💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

MarthaS2 (Florida)
Posts: 12
Posted:
Florida Statute 720 allows for recall of BOD and provides specific procedures for doing so. A recall committee is in process of recalling entire board and ballots are requestd to be submitted by Jan. 1. In the meantime the board has directed the association attorney to distribute a letter to all homeowners saying they refute all charges (although this can be done without cause) and request that they not return the ballot or rescind their ballot if already sent. Instead they recommend that this issue be settle by a vote at the next annual membership meeting to be held the last of Feb. According to the committee, only one position is up for reelection and therefore the reason we chose the recall avenue before Feb.
Question: Does the attorney/board have the right to usurp the Statute, interfere with the community's right to conduct this recall and do so before the results are known? What could their end goal be?

MelissaP1 (Alabama)
Posts: 13,836
Posted:
What I am getting from this is that it would be preferred to handle this "In-house" with the normal election going on in February. There may be one position available for election open. I would recommend having your one candidate ready to start running. You do all realize you recall the board, you have to have people to replace them. Do you have that?

Think this was a waste of time and money for involving the lawyers. However, to each their own lesson learned.

Former HOA President
MarthaS2 (Florida)
Posts: 12
Posted:
Yes, we are attempting to recall 3 and have 3 candidates named on the recall ballot. The membership is given the option of retaining or recalling each member of the board and name a candidate to replace them with. We did not want to wait for the annual meeting because it is our understanding there is only one position to be up for election. We want all of them out and we want to do it before they prepare the budget for next year. As happened last year they held the budget meeting without notification to the membership.
Your comment about costs is exactly why we are recalling the board. The communications from the board all come from the attorney. They hold no meetings without the attorney and rarely answer email questions.
Thanks for your help. I guess we will have to seek legal advise about the association attorney's role and ethics in what we see as interference with our recall effort.
TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,059
Posted:
"I guess we will have to seek legal advise about the association attorney's role and ethics in what we see as interference with our recall effort."

Martha,

The Associations attorney works for the Association as directed by the Board of Directors. If the Board is asking the attorney how do we delay or prevent the recall from happening, the Association is going to give advice based on taking that direction.

The attorney does not work for the membership.

Their role is defined by the existing Board of Directors. Their ethics are governed by what the law allows.

AS an FYI, here is what FL 720 says:

