|
Post by pestcontrol on Nov 8, 2016 12:22:46 GMT -5
Any way to find our what law firms and/or lawyers represented this HOA? From what I read and hear, HOA'S are big cash cows for law firms and consistently provide misleading or ignorant information to their HOA clients. This makes their law practices equal to or lower than "ambulance chasers".
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 8, 2016 12:44:47 GMT -5
Sure!
APPEARANCES
For James Hayes Grnt: FurrRedIck B. O’Neal, Esq. (“Petitioner”) P.O. Box 842 Windermere, FL 34786
For S-bag Lake Owners Association, Inc.: Theresa M. Dowell, Esq. (“Respondent Association”) GaGaKnees, Weiss & D’Agresta, P.A. 111 N. Orange Ave., Ste. 2000 Orlando, FL 32801
For the Department of Economic Opportunity: Adam S. Callaway, Esq. (“Respondent DEO”) Christina A. Shideler, Esq. 107 E. Madison St. Tallahassee, FL 32399
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 8, 2016 16:19:29 GMT -5
For purposes of clarity to anyone who may be unclear about that actual issues in question, here are the three questions on the table:
Specifically, the questions before the Hearing Officer were:
i. Whether Respondent Association is a “homeowners’ association” or “association” under either or both section 712.01(4) or section 720.301(9), Florida Statutes;
ii. Whether the 1986 Amended and 1989 Revised Declarations (“86/89 Declarations”) are valid and meet the definition set forth in section 720.301(4), Florida Statutes; and
iii. Whether the Submission contained covenants that were more restrictive on the parcel owners than the covenants in the previous governing documents.
The first two have been bandied about in discussions since the first revite attempt in 2014 and, readers should remember that these terms have very specific and defined meanings under the law. The tortuous legal parsing of terms helps pay to educate the children of lawyers! (SLohA is certainly doing more than its share of revenue sharing with the HOA lawyers and should look forward to cultivating a new generation of whippersnapper HOA lawyers to execute its reserves in the future!)
The third issue has not been discussed much at all and is also very specific to the MRTA requirements. Lawyers can find a multitude of ways to sway the interpretations of these terms within the context of revitalization which incorporates the blending of two statutes; the MRTA law and the Homeowner Act. At this time, these issues are being studied within the "administrative umbrella" which is more about fact-finding than adversarial (though both sides are clearly at odds!). In reality, both SLohA and Petitioner agree that there are no issues of FACT in dispute!
If appealed, the next phase will jump out of the administrative and into the civil arena which is quite protective of individual rights (as opposed to agency policies) and judicial territory.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 8, 2016 16:46:21 GMT -5
The Voice of Reason amongst the Doomsday Scenarios spread by MANBOD:
In short, very little will change for SLR for the worse if the archaic, irrelevant Covenants are not revitalized. SLR has been without Covenants since 2002+!
The sky will not fall!
SLR can opt to rewrite a new set of Covenants that reflects today's reality of a stable, non-wheel-based community rather than a transient fishcamp originally envisioned and constructed by the Developer.
Additionally, Owners will continue to be responsible for paying their share of assessments--Covenants or not-- as already determined in case law at the Supreme Court level just a few years ago.
|
|
|
Post by pestcontrol on Nov 10, 2016 7:18:16 GMT -5
Yesterday, both SLohA (Respondent) and Grnt (Petitioner) filed their respective Proposed Recommended Orders to the court (PRO). How is it that the Rules and Regulations filed in Polk County on March 8, 2014 became a legal document for which SLohA stands on when several of the Rules were modified/changed and never went before the home owners for approval as required??? Tampering with Governing documents to benefit the Board's Interpretation of what they want is not only misrepresentation but illegal. How can we as home owners correct this illegal practice? This will be the second time in lawsuits that these unapproved/illegal documents have been used. The other time was in the HUD suit. Does this not place the whole Association at risk? And why are the attorneys allowing this to happen?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 10, 2016 13:26:01 GMT -5
pestcontrol posted:
This IS the heart of the HOA consumer problem-HOA's are unregulated by anyone. HOA's hire attorneys who tell them that they can do nearly anything ("gray area") and the only thing a disgruntled Owner can do is S u e. They tell them that Owners rarely S u e. HOA's then do whatever they want, with few restraints. In the very rare instances where an Owner SUES, the Board has the multiple protections of 1) "business judgement rule" having involved its attorney, 2) D & O insurance and 3) unfettered access to the Owner's piggy bank to pay a gang of attorneys eager to collect defense fees!
Re: legal document. Paper(s) with statements and representations that are recorded with a county clerk in the public record do not become a legal document. It is only paper in recordable form presented with an administrative fee that becomes "public record" for all to view. Content is not scrutinized or evaluated by clerks.
Statements can be subjected to reality testing in at least two ways: 1. Are they "legitimate"? Do persons affected by the statements accept the statements as true? If no, the next test may or may not be taken. 2. Are they "legal"? Will the papers survive a specific cH allenge in the courts? If yes, they can be thought of as "legal" for that moment- in the context of that specific cH allenge. They might not survive the next cH allenge, since cH allenges have different underlying rationale and create different legal arguments. 3. If the statements are not recognized as legitimate, and are not subjected to "legal" scrutiny, they can be ignored. If the entity making the statements desires to test the "legal-ness" of the statement, they can do so, as was done with the porch issue at 66SS. That issue not only failed "legal" sufficiency, it cast a spectre of doubt and potential failures of ALL the related statements as to both their legitimacy and legality. (SLohA tore open Pandora's box and what popped out was not a cute "I Dream of Jeannie". However, the attorneys raked in the fees! Attorneys love SLohA!)
Even if a question of fact is judicially declared to be "legal", it does not mean that it can be or will be enforced. That is the case with SLohA, which has no authority to enforce any R & R. It has limited authority to enforce Covenants.
So, can the R & R adopted by Owners under Bylaws be considered "legal"? Answer is Yes, IF they were adopted according to Bylaws and do not overreach other superior laws and did not exceed the authorities granted by the Covenants.
It should be recognized that SLohA's legal capacity to adopt enforceable rules & regulations is extremely limited to those which are already declared in the Covenants. If there is no underlying authority to adopt a rule (ie a "clarifying" rule which does not directly relate to an existing Covenanted restriction), subsequent R & R can be regarded as "suggestions". This is one reason SLohA is so hell-bent on protecting it's Amendents because it would give it the basis to clarify the Over 55+ Covenant with "rules".
Your angst is common to consumers of CID's whose state lobbyists for the HOA-industry/money machine resist reforms favorable to consumers. A recourse of "elect new people" to the Board is simply not workable in most organizations, especially one as committed to relinquishing control to Management/Attorneys as exists in SLR.
|
|