Post by Admin on Jul 28, 2014 21:24:20 GMT -5
...is not so good.
A search was done of the Orders and Judgments naming S-bag and these were further qualified to those involving architectural disputes. Here is a summary:
1984 GC-G-83-2653
SLohA vs Edward Cole et al
1984_PrelimOrder.pdf (244.82 KB)
ORDER Against SLohA
Rule 6-4 and 6-6 on June 10, 1983 are invalid because those regulations are tantamount to a modification of the Covenants & Restrictions and Covenants may not be modified by regulations except by two-thirds vote of the property owners and those regulations were passed by a mere majority and ...(such rules) ..are adjudged invalid and void.
Declaratory Relief-SLohA ordered to hold an election to amend Covenants to permit 2 camping facilities on duplex lots, but no injunctive relief pending submission of the adoption by vote at the next annual meeting
It ordered SLohA to amend its Covenants and Restrictions and failed to note the absence of an amendatory clause. Instead, it referenced SLohA's authority to enforce Covenants under FS718 (the condo statute) and again referencing FS 718.110 asserts such amendment required two-thirds affirmative votes and SLohA is not governed by FS718. It is governed by FS720 which has no provision for passing amendments to covenants in the absence of an amendatory clause. (FS720 did not exist at the time of this decision; its precursor (and the statute under which SLohA was incorporated) was FS617. Judge should have referenced provisions of FS617-not FS718.)
This case, I believe, was the birth of the fictitious 1986 Amendment to Declaration which most Owners do not know exists
It is unknown why the Defendents did not appeal this bad decision which was obviously based on error.
1983 GC-G-83-829
Oliphant vs SLohA
1983OliphantCICIIDock.pdf (64.17 KB)
Final Judgment against SLohA
Count 1 "finds it to be an unreasonable exercise of SLohA's discretion and authority to deny a permit to extend his patio and Florida room at the width of his present Florida room.
Count 2 Plaintiff's dock constructed prior to the Rule but rule is reasonable and dock can remain in place until the lot is sold.
1982 GC-G82-293 SLohA vs Oliphant
1982Oliphant4_22.pdf (33.17 KB)
Final Judgment against SLohA
Rule 4-22
Violation of that the improvement was not in violation and denied injunctive relief to SLohA
Attorney fees were not awarded to either party
1981 GC-G-80-1520, 1921, 1922 and 1965
SLohA vs Warner, Buller Shank & Jones
Final Judgment against SLohA
Rule 4-22
Defendents are in technical violation of Rule 4-22 but subject improvements are not offensive to the neighbors and surroundings and they are not harmful to the park. Court further finds that neither equity nor justice requires that the defendants be directed to remove the improvements since the cost of such removal would be unreasonable in relationship to the technical violation.
1979
GCG-79-2183
GCG-79-2211
SLohA vs Klein & Chapin
Final Judgement against SLohA
Rule 4-1
Final Judgement said that "denial of the permits in question in this cause are invalid, inasmuch as the Executive Board of SLohA's action was subject to no uniform standard or rule of action and such action has, or will in the future, result in unjust discrimination...and that constitutes an attempt to delegate unlimited discretion to the Executive Board of SLohA and is therefore, invalid.
1985 GC-G-83-2653
SLohA vs Cole, Davis, Fetridge, Smith and Hale
Final Judgement for SLohA for Injunctive Relief
Member vote was defeated at the Annual meeting to change the duplex lot use to 1 home + 1 trailer and therefore, defendents must remove the second "camping facility" from their duplex lots.
THIS IS THE ONLY CASE WHERE SLohA PREVAILED.
1985 Order: Attorney fees were not awarded to either side. (that is a "qualified" win and means that neither party was clearly right or wrong)
I believe this was a effed up situation. The Developer platted these lots as "duplex" and sold them as "duplex". However, Polk County did not have a duplex regulation for "campsites"--only for other housing lots. The Developer failed to specify the special uses of these "duplex" campsites and SLohA then sued to enforce the restrictions, as written. I think the people who bought these lots were screwed--twice--first, by the Developer and then by SLohA.