10) RECALL OF DIRECTORS.—
(a)1. Regardless of any provision to the contrary contained in the governing documents, subject to the provisions of s. 720.307 regarding transition of association control, any member of the board of directors may be recalled and removed from office with or without cause by a majority of the total voting interests.
2. When the governing documents, including the declaration, articles of incorporation, or bylaws, provide that only a specific class of members is entitled to elect a board director or directors, only that class of members may vote to recall those board directors so elected.
(b)1. Board directors may be recalled by an agreement in writing or by written ballot without a membership meeting. The agreement in writing or the written ballots, or a copy thereof, shall be served on the association by certified mail or by personal service in the manner authorized by chapter 48 and the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
2. The board shall duly notice and hold a meeting of the board within 5 full business days after receipt of the agreement in writing or written ballots. At the meeting, the board shall either certify the written ballots or written agreement to recall a director or directors of the board, in which case such director or directors shall be recalled effective immediately and shall turn over to the board within 5 full business days any and all records and property of the association in their possession, or proceed as described in paragraph (d).
3. When it is determined by the department pursuant to binding arbitration proceedings that an initial recall effort was defective, written recall agreements or written ballots used in the first recall effort and not found to be defective may be reused in one subsequent recall effort. However, in no event is a written agreement or written ballot valid for more than 120 days after it has been signed by the member.
4. Any rescission or revocation of a member’s written recall ballot or agreement must be in writing and, in order to be effective, must be delivered to the association before the association is served with the written recall agreements or ballots.
5. The agreement in writing or ballot shall list at least as many possible replacement directors as there are directors subject to the recall, when at least a majority of the board is sought to be recalled; the person executing the recall instrument may vote for as many replacement candidates as there are directors subject to the recall.
(c)1. If the declaration, articles of incorporation, or bylaws specifically provide, the members may also recall and remove a board director or directors by a vote taken at a meeting. If so provided in the governing documents, a special meeting of the members to recall a director or directors of the board of administration may be called by 10 percent of the voting interests giving notice of the meeting as required for a meeting of members, and the notice shall state the purpose of the meeting. Electronic transmission may not be used as a method of giving notice of a meeting called in whole or in part for this purpose.
2. The board shall duly notice and hold a board meeting within 5 full business days after the adjournment of the member meeting to recall one or more directors. At the meeting, the board shall certify the recall, in which case such member or members shall be recalled effective immediately and shall turn over to the board within 5 full business days any and all records and property of the association in their possession, or shall proceed as set forth in subparagraph (d).
(d) If the board determines not to certify the written agreement or written ballots to recall a director or directors of the board or does not certify the recall by a vote at a meeting, the board shall, within 5 full business days after the meeting, file with the department a petition for binding arbitration pursuant to the applicable procedures in ss. 718.112(2)(j) and 718.1255 and the rules adopted thereunder. For the purposes of this section, the members who voted at the meeting or who executed the agreement in writing shall constitute one party under the petition for arbitration. If the arbitrator certifies the recall as to any director or directors of the board, the recall will be effective upon mailing of the final order of arbitration to the association. The director or directors so recalled shall deliver to the board any and all records of the association in their possession within 5 full business days after the effective date of the recall.
(e) If a vacancy occurs on the board as a result of a recall and less than a majority of the board directors are removed, the vacancy may be filled by the affirmative vote of a majority of the remaining directors, notwithstanding any provision to the contrary contained in this subsection or in the association documents. If vacancies occur on the board as a result of a recall and a majority or more of the board directors are removed, the vacancies shall be filled by members voting in favor of the recall; if removal is at a meeting, any vacancies shall be filled by the members at the meeting. If the recall occurred by agreement in writing or by written ballot, members may vote for replacement directors in the same instrument in accordance with procedural rules adopted by the division, which rules need not be consistent with this subsection.
(f) If the board fails to duly notice and hold a board meeting within 5 full business days after service of an agreement in writing or within 5 full business days after the adjournment of the member recall meeting, the recall shall be deemed effective and the board directors so recalled shall immediately turn over to the board all records and property of the association.
(g) If a director who is removed fails to relinquish his or her office or turn over records as required under this section, the circuit court in the county where the association maintains its principal office may, upon the petition of the association, summarily order the director to relinquish his or her office and turn over all association records upon application of the association.
(h) The minutes of the board meeting at which the board decides whether to certify the recall are an official association record. The minutes must record the date and time of the meeting, the decision of the board, and the vote count taken on each board member subject to the recall. In addition, when the board decides not to certify the recall, as to each vote rejected, the minutes must identify the parcel number and the specific reason for each such rejection.
(i) When the recall of more than one board director is sought, the written agreement, ballot, or vote at a meeting shall provide for a separate vote for each board director sought to be recalled.
JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265
Posted:
Martha

I say they are simply beating you at your own game by asking people not to vote, rescind their vote, and wait until election time.

You took them on (rightly or not is not the issue) and they have responded.

Sometimes one does not want to wake the giant........LOL

CarolR11 (Colorado)
Posts: 2,563
Posted:
Without reading the statute that Tim posted, Martha, are you saying that your Board holds no open meetings? All of their meetings are held in executive session no matter what the agenda items are (which opposes Fla. law)??
CarolR11 (Colorado)
Posts: 2,563
Posted:
Has the membership already received the attorney's letter?
MarthaS2 (Florida)
Posts: 12
Posted:
We are very close to our majority vote with sufficient time to spare. Lesson learned.
MarthaS2 (Florida)
Posts: 12
Posted:
Yes, the majority of the letters were handcarried last Sat. but about half are in the mail still because of the holiday.
MarthaS2 (Florida)
Posts: 12
Posted:
Many decisions have been made throughout the year that we feel should have met the public meeting announcement but we haven't had but one meeting since the annual meeting in Feb. The attorney always conducts the meetings. I requested a date for the budget meeting that should be happening soon. They were also informed that we expected a notice be posted so we had an opportunity to attend. No response as yet.
JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265
Posted:
Martha

What you expect and what they must legally provide can be two very different things. Especially when they have their lawyer covering their backs and all you have is a dislike for how they do it.

I suggest you work toward replacing them and if it requires replacing them one at a time and takes a few years, then so be it.

The last time I got involved, it took us about two years and one heck of a lot of work to get control of the BOD but we did it.

Hope this helps.

PeterD3 (Florida)
Posts: 708
Posted:
No interference noted. Simply a counter-campaign to save face. The lawyer letter is a classic bully pulpit manuever.

Is your community to large to canvass in-person? If so then how could you expect to 'take them' by suprise?

If you have committed members then the lawyer letter won't matter.

