posted about your civic assn wanting to turn into a mandatory HOA. I find it all so very interesting. I'm especially looking forward to hearing on how the courts rule on the membership issue. Are all property owners required to vote in favor or just a majority? Please be sure to keep us updated! Thx.

From what I understand..one thing they are allowed to talk about is how the lawsuit is being paid for..insurance?..taking the money out of a special fund?..special assessment? Is there a Florida state law that requires the loosing party to pay all the legal fees?
MaryN

I don't believe there is a Florida law that requires the loosing party to pay legal fees, although from what I have been told by others, it is common practice to recoup all money spent. That is what the HOA's lawyer told us and that is what I've read from other lawsuits around my neighborhood.

While in most cases I would agree, I disagree in these cases. I don't see how someone can possibly encumber property initially without the consent of the property owner. If that is so, then there is never a point in owning property. Next thing you know, an HOA will attempt to exercise the power of eminent domain.

In both Mary and Kevin's cases it sure sounds like someone has decided they can encumber another person's property without consent. I realize that many CC&Rs allow for modification with a super majority which then imposes on others. But if a property owner is to have rights, you can not possibly put a CC&R in place without the initial consent. And there should be no possible way for an HOA to become mandatory without the consent of every landowner. (Though if some want to subject to the HOA without others it could be mandatory for them while not being mandatory for those who don't want to give up their rights.)