Can my Force me to repair the sidewalks?

I live in a beautiful community in Valrico, FL and am told by my HOA that I need to repair the sidewalks that join my property. They provided me an amendment that was entered in 1990, and states that they received 66 2/3% vote of the residents and was then able to change the specific item within the covenant. The Amendment now states;

The initial document, recorded 06 DEC 88, section 2 states;

The general nature, objects, and purpose of the association are;

2. to maintain, and / or repair landscaping in the general and / or common areas as defined in the declaration of maintenance Covenants for the RHC Maintenance Association, inc., parks, sidewalks, and / or access paths, streets, and other common areas, structures and other improvements in River Hills Country Club for which the obligation to maintain and repair has been delegated and accepted.

Amendment now states;

SECTION 2. LOTS. Each owner shall maintain the trees, shrubbery, grass, and other landscaping on his lot in a neat, orderly, and attractive manner consistent with the general appearance of Riverhills Country Club as a whole. The minimum (though not sole)standard for the foregoing shall be the general appearance of the Riverhills Country Club as initially landscaped by the Developer (Such standard being subject to being raised by virtue of the natural and orderly growth and maturation of the applicable landscaping, as properly trimmed and maintained).The foregoing maintenance obligations shall also apply to the land and improvements, if any, between the boundary line of a lot and the edge of any pavement the roadway abuts.

So with that said, here are my questions;

1 - Can an amendment forcing Home Owners to repair sidewalks of which they do not own be lawful?

2 - if it is not lawful, can it be enforced by the HOA?

3 - Because the verbiage in the amendment does not specifically state "sidewalks", can the HOA still force us based on them saying that the attorneys have read it and find it to be enforceable without the word "Sidewalks"?

4 - Even though the amendment states there was a vote, does the vote have to be recorded in the County of Record in order for the amendment to be enforced (I was told by a resident that has lived in here over 20 years, that a vote never took place and that the Board simply changed the covenant in the amendment stated above, with a 66 2/3 vote of the owners.)

5 - If I request proof of the vote that enforces this amendment, does the board have to provide it?

6 - What is my legal recourse? Would an attorney consider taking this as a class action suit as I know SEVERAl owners that are upset about this enforcement as they feel it is certainly not right, and potentially unlawful?

Thanks all for your consideration and input in this issue.

Jeffrey the question is not whether you will pay for the sidewalks replacement but how. If this was a valid amendment, then yes you need to replace it out of your pocket, perhaps you and others in your shoes can hire one contractor and get a price break on the work. If it becomes a HOA expense you will still need to pay for it through your assessments which will need to be raised to pay for it. Yes the second way will allow the cost to be spread out over several years unless the HOA decides to have a Special Assessment to pay for it.

For what it is worth, where I grew up there were no HOA's but the city would make homeowners replace broken sections of the public sidewalk that crossed their property. In addition we had to mow and maintain the parking strip (area between the sidewalk and the roadway) even though it was not part of are property. One civil libertarian decided since he had to maintain it he could plow it up and plant corn on it, the city was NOT amused and it ended up costing him several hundred dollars in fines and to resod it, real money in the late 60's early 70's.

Jeffrey,

I my previous response I failed to pick up on some strange wording in the amendment. The entire final sentence you provided states, "The foregoing maintenance obligations shall also apply to the land and improvements, if any, between the boundary line of a lot and the edge of any pavement the roadway abuts."

In re-reading that, I am now puzzled by the final phrase of that sentence: "between the boundary line of a lot and the edge of any pavement the roadway abuts."

My intial interpretation was that it meant the area between your lot line and the pavement of the street. But that is not what it says. The part about "the edge of any pavement the roadway abuts" is what has now got me confused. "Abut" generally means to touch or to come up against. If there is a paved sidewalk or planter that abuts the roadway (perhaps by running along side it), then it appears you would be responsible for maintenance of the area between your lot line and that line of abutments.

But if there is no pavement abutting the roadway then you would have no responsibility as far as I can see.

"Abut" is not the same as "adjacent." "Abut" in this context means that some pavement must have been laid so that it touches the roadway to cause this phrase to be effective.

This is splitting very fine hairs but those who wish to enforce their interpretation may have an uphill battle. The law tends to give meaning to every word in a contract and when a party uses imprecise language or the wrong words the courts are loathe to rewrite the phrase in favor of the party who caused the problem.

The word "roadway" is not terribly precise, either. I have a city roadway in front of my home. The pavement, including the sidewalk that abuts the street pavement, does not occupy the full width of the roadway. There is a patch of ground on either side of the street that is owned by the city but looks like my front yard.

Roadway or right-of-way is a much wider area that the paved street or the combination of paved street and the sidewalks on either side. Unless I define my terms very precisely, "roadway" could mean at least three different widths and may or may not include the unpaved areas beside the sidewalks.

Due to easements in the front side of my home, my actual property line is short of the street curb (no sidewalk) by some 6-8 feet.

While they may have been trying to make owners responsible for the sidewalks, they might have stepped on their own toes by saying upto the property line.

Worth a look at.

Thank you all for the comments, they have proven to be valuable to me and I will now reach out to and consult with an attorney as I feel I may have something here.

Peter,

This raises some questions:

If someone suffered a fall injury from the damaged sidewalk, would his attorney file a lawsuit against the owner of the sidewalk (presumably the HOA) or the guy who lives next to the sidewalk?

Would the courts allow the HOA to pass the buck to the adjacent homeowner?

If a lawsuit was filed against the adjacent property owner who does not own the sidewalk would his homeowner's insurance cover the loss?

Prevailing law in most states views the relationship between a community association and a homeowner as being analogous to the relationship between a landlord and tenant.
Like a landlord, the community association is held responsible for the maintenance of those areas over which it exercises DOMINION and CONTROL.
In a common interest community, these areas will usually be the "common areas," "common elements" or those areas outside of the individual units/lots/parcel/etc. but within the common interest community.