Quote:
Posted By BanksS on 07/15/2014 4:55 AM
Posted By KevinK7 on 07/14/2014 11:47 PM
What I find more interesting then the whole MRTA situation is the complete disregard for any rules or regulations that they are pretending to uphold. That is probably what bothers me the most. I want to play by the rules but I find it unfair when the other player makes up their own rules. Like this whole mailbox. Had there been no specific language defining the enforceable area in the original covenants then I would have agreed that enforcement was open to interpretation. But when the covenants they are citing states XYZ then I expect them to only apply to XYZ.
With each situation that springs up in my neighborhood, like the charging of estoppel fees or inventing one day out of the year that you could withdraw membership, I find the debate intriguing. I really want to have a better understanding of the thought processes behind the actions of the HOA. It also doesn't help that Florida has plenty of misunderstood laws for HOAs.
Kevin I am confused. Is the Association trying to enforce the CC&Rs on the voluntary members but that enforcement includes things not even listed in the CC&Rs such as the mailbox? If so, why don't your neighbors just ignore them? What lengths does the Association go to get compliance from the voluntary members?
This intrigues me because I live in a similar situation that being expiration of the CC&Rs. The board tries to enforce things from the CCRs from time to time but most of my neighbors don't pay much attention to them. I'm not saying the collection of assessments and dues but from an architectural stand point. They have no control over those things.
So basically the covenants expired. The neighborhood was voluntary but they converted to lifetime mandatory membership by simple majority in 2002 (with the catch that it was still voluntary to join to avoid Florida HOA statutes).
Most homeowners are unaware or believe the HOA. It is a former retirement community so most of the older residents were sort of grandfathered (no pun intended) and the newer residents only know what they were told when they bought. The county even lists them as mandatory and when I inquired they said they just go off of what the websites for the communities say.
I am not well liked because my family has asked questions for years, like why they were paying health insurance benefits for the one employee or why the budget kept increasing, especially when the properties held by the HOA are paid for by a special tax district set up in the 80s bevause the developer made the neighborhood voluntary and the HOA complained they couldnt afford to maintain the properties.
The covenant situation is much trickier. The original covenants are from 79 but the homeowners signed a release from the covenants in 1980 for a new set that was less restrictive. And even then not every lot signed onto the new resteictions. Then in 2002 the HOA rewrote the covenants making it voluntary mandatory and granted them sole authority to enforce the covenants. Problem is they never changed any of the titles so all our properties referred back to the 1979 covenants.
What is even worse is that the HOA insists the 1980 covenant and all future amendments are valid but then they make up rules as they go along. Their former attorney was fond of including provisions in the C&Rs that referred to the bylaws and then making it easier for the BoD to make changes in the by-laws, like assessing homeowners with no homeowner approval. So now you have the HOA claiming architectural control and assesment rights.
And they litigate those who dont follow. I raised questions and my attorney is one of the premier HOA attorneys. Apparently he has a reputation for being good. They left me alone. Another homeowner stopped paying at the same time because she was pregnant and became unemployed and they forclosed on her. They demanded rent from tenants of another and most recently they have decided to litigate sex offenders for owning property.
The situation is a mess. This is part of why MRTA was enacted - to free ptoperties from encumberances but the legislature stripped enforcement from the Department of Business and Professional Regulation so then you get these legal quagmires where the law says one thing but associations do another.