Legal Minds Please Advise

Our Florida HOA bylaws and covenants may be amended at a HOA meeting by a simple majority as long as lot owners are properly notified and there is a quorum in person or by proxy at the meeting. A quorum equals 30% of the owners participating in person or by proxy.

In 2009 an amendment was passed that basically said before a management company could be hired 50% of all homeowners had to vote yes to hire them. It is a bit uncommon to do it this way but I think it is legal and binding since it was approved in accordance with our specified procedures for amendments.
However some are now thinking that since the covenants and bylaws only require a majority of a 30% quorum then we can't have a rule like this which requires 50% of all lot owners to approve taking an action.

Any insights from the members of this forum would be appreciated. A lawyers insight or case reference would be doubly appreciated.

I will mention too that since the inception of this HOA some 20 years ago, there has been a specification in the covenants that says to terminate the association requires 50% of the lot owner to vote to terminate. That rule seems to imply the 50% rule we passed in 2009 is ok but I am eager to hear form you all. We did get legal help "attorney opinion" from one attorney that said we could have the 50% requirement and another one said we couldn't.
I'm hope someone has some light to shed on this.

Thanks a lot.

Mark

I am not nor do I play a lawyer.

I find it strange that to implement something that says 50% must participate being implemented by only 30%. It sounds protectionist but as it can be undone with 30% it is not even that protectionist.

I'm not an attorney either or involved in that profession.

But I think that Tim's right--percentages for different kinds of action can vary. So, long, that is that the action doesn't oppose your state's, etc., laws.

Not your topic, but my opinion is that 50% approval to hire a MC is not reasonable at all. My understanding is that "reasonableness" can be used in court as a criteria for HOA covenants, etc. If your must dismiss an MC, usually requires 30 day notice minimum, it'll take a fair amount of work & expense to get 50% of owners & proxies to agree on a new firm. And would they be part of the interview process? How many would show up? Just my two cents.

Good post. Let us throw every decision up to a town meeting.......LOL

Matthew,

Although that would be practical for some things, like newly adopted rules, I don't think it would be practical in things like awarding contracts.

I agree with you there.
It's those consequences that I believe make it unpractical for overturning an awarded contract.


I agree with you that the awarding of contracts should be a decision of the Board and not the membership.

I was not a party to the circumstances that caused that vote to happen. The members may have gone through hell with their previous MC and voted on a method to prevent that from happening in the future. Had Mark been asking if such a proposal was a good proposal, I would have said no. However, that wasn't Marks question. He was only providing that information as background for the question (which I answered previously).