50% +1 IS ALL THAT IS REQUIRED.

LarryB13 (Arizona)
Posts: 4,099
Posted:
It sounds like the association's attorney is representing the personal interests of the three individual board members at the expense of the association members. The line between the interests of the association and the interests of the individual board members is not so fine that it cannot be seen. His letter was not to advise the board members and/or homeowners on how to conduct a recall election but was intended to dissuade homeowners from participating in the recall election at all.

The attorney is violating his duty to his client, the association, by taking its money to represent three individuals whose interests may or may not be at odds with his client's. The attorney's conduct is unethical and he should be reported to the bar association. When the recall unseats the three incumbent board members the new board's first act should be to fire that attorney and find another. Even if the recall fails, any homeowner would have standing to file a complaint against the attorney with the state bar.

CarolR11 (Colorado)
Posts: 2,563
Posted:
I think Larry is right, Martha.

All of you homeowners (members) are paying for the attorney's time. Board members are not the attorney's client, your association is. (That doesn't mean any individual homeowner, though).

I'd ask in writing to the board or your PM to see the financials re: how much you've paid the attorney this year and for what. I'd also ask in writing to see your HOA's contract with the HOA attorney.

It took us one year (2 elections) to take over our Board and just one reason was that the then - board had gone waaaaay over budget in attorney's fees to cover their individual butts.

JonD1
Posts: 2,350
Posted:
Wow time to tap our brakes here folks. That is before we start reporting the atorreny to the bar and making claims they are acting in an unethical manner.

Lets just play make believe here because in fact none of us knows the details. Martha and her group wants the Board removed. How many owners support this? Who knows. Just how did the current Board come into holding office??? Were they elected? Or did a group of aliens put them into power.

In fact the association attorney does work for the Board as the Board is in place to manage the affairs of the property. The current Board CAN represent no only the interests of the current Board but they can act in a manner which represents the association excluding of course those who support Marth's effrots to remove them.

So Martha is amking an effrot to remove the Board and the Board has now responded. Well folks that is how it works in the real world. Or did you expect the Board to turn tail and hand over the keys?

And IMO more than likely the attorney understands what is ethical and what is not as they have the details of the situation with which to work.
We have assumptions and speculation as to what we THINK might be going on.

As a general rule of life when you attack people on what would be a personal level (removing them from office) MOST times you will get some blowback. In this case they instructed the attorney to respond. And if the current Board is not in agreement with their own removal what comes as a suprise????

Yes we want to remove the Board. (Who like you are also owners and are entitled not only to their views but the elcted office they hold.) And they should have no ability other than walking away.......

Sorry it doesn't work like that....

MarthaS2 (Florida)
Posts: 12
Posted:
I truly appreciate your words of caution and will take them under advisement to my committee. Thanks

MarthaS2 (Florida)
Posts: 12
Posted:
Does "certify" in this case mean approve and accept? Our recall ballot provided for "recall" or "retain" For those ballots that have a "retain" do we need to give them to the board? Should results of all ballots be turned over or just the recall ballots?
PeterD3 (Florida)
Posts: 708
Posted:
If you have enought votes to recall even just one director turn over everything. Full disclosure is best and will avoid any challenges which may otherwise complicate the effort.

If your effort falls short keep the 'recall' ballots until you have enough. The ballots due have an expiration period though so make sure that is met.

Yes certify means the BoD has reviewed them and accepts the results.
MarthaS2 (Florida)
Posts: 12
Posted:
We asked for the financials earlier this year and were given a list of attorney expenses but they were redacted citing attorney/client privilege. The attorney charged the association $75.00 for writing a letter to this effect. That expense we could identify upon inspection of the records which, of course, was held in the attorney's office. I guess nothing can be done about it but the attorney now manages our association.
CarolF (Florida)
Posts: 435
Posted:
Here is a current blog article regarding the attorney's role in representing the board/association.
Becker&Poliakoff is a well known Florida firm specializing in HOAs.

Q: I read your blog dated August 21, 2012, entitled
Attorney-Client Privilege Exists Beyond
Litigation, and think something is wrong. The
members of the association pay the lawyer’s fee.
So how is it conceivable that the attorney paid for
by all homeowners only represents the board?

