Happy Birthday APRIL lots

Hmmmm...that's an interesting thought!  How many properties have been newly-titled in SLR without covenants?  Maybe I'll do belated birthday post!  Perhaps a "Born Again Board"?

And do any of our Board live on a lot that has expired? Wouldn't it be interesting if they had to be disqualified from servering on the board?

And the answer is....7 of the 9 directors have no covenants on their lots. The only directors with unexpired covenants are Stv Suthrd  and Frns Sm all.

Now for the second part of the question i.e. eligibility to serve. Bottom line is that they are all eligible to serve and status of the covenants is not a factor.   Florida puts very few limits on director eligibility. The only absolute is to be a member of the association and, to be a member of the association, one must be an owner. Florida only forbids felons to serve and also those who are more than 90 days delinquent in paying assessments.

But, here's a sobering question "Under the conditions of MRTA-extinguished covenants, what is the relationship between the board directors and those represented by the board?"   Since the board's legitimate conduct requires underlying authority of the Covenants-and the Covenants are expired on owners' and common properties- the legal contract to represent other members is absent (or currently illusory until a declaratory judgement is rendered by the courts).  When the CC&R's ceased to exist -so did the powers and duties of the Association and its board which derives it authority from the CC&R's.  And since the Association is no longer mandatory, it is no longer governed by Florida Statute 720 and what little protection consumers have disappears.  

Without statutory "protection" and corporation governing laws, homeowners "go bare" and tolerate a no-contract, handshake relationship to continue operating the common property.   However, if I were insuring the corporation, I would be quite nervous about its status.  I suppose Tower Hill is learning about that now since their lawyers are representing SLohA in the covenants expiration litigation.   SLohA has been operating like this for many years, unbeknownst to everyone.  But, the reality is dawning that SLohA governance is an illusion--a risky one.

Notwithstanding that the expert practitioners in MRTA litigation are quite certain that S-bag's covenants are expired, SLohA does not want to acknowledge this.   I am offended that SLohA did not even seek a second legal opinion when the situation was first brought to its attention; instead, it chose to rely entirely on management's attorney recommendation.   But, it is not surprising that MANBOD is defensive.  It is an egregious act of negligence to allow a deed-restricted community's CC&R's to extinguish for lack of accurately filling out a few sheets of paper in a timely manner.  As a result, owners will suffer a protracted and expensive legal process.

So, this is how I would answer my question about the relationship dynamic now:  the relationship is one that must be entirely based on trust...a commodity that is in short supply in S-bag.

Fortunately, this will not remain a question for long--covenants expiration will be objectively decided by the courts. In the meantime, keep your fingers crossed that SLohA stays out of trouble.

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney or a professional title searcher; the interpretations of MRTA expiration on titles above are my opinion and offered for informational purposes only. These interpretations should not be relied upon if you are contemplating legal action. Consult an attorney for legal advice.