Post by Admin on Nov 15, 2017 19:08:51 GMT -5
The Petitioner has advised me that he has heard from his attorney on the appeal and asked me to comment.
The appellate court rendered a "per curiam" opinion which is to say "No Opinion". There was no judicial rationale offered to any argument raised by either side to illustrate a position. The court was uninterested and rubber-stamped the DEO actions. What this means is essentially "Nothing has changed". The revitalization is now formally in place.
The GOOD: It settled a question about the revitalization which had entered suspension in May 2016 when the appeal was filed. No more legal fees on THIS particular issue!
SLohA can go ahead and start a Rules-Proposing Festival for the membership to accept or reject!
The BAD:
1. The Legal Fees might not end with this outcome. The "decision" was simply "DEO lawfully approved the revitalization". It was a non-decision decision involving an administrative agency of Florida. The judges might as well have stayed home.
2. There may be future legal fees to defend against Owners who have lots that were previously alienated from SLohA's restrictive covenants, and who remain alienated by virtue of Homestead Exemption, may still bring an action against SLohA if SLohA attempts to assert its Covenants over their land.
3. There may be future legal fees to defend against Owners who are "forbidden" to use their property for the benefit of any age of housing situation, as the decision did not address the underlying validity of the Amendments and that issue remains open for dispute should SLohA attempt to limit Owners' use of property for "under 55".
4. SLohA might again attempt to enact new restrictions on private property use, thus provoking Owners to S u e.
5. SLohA must recognize the self-elected 75% affirmative vote to get anything passed, since it declined to omit the Amendments from the Revitalization package. (Had it NOT submitted the Amendments, SLohA would have a state-mandated 66% affirmative vote.)
6. There is no way to calculate or imagine the indirect damage and costs that will be related back to SLohA's excessive litigation activity of the past 4 years. We already have seen skyrocketing insurance costs and it is likely that will persist. The impact to property values and resale marketability will remain unknown. Real estate selling costs the past year have essentially been "flat".
There is also no way to assess the toll this has taken on Owner confidence and how that will play out going forward.
The appellate court rendered a "per curiam" opinion which is to say "No Opinion". There was no judicial rationale offered to any argument raised by either side to illustrate a position. The court was uninterested and rubber-stamped the DEO actions. What this means is essentially "Nothing has changed". The revitalization is now formally in place.
The GOOD: It settled a question about the revitalization which had entered suspension in May 2016 when the appeal was filed. No more legal fees on THIS particular issue!
SLohA can go ahead and start a Rules-Proposing Festival for the membership to accept or reject!
The BAD:
1. The Legal Fees might not end with this outcome. The "decision" was simply "DEO lawfully approved the revitalization". It was a non-decision decision involving an administrative agency of Florida. The judges might as well have stayed home.
2. There may be future legal fees to defend against Owners who have lots that were previously alienated from SLohA's restrictive covenants, and who remain alienated by virtue of Homestead Exemption, may still bring an action against SLohA if SLohA attempts to assert its Covenants over their land.
3. There may be future legal fees to defend against Owners who are "forbidden" to use their property for the benefit of any age of housing situation, as the decision did not address the underlying validity of the Amendments and that issue remains open for dispute should SLohA attempt to limit Owners' use of property for "under 55".
4. SLohA might again attempt to enact new restrictions on private property use, thus provoking Owners to S u e.
5. SLohA must recognize the self-elected 75% affirmative vote to get anything passed, since it declined to omit the Amendments from the Revitalization package. (Had it NOT submitted the Amendments, SLohA would have a state-mandated 66% affirmative vote.)
6. There is no way to calculate or imagine the indirect damage and costs that will be related back to SLohA's excessive litigation activity of the past 4 years. We already have seen skyrocketing insurance costs and it is likely that will persist. The impact to property values and resale marketability will remain unknown. Real estate selling costs the past year have essentially been "flat".
There is also no way to assess the toll this has taken on Owner confidence and how that will play out going forward.