Florida Statute 617.0842 (2)

Started by AnnaD2 • 18 replies • 4051 views

💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

AnnaD2 (Florida)
Posts: 960

Posted:

Hi Everyone. I need some help with your interpretation of Florida Statute 617.0842 (2). It reads: A board of directors can remove an officer at any time with or without cause. Any officer or assistant officer, if appointed by another officer, may likewise be removed by such officer.

Our docs say that an officer may be removed by a 2/3 vote of the directors. So here is my question: Don't State Statutes take precedence over any docs, covenents, by-laws and rules? If that is the case, the state statutes don't mention having a 2/3 or 3/4 or anything like that. What's your opinions about this? Thank you.

BarneyC
Posts: 50

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By AnnaD2 on 07/28/2007 5:33 AM
Hi Everyone. I need some help with your interpretation of Florida Statute 617.0842 (2). It reads: A board of directors can remove an officer at any time with or without cause. Any officer or assistant officer, if appointed by another officer, may likewise be removed by such officer.

Our docs say that an officer may be removed by a 2/3 vote of the directors. So here is my question: Don't State Statutes take precedence over any docs, covenents, by-laws and rules? If that is the case, the state statutes don't mention having a 2/3 or 3/4 or anything like that. What's your opinions about this? Thank you.

Florida statute 617 covers Not For Profit Corporations. Is that what you are? Condos and HOAs are covered in chapters 718 and 720.

Your docs are gospel, unless the law has changed since. Officers in a condo are elected by the board, so 2/3 vote of the board seems correct. Its really a bad policy however, because in a 5 person board, all 4 other board members would have to agree. Assuming the person won't vote to remove himself, 3/5 isn't 2/3.

RogerB (Colorado)
Posts: 5,067

Posted:

Anna, my opinion is it is a poortly written statute because it does not specify what percentage is required for removal. Since it only states 'can be removed' (should have been 'may') there is no conflict and the controlling docs percentage applies.

BarneyC
Posts: 50

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By RogerB on 07/28/2007 8:09 AM
Anna, my opinion is it is a poortly written statute because it does not specify what percentage is required for removal. Since it only states 'can be removed' (should have been 'may') there is no conflict and the controlling docs percentage applies.

Or maybe it just doesn't apply because is has nothing to do with HOAs in general?

LindaC3 (Florida)
Posts: 526

Posted:

AnnaD ... Chapter 617 in Florida did at one time cover any association that was a not for profit ....BUT in 2004 Florida created Statute 720 for ALL HOA'S and 718 for all Condo Associations.....So if you are in a bonafide HOA within the State of Florida all references now need to be guided by 720......Hope this helps ...LindaC

AnnaD2 (Florida)
Posts: 960

Posted:

Ok. Now I'm confused. Are any of you familiar with Richard White who writes the Community Living column in several major Florida newspapers, each week? He specifically quoted this statute this week as to remove an officer. He even quoted how to use this statute and how to word it on the agenda for a board meeting. Which is why I wanted to pick your brains on this topic. Your comments seem to directly contradict what he has written. Can anyone else shed some light on this issue? (By the way, we are a Condo Association.) Thank you!!!

BarneyC
Posts: 50

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By AnnaD2 on 07/29/2007 10:49 AM
Ok. Now I'm confused. Are any of you familiar with Richard White who writes the Community Living column in several major Florida newspapers, each week? He specifically quoted this statute this week as to remove an officer. He even quoted how to use this statute and how to word it on the agenda for a board meeting. Which is why I wanted to pick your brains on this topic. Your comments seem to directly contradict what he has written. Can anyone else shed some light on this issue? (By the way, we are a Condo Association.) Thank you!!!

Richard White (in my opinion) is the "George Costanza" of condo management. Whatever he says, do exactly the opposite. The man is a moron.

BarneyC
Posts: 50

Posted:

To add to this, Richard Write (insert big red nose) also writes reguarly opinions which are completely contrary to Florida law (and also contrary to opinions of just about all Florida lawyers), such as the concept that email correspondence between board members for the purpose of discussing condo business is "OK". Its not ok. Any "discussion" between a quorum of board members must be in full view of membership. So unless those emails are released to the Association, they are NOT ok.