A: This is a common source of discontent in
associations. American law recognizes the fiction
of the corporation as a legal person. Therefore, a
corporation is granted by the law most of the legal
powers of individuals, at least with respect to
commercial matters. Such powers include the
power to enter into contracts, the power to sue and
be sued, and the power to hold title to property.
When an attorney represents a corporation, it is the
corporation to which that attorney owes his or her
duty of loyalty. The attorney does not represent
“the board”, nor any member on the board.
Obviously, a corporation cannot act except through
natural persons, which are the agents of the
corporation empowered by law to undertake the
affairs of the corporation. These agents typically
include directors and officers of the association,
and others, such as executive employees or
managers.
There is some analogy to owning stock in a
publicly traded company. While the stock you
purchase may help pay for the legal needs of that
corporation, you would typically not be privy to
the advice that the corporate counsel provides to
the appropriate corporate representatives.
By Joe Adams, Becker & Poliakoff Law Blog (Florida attorneys)
LarryB13 (Arizona)
Posts: 4,099
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By CarolF on 12/28/2012 1:57 PM

The attorney does not represent “the board”, nor any member on the board.

Therein lies the problem. In this case, the attorney for the association acted as the personal advocate for the incumbent board members seeking to avoid a recall.
JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265
Posted:
Larry

Early on the OP said the BOD attorney replied to the "charges". I believe what might have happened is the recall folks may have made some "accusations" and the BOD had the BOD attorney refute and/or clarify them.

If so, I do not see this as the attorney coming down on one side. I see it as the BOD attorney simply giving their legal opinion on subjects raised.

JonD1
Posts: 2,350
Posted:
"Obviously, a corporation cannot act except through
natural persons, which are the agents of the
corporation empowered by law to undertake the
affairs of the corporation. These agents typically
include directors and officers of the association,
and others, such as executive employees or
managers."

Obviously, sometimes people like to read only what serves their agenda. Leaving out what doesn't suit them. The Board is an elected body with the power and duty to oversee the operation of the property. The Board retains the services of the attorney. The Board can direct the attorney when and how to act regarding legal maters involving the property.

So as the remainder of the quoted opinion points out, as corproations are not human beings someone has to determine what course of action is to be taken. And as the quoe also points out that would in most cases be the elected Board. Not the members of the corporation.

Now in this case Martha and her group (representing hiow many people or what percent of the owners we don't know) has started a recall action. That in fact is a legal action involving the property. The Board felt they were obligated to respond. Who would respond on behalf of the Board? In most cases the attorney. Not that hard to figure out.

Now as has been suggested on many occasions sometimes folks fail to take the time to consider the possible costs of such actions. The recall process is intentionally not easy or simple otherwise 5 people would get together and replace the Board on their wishes alone. So there is a process in seeking to recal most Boards. This process should be reviewed and judged as to its correct following of required procedures by whom? The people attempting to remove the Board? Hardly.

So now you have Martha and her group bring a legal action and in response the Board uses the attorney who shockingly charges the property to prepare a letter. (Most do.) And now Martha complains about that cost to her property. Is it lost on Martha and those like her this was in fact a possibility if not certainty?

Sometimes people in their zeal to take over fail to work out a complete and informed plan from A-Z. They get the idea the Board has to go and then really consider what that might take in terms of time, effrot, money and damage to the property. And of course waiting till the elections is not fast enough when that effort and cost would be quite a bit less to the property. Sounds like another case of poor planning that in the end will cost the property and every owner.

Funny how people cause an issue and then complain about the affects of their own actions...............

JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By JonD1 on 12/29/2012 8:37 AM
"Obviously, a corporation cannot act except through
natural persons, which are the agents of the
corporation empowered by law to undertake the
affairs of the corporation. These agents typically
include directors and officers of the association,
and others, such as executive employees or
managers."

Obviously, sometimes people like to read only what serves their agenda. Leaving out what doesn't suit them. The Board is an elected body with the power and duty to oversee the operation of the property. The Board retains the services of the attorney. The Board can direct the attorney when and how to act regarding legal maters involving the property.

So as the remainder of the quoted opinion points out, as corproations are not human beings someone has to determine what course of action is to be taken. And as the quoe also points out that would in most cases be the elected Board. Not the members of the corporation.

Now in this case Martha and her group (representing hiow many people or what percent of the owners we don't know) has started a recall action. That in fact is a legal action involving the property. The Board felt they were obligated to respond. Who would respond on behalf of the Board? In most cases the attorney. Not that hard to figure out.

Now as has been suggested on many occasions sometimes folks fail to take the time to consider the possible costs of such actions. The recall process is intentionally not easy or simple otherwise 5 people would get together and replace the Board on their wishes alone. So there is a process in seeking to recal most Boards. This process should be reviewed and judged as to its correct following of required procedures by whom? The people attempting to remove the Board? Hardly.

