Question your Title

Here is Frd O'N eel (Attny)'s reply to my question regarding undertaking revitalization as a "legal strategy of dealing with lawsuits":

Frd made an important point here:  there is a very limited impact that successful revitalizations can exert on the pending lawsuits--actually only 1 count would be admitted and thus no judicial order would be required i.e. the Declaratory Judgement. 

And remember--SLohA must revitalize documents for EACH of the three (3) units.   Only parcels within each subdivision can affirm or reject a revitalization for the Unit document.  For instance, if Unit I (my parcel unit) fails to ratify the 1972 Declaration, then the Declaratory Judgement count remains to be litigated.   If Unit 3 (the 66SS parcel) fails to ratify the revitalization of THAT subdivision's Declaration, the Declaratory Count will continue to be litigated.

There are several counts on each of the lawsuits are related to but have little to do with revitalization of the covenants, as noted above.  These counts have to do with invalidity of documents filed which cloud property titles.  ALL of the titles in S-bag have clouds on their titles--regardless of revitalization!  (The clouds were created by illegal amendments in 1986 and 1989 and by the Preservation in 2013.)  Owners' attorney states that these several counts must still be litigated even in the event of a successful revitalization.

AND THERE's MORE!  Even with a successful Unit revitalization, NOT ALL PARCEL OWNERS WILL BE ENCUMBERED BY THE REVITALIZED DOCUMENTS!  I do not know exactly how many homesteads there are in SLR but at last count it was around 200 --that is about 20%. Homestead properties are exempt from the revitalized documents but must STILL have the documents clouding their titles adjudicated and removed. 

(I am assuming that all homesteads would "opt out" of a successful unit revitalization.  I think it is unlikely that a parcel owner who enjoys the exempt status afforded by their homesteaded parcel would want to voluntarily re-encumber their property with a set of archaic Covenants and willingly assume the unnecessary risk of a vindictive group of owners with an appetite for launching lawsuits against Owners e.g. 66SS!)

The Board is allowing SLohA monies to be consumed by the lawyers on behalf of the insurance company--which is inundated with MRTA lawsuits--to test the legal waters in an attempt to undermine current and future MRTA lawsuits.  However, I believe that this is not a cost-effective approach and the result has very limited potential--if any.

Why not approach the revitalization as a cure for the lapse of past Boards and an effort to move forward quickly rather than as a chancey, expensive, extended and limited-value legal strategy?  Better yet, why not create a new set of vital documents relevant to life as it is in S-bag and try to get owners to voluntarily sign on to documents that make sense in 2015?  Or (best yet) conduct SLohA business as a Voluntary Association? 

Legal strategy or genuine SLohA document cure--either approach will have the same result in the end!  SLohA will be a dual-class park with a patchwork of archaic Covenants applicable to a campground and Owners who are free of all SLohA restrictions.  This will get very expensive for encumbered parcels!

To me, the best possible outcome would be for revitalizations to fail and place ALL owners in an equal position as members of a Voluntary Association, governed under the Not-for-Profit Corporation statute.

I'd be worried of a potential chapter 7 or 11. According to American Homeowners Resource Center (AHRC), the first signs of problems with an HOA occur when it decides to start withholding financial, (and legal) information from its members and/or having closed meetings to discus financial (or legal) matters. When the HOA can't disclose what's happening with its funds (and other info, members should be worried.

As a potential seller you must disclose any facts or conditions about your property that have a substantial impact on its value or desirability, and that others can not see of know for themselves. See Johnson v. Davis, 480 So 2d.625 (Fla. 1985)

Here's an excerpt from aboutfloridalaw.com on the subject:

"As explained by the Florida Supreme Court in Johnson v. Davis:
One should not be able to stand behind the impervious shield of caveat emptor and take advantage of another’s ignorance. Our courts have taken great strides since the days when the judicial emphasis was on rigid rules and ancient precedents. Modern concepts of justice and fair dealing have given our courts the opportunity and latitude to change legal precepts in order to conform to society’s needs. Thus, the tendency of the more recent cases has been to restrict rather than extend the doctrine of caveat emptor. The law appears to be working toward the ultimate conclusion that full disclosure of all material facts must be made whenever elementary fair conduct demands it.

Bottom line, in Florida, sellers of residential real estate must disclose most information about the condition of the property (past and present) ....".

"What Happens When Sellers Fail To Disclose in a Residential Real Estate Transaction?
When a buyer is not told about a material issue related to residential property in Florida, the buyer may have the right to rescind the deal and/or S u e for money damages resulting from the failure to disclose. This is true whether or not the failure to disclose was intentional or a mistake."
.......
"Short answer: failures to disclose known issues to residential real estate buyers in Florida often leads to lawsuits being filed. There are several statutory laws (both federal and state) that come into play here, along with Florida court cases (precedent). Environmental regulations established under federal law may even apply in Florida because of our unique natural resources and risks (e.g., Tribal lands, the Everglades, Hurricanes)."

So in your case, there are probably many places you'd rather be instead of SLohA.

pestcontrol posted:


No, SLR properties are traded routinely despite the clouds on title and several lawsuits.  They may be LESS marketable to an informed buyer, or to a buyer who is represented by a knowledgeable realtor or who actually pays for a title search and attorney opinion on condition of title.  Saddlebaggers are more likely to purchase a Quitclaim title which requires almost nothing in terms of disclosure and provides no protections/assurances of condition.

Why isn't the Board informing residents correctly/hidden about consequences?  Well, the answer to that can probably be deduced from SLohA's history of practicing lack of transparency, governance by "letting the chips fall", disrespect for the SLohA's own laws and ignorance of contract law, incompetence and carelessness.

If you are a Seller, you should be extremely cautious about how you represent your property and be mindful that your property includes the common property, KCN's towers, the lawsuits, the budget, the debt, the loan, rules and restrictions, board announcements concerning major changes to common elements and anticipated special assessment.  The Real Estate board contains a special disclosure about the covenants expiration which was drafted by an attorney in April 2014.