LindaC3 (Florida)
Posts: 526

Posted:

AnnaD2.... I have material for you to read about NEW CONDO rules that went into effect July01,2007 here in florida.......Mr White is INCORRECT about the Statute he quotes.......I am not saying he is wrong ,just incorrect in so far as what I read on the site for new laws... It is very lenghty and dont want to take up all the space in this forum....Are we allowed to publicly post our email address for all to see and if so maybe I could send all this info to you in an e mail.........LindaC

BarneyC
Posts: 50

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By LindaC3 on 07/29/2007 11:12 AM
AnnaD2.... I have material for you to read about NEW CONDO rules that went into effect July01,2007 here in florida.......Mr White is INCORRECT about the Statute he quotes.......I am not saying he is wrong ,just incorrect in so far as what I read on the site for new laws... It is very lenghty and dont want to take up all the space in this forum....Are we allowed to publicly post our email address for all to see and if so maybe I could send all this info to you in an e mail.........LindaC

not wrong, just incorrect???

617 would only apply to not-for-profit corporation that is not a condo. 718 exists to clarify and sharpen the laws for condominiums. He is wrong and incorrect, both at the same time.

BarneyC
Posts: 50

Posted:

Quote:

Getting back to the original question, I read Mr Whites column and he doesnt specify the breakdown of the vote. What he says is basic logic; since officers are elected by the board they can be removed. If your docs say 2/3, then 2/3s it is.

AnnaD2 (Florida)
Posts: 960

Posted:

Thank you LindaC3. I'd love to read the information you have, yet it's probably not a good practice for anyone to publicly post our personal email addresses. Is there anywhere online I could go to look them up. I'd really appreciate the information! Thanks again.

KevinK1 (< Not Specified >)
Posts: 34

Posted:

State Staute take precedence over your documents only "where there is a conflict". I agree with BarneyC that if your documents say 2/3 then that is the requirement. The statute you reference is also not specifically intended for HOAs.
What are you trying to imply by your question? That an ambiguous state statute takes precendence over a specific HOA document? If so, then what majority do you think a judge would consider to be proper for removal of an officer? If I were the judge I would have to go by the documemt that specifies a percentage as long as it is not in conflict with state law. That is 2/3 in your case.
Kevin in Florida

CecilyC (Florida)
Posts: 1

Posted:

i find this interesting because I just bought a book called The Law of Florida Homeowners Associations 7th ed. 2007, and it also quotes 617.0842

DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671

Posted:

Everyone,
In 2000, Florida created Chapter 718--Condo Statutes and 720 HOA Statutes. If you look after several of the paragraphs in both of those sets of Statutes, you will often see "ref:617. which tells you where the wording came from in 617. Being that we are all "not for profit corps", sometimes if the condo or HOA statutes don't cover an item, especially officer and corporation issues, it will refer back to 617.

Everyone confused yet?

Prior to 2000, all not for profit corporations, condo and HOAs were filed under 617. Now you use your respective 718 or 720 for your guidelines. As for Mr. White, I think he had this one wrong.

NancyD1 (Florida)
Posts: 447

Posted:

You may still be organized under FL 617 but will follow FL 720 for clarification.

FL 720
" This chapter does not apply to any association that is subject to regulation under chapter 718, chapter 719, or chapter 721 or to any nonmandatory association formed under chapter 723, except to the extent that a provision of chapter 718, chapter 719, or chapter 721 is expressly incorporated into this chapter for the purpose of regulating homeowners' associations.

(5) Unless expressly stated to the contrary, corporations that operate residential homeowners' associations in this state shall be governed by and subject to chapter 607, if the association was incorporated under that chapter, or to chapter 617, if the association was incorporated under that chapter, and this chapter. This subsection is intended to clarify existing law.

JacquelineB2 (Florida)
Posts: 50

Posted:

I thought the number of votes was 10% to recall someone from the board.

JacquelineB2 (Florida)
Posts: 50

Posted:

After reading many of the messages about which takes precedence: the bylaws under your covernant or the florida statutes. I know where to find the FS720 and 617 ect. but where to you find the specific florida statutes that pertain to non-profit hoa's; are there any other florida statutes out there I need to read....?

JacquelineB2 (Florida)
Posts: 50

Posted:

Sorry, I just saw the answer to my question.

🎯 You've read this entire discussion

Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:

✓ Ask follow-up questions
✓ Share your experience
✓ Get expert advice
✓ Access 350,000 discussions

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in here