Scorecard: SLohA 1
Owners 5
(remaining cases next post)
A search was done of the Orders and Judgments naming S-bag and these were further qualified to those involving architectural disputes. Here is a summary:
1984 GC-G-83-2653
SLohA vs Edward Cole et al
1984_PrelimOrder.pdf (244.82 KB)
ORDER Against SLohA
Rule 6-4 and 6-6 on June 10, 1983 are invalid because those regulations are tantamount to a modification of the Covenants & Restrictions and Covenants may not be modified by regulations except by two-thirds vote of the property owners and those regulations were passed by a mere majority and ...(such rules) ..are adjudged invalid and void.
Declaratory Relief-SLohA ordered to hold an election to amend Covenants to permit 2 camping facilities on duplex lots, but no injunctive relief pending submission of the adoption by vote at the next annual meeting
It ordered SLohA to amend its Covenants and Restrictions and failed to note the absence of an amendatory clause. Instead, it referenced SLohA's authority to enforce Covenants under FS718 (the condo statute) and again referencing FS 718.110 asserts such amendment required two-thirds affirmative votes and SLohA is not governed by FS718. It is governed by FS720 which has no provision for passing amendments to covenants in the absence of an amendatory clause. (FS720 did not exist at the time of this decision; its precursor (and the statute under which SLohA was incorporated) was FS617. Judge should have referenced provisions of FS617-not FS718.)
This case, I believe, was the birth of the fictitious 1986 Amendment to Declaration which most Owners do not know exists
It is unknown why the Defendents did not appeal this bad decision which was obviously based on error.
1983 GC-G-83-829
Oliphant vs SLohA
1983OliphantCICIIDock.pdf (64.17 KB)
Final Judgment against SLohA
Count 1 "finds it to be an unreasonable exercise of SLohA's discretion and authority to deny a permit to extend his patio and Florida room at the width of his present Florida room.
Count 2 Plaintiff's dock constructed prior to the Rule but rule is reasonable and dock can remain in place until the lot is sold.
1982 GC-G82-293 SLohA vs Oliphant
1982Oliphant4_22.pdf (33.17 KB)
Final Judgment against SLohA
Rule 4-22
Violation of that the improvement was not in violation and denied injunctive relief to SLohA
Attorney fees were not awarded to either party
1981 GC-G-80-1520, 1921, 1922 and 1965
SLohA vs Warner, Buller Shank & Jones
Final Judgment against SLohA
Rule 4-22
Defendents are in technical violation of Rule 4-22 but subject improvements are not offensive to the neighbors and surroundings and they are not harmful to the park. Court further finds that neither equity nor justice requires that the defendants be directed to remove the improvements since the cost of such removal would be unreasonable in relationship to the technical violation.
1979
GCG-79-2183
GCG-79-2211
SLohA vs Klein & Chapin
Final Judgement against SLohA
Rule 4-1
Final Judgement said that "denial of the permits in question in this cause are invalid, inasmuch as the Executive Board of SLohA's action was subject to no uniform standard or rule of action and such action has, or will in the future, result in unjust discrimination...and that constitutes an attempt to delegate unlimited discretion to the Executive Board of SLohA and is therefore, invalid.
1985 GC-G-83-2653
SLohA vs Cole, Davis, Fetridge, Smith and Hale
Final Judgement for SLohA for Injunctive Relief
Member vote was defeated at the Annual meeting to change the duplex lot use to 1 home + 1 trailer and therefore, defendents must remove the second "camping facility" from their duplex lots.
THIS IS THE ONLY CASE WHERE SLohA PREVAILED.
1985 Order: Attorney fees were not awarded to either side. (that is a "qualified" win and means that neither party was clearly right or wrong)
I believe this was a effed up situation. The Developer platted these lots as "duplex" and sold them as "duplex". However, Polk County did not have a duplex regulation for "campsites"--only for other housing lots. The Developer failed to specify the special uses of these "duplex" campsites and SLohA then sued to enforce the restrictions, as written. I think the people who bought these lots were screwed--twice--first, by the Developer and then by SLohA.
Scorecard: SLohA 1
Owners 5
(remaining cases next post)
