Post by Admin on Mar 12, 2014 7:46:50 GMT -5
720.309 Agreements entered into by the association.—
(1) Any Grnt or reservation made by any document, and any contract that has a term greater than 10 years, that is made by an association before control of the association is turned over to the members other than the developer, and that provides for the operation, maintenance, or management of the association or common areas, must be fair and reasonable.
Editor Note: Does not apply to SLohA
(2) If the governing documents provide for the cost of communications services as defined in s. 202.11, information services or Internet services obtained pursuant to a bulk contract sH all be deemed an operating expense of the association. If the governing documents do not provide for such services, the board may contract for the services, and the cost sH all be deemed an operating expense of the association but must be allocated on a per-parcel basis rather than a percentage basis, notwithstanding that the governing documents provide for other than an equal sharing of operating expenses. Any contract entered into before July 1, 2011, in which the cost of the service is not equally divided among all parcel owners may be changed by a majority of the voting interests present at a regular or special meeting of the association in order to allocate the cost equally among all parcels.
Editor Note: Although this does not apply to SLohA, it was the provision used by the BOD, via its SLohA lawyer, to "validate" the illegal internet assessment extortion fee. This does not apply to SLohA because it represents a retroactive application of law--which is unconstitutional. SLohA was incorporated under FS617 (before it split into two parts i.e. 617 and 720) which contained no such provision, nor does SLohA's founding documents contain any legal intent to be subject to such future legislative changes in contract rights. Attempting to assert this as a right is "legal bluff" in hopes that owners will believe the fantasy and pursue no further.
(a) Any contract entered into by the board may be canceled by a majority of the voting interests present at the next regular or special meeting of the association, whichever occurs first. Any member may make a motion to cancel such contract, but if no motion is made or if such motion fails to obtain the required vote, the contract sH all be deemed ratified for the term expressed therein.
Editors Note: Predictably, when the BOD posted this statute on the Bulletin Boards, it omitted this part. What this says is that owners can CANCEL a contract lawfully entered into by the board for an assessment fee (for a telecommunications service) at the next meeting by a majority vote of members present at the meeting. A member only need make a motion and the motion must be seconded, discussed and voted on, per usual. Had the illegal internet assessment fee passed, THIS might have been one remedy available to members --if the Board recognized it. If not, the remaining remedy is a lawsuit. There is little doubt in my mind that there would have been a lawsuit against SLohA because any board that would stoop to such dirty tricks would not be likely to recognize a Member cancellation vote.
(b) Any contract entered into by the board must provide, and sH all be deemed to provide if not expressly set forth therein, that a hearing-impaired or legally blind parcel owner who does not occupy the parcel with a non-hearing-impaired or sighted person, or a parcel owner who receives supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act or food assistance as administered by the Department of Children and Family Services pursuant to s. 414.31, may discontinue the service without incurring disconnect fees, penalties, or subsequent service charges, and may not be required to pay any operating expenses charge related to such service for those parcels. If fewer than all parcel owners share the expenses of the communications services, information services, or Internet services, the expense must be shared by all participating parcel owners. The association may use the provisions of s. 720.3085 to enforce payment by the parcel owners receiving such services.
Editors Note: This gives certain qualifying owners exemptions to paying for bulk contract internet services, whether this provision is written into the bulk contract or not. Note that if a great # of persons were exempted under this provision, the remaining parcel owners would be required to pay the lost revenue to the service provider. THIS was not mentioned by either the BOD or K C until it became apparent that the issue was a hotly-contested one. But, in a lawsuit, any action taken under this provision would be likely be voided since this statute is not applicable to SLohA.
(c) A resident of any parcel, whether a tenant or parcel owner, may not be denied access to available franchised, licensed, or certificated cable or video service providers if the resident pays the provider directly for services. A resident or a cable or video service provider may not be required to pay anything of value in order to obtain or provide such service except for the charges normally paid for like services by residents of single-family homes located outside the community but within the same franchised, licensed, or certificated area, and except for installation charges agreed to between the resident and the service provider.
Editor's Note: You can do business with any internet provider you want in addition to paying the illegal SLohA internet extortion fee. Had the internet assessment extortion fee passed, you would have HAD to pay it because it was bundled into your assessment fee. If you chose to withhold payment, SLohA would attempt to subject you to collection, lien and judgement. SLohA might attempt to foreclose on your home--which the Covenants do not authorize it to do. Owners would have to S ue or permit themselves to be abused. There is no doubt in my mind that SLohA would be sued for this unconstitutional taking of contract rights.
History.—s. 59, ch. 95-274; s. 51, ch. 2000-258; s. 21, ch. 2011-196.
Note.—Former s. 617.309. Note that SLohA was incorporated under FS617 and contained ONLY provision #1 above--which applies only to the Developer before turnover.
Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and the interpretations 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.
(1) Any Grnt or reservation made by any document, and any contract that has a term greater than 10 years, that is made by an association before control of the association is turned over to the members other than the developer, and that provides for the operation, maintenance, or management of the association or common areas, must be fair and reasonable.
Editor Note: Does not apply to SLohA
(2) If the governing documents provide for the cost of communications services as defined in s. 202.11, information services or Internet services obtained pursuant to a bulk contract sH all be deemed an operating expense of the association. If the governing documents do not provide for such services, the board may contract for the services, and the cost sH all be deemed an operating expense of the association but must be allocated on a per-parcel basis rather than a percentage basis, notwithstanding that the governing documents provide for other than an equal sharing of operating expenses. Any contract entered into before July 1, 2011, in which the cost of the service is not equally divided among all parcel owners may be changed by a majority of the voting interests present at a regular or special meeting of the association in order to allocate the cost equally among all parcels.
Editor Note: Although this does not apply to SLohA, it was the provision used by the BOD, via its SLohA lawyer, to "validate" the illegal internet assessment extortion fee. This does not apply to SLohA because it represents a retroactive application of law--which is unconstitutional. SLohA was incorporated under FS617 (before it split into two parts i.e. 617 and 720) which contained no such provision, nor does SLohA's founding documents contain any legal intent to be subject to such future legislative changes in contract rights. Attempting to assert this as a right is "legal bluff" in hopes that owners will believe the fantasy and pursue no further.
(a) Any contract entered into by the board may be canceled by a majority of the voting interests present at the next regular or special meeting of the association, whichever occurs first. Any member may make a motion to cancel such contract, but if no motion is made or if such motion fails to obtain the required vote, the contract sH all be deemed ratified for the term expressed therein.
Editors Note: Predictably, when the BOD posted this statute on the Bulletin Boards, it omitted this part. What this says is that owners can CANCEL a contract lawfully entered into by the board for an assessment fee (for a telecommunications service) at the next meeting by a majority vote of members present at the meeting. A member only need make a motion and the motion must be seconded, discussed and voted on, per usual. Had the illegal internet assessment fee passed, THIS might have been one remedy available to members --if the Board recognized it. If not, the remaining remedy is a lawsuit. There is little doubt in my mind that there would have been a lawsuit against SLohA because any board that would stoop to such dirty tricks would not be likely to recognize a Member cancellation vote.
(b) Any contract entered into by the board must provide, and sH all be deemed to provide if not expressly set forth therein, that a hearing-impaired or legally blind parcel owner who does not occupy the parcel with a non-hearing-impaired or sighted person, or a parcel owner who receives supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act or food assistance as administered by the Department of Children and Family Services pursuant to s. 414.31, may discontinue the service without incurring disconnect fees, penalties, or subsequent service charges, and may not be required to pay any operating expenses charge related to such service for those parcels. If fewer than all parcel owners share the expenses of the communications services, information services, or Internet services, the expense must be shared by all participating parcel owners. The association may use the provisions of s. 720.3085 to enforce payment by the parcel owners receiving such services.
Editors Note: This gives certain qualifying owners exemptions to paying for bulk contract internet services, whether this provision is written into the bulk contract or not. Note that if a great # of persons were exempted under this provision, the remaining parcel owners would be required to pay the lost revenue to the service provider. THIS was not mentioned by either the BOD or K C until it became apparent that the issue was a hotly-contested one. But, in a lawsuit, any action taken under this provision would be likely be voided since this statute is not applicable to SLohA.
(c) A resident of any parcel, whether a tenant or parcel owner, may not be denied access to available franchised, licensed, or certificated cable or video service providers if the resident pays the provider directly for services. A resident or a cable or video service provider may not be required to pay anything of value in order to obtain or provide such service except for the charges normally paid for like services by residents of single-family homes located outside the community but within the same franchised, licensed, or certificated area, and except for installation charges agreed to between the resident and the service provider.
Editor's Note: You can do business with any internet provider you want in addition to paying the illegal SLohA internet extortion fee. Had the internet assessment extortion fee passed, you would have HAD to pay it because it was bundled into your assessment fee. If you chose to withhold payment, SLohA would attempt to subject you to collection, lien and judgement. SLohA might attempt to foreclose on your home--which the Covenants do not authorize it to do. Owners would have to S ue or permit themselves to be abused. There is no doubt in my mind that SLohA would be sued for this unconstitutional taking of contract rights.
History.—s. 59, ch. 95-274; s. 51, ch. 2000-258; s. 21, ch. 2011-196.
Note.—Former s. 617.309. Note that SLohA was incorporated under FS617 and contained ONLY provision #1 above--which applies only to the Developer before turnover.
Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and the interpretations 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.