So now you have Martha and her group bring a legal action and in response the Board uses the attorney who shockingly charges the property to prepare a letter. (Most do.) And now Martha complains about that cost to her property. Is it lost on Martha and those like her this was in fact a possibility if not certainty?

Sometimes people in their zeal to take over fail to work out a complete and informed plan from A-Z. They get the idea the Board has to go and then really consider what that might take in terms of time, effrot, money and damage to the property. And of course waiting till the elections is not fast enough when that effort and cost would be quite a bit less to the property. Sounds like another case of poor planning that in the end will cost the property and every owner.

Funny how people cause an issue and then complain about the affects of their own actions...............


Well said.
JonD1
Posts: 2,350
Posted:
John:

I have come to believe it must be me!

You work to recall a group of people serving on a Board volunteering their time and while doing so you send out a letter listing all their shortcomings or criminal behavior and you never saw it coming they might choose to respond.

Did you really believe you can bad mouth folks to the point they need to be removed and they would not act to defend themselves?

As I am the curious type I would love to read the simple letter mailed out with Martha's ballots to remove the Board. Perhaps only Martha's version of what is going on is permitted to be sent out?

Human nature, not really that hard to figure out where people might go and what hey might do IF you bother to think things through.

CarolR11 (Colorado)
Posts: 2,563
Posted:
Martha, I don't know Florida's laws about open meetings, but have read them at this site before. As I recall it, executive sessions may only be held concerning certain topics and the HOA attorney must be present at E.S. I'm sure that CarolF and PeterD know. So, if I recall correctly, and as you stated at the outset, non-director believe that directors are holding these executive sessions illegally--that many topics should be discussed and voted on in open meetings. Is that right?

Now, apparently some states don't require open meetings, and Jon's NY is one. I think that PA is another.
JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By JonD1 on 12/29/2012 4:04 PM
John:

I have come to believe it must be me!

You work to recall a group of people serving on a Board volunteering their time and while doing so you send out a letter listing all their shortcomings or criminal behavior and you never saw it coming they might choose to respond.

Did you really believe you can bad mouth folks to the point they need to be removed and they would not act to defend themselves?

As I am the curious type I would love to read the simple letter mailed out with Martha's ballots to remove the Board. Perhaps only Martha's version of what is going on is permitted to be sent out?

Human nature, not really that hard to figure out where people might go and what hey might do IF you bother to think things through.


Jon

As we age and gather experience (much in no Fin way we wanted), we have to guard against becoming a pessimist, especially we optimists as it is a long hard fall for us.

I need to slap myself up alongside the head once in a while and remind myself it was my optimism that got me where I am and I am happy being where I am.

As my English Grandfather said....chin up old boy....

MarthaS2 (Florida)
Posts: 12
Posted:
Thanks to all for your responses. It really did help--both positive and negative postings. I am happy to report that we have received over 65% of the community voting to recall this board and we have three well-qualified candidates to fill the vacancies. I know we still have a process to go through but it feels good to have the support of the community. Thanks again.
MelissaP1 (Alabama)
Posts: 13,836
Posted:
Thanks for the update Martha! You all look like your ahead of the game! Good luck and keep us posted...

Former HOA President
SophiaW (New York)
Posts: 3
Posted:
Its a great forum. Regarding knowledge and understanding the views of people belongs to a various fields. Glad to be here ...

Landline for Business
SophiaW (New York)
Posts: 3
Posted:
Its a great forum. Regarding knowledge and understanding the views of people belongs to a various fields. Glad to be here ...

Landline for Business
SophiaW (New York)
Posts: 3
Posted:
Its a great forum. Regarding knowledge and understanding the views of people belongs to a various fields. Glad to be here ...

Landline for Business
TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,059
Posted:
SophiaW has been reported to the moderators for the posting of SPAM.

i.e. listing a link for a UK hosted website for a business, which is in violation of the Posting rules
MarthaS2 (Florida)
Posts: 12
Posted:
The current board decided not to contest the recall. Next week the association attorney is turning records over to the new board. Now the question arises as to the terms of these replacement directors. The attorney has suggested an election since it is about that time of the year. Why an election? Will find out what the attorney says next week but can't these replacement directors simply serve the remaining terms of the incumbent directors?

🎯 You've read this entire discussion

Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:

  • ✓ Ask follow-up questions
  • ✓ Share your experience
  • ✓ Get expert advice
  • ✓ Access 350,000 discussions
Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in here