No one runs for the Board

As a generally rule, Directors stay in office until someone takes their place either through an election or resignation.

I have an issue when a sitting director doesn't put their name in to run for re-election. If that is the case, I feel their term should end at the annual meeting.

As an FYI, there is going to be a bill introduced in the Florida legislature next month that repeals the Florida Homeowners Law (F.S. 720) in its entirety. In its place, the existing condo law, F.S. 718, would be substantially modified to include governance and authority over HOAs. The election rules would change significantly.

Richard's concern is addressed in the proposed changes as well. Whether or not it passes this year it's pretty clear that over the last several years the legislature's intent is to harmonize and unify Florida's statutes that govern condos, HOAs, timeshares and mobile home community associations.

Ron, your association's bylaws should contain the answers you seek. If they are silent on certain points then FS 720 provisions would apply, and if FS 720 is silent then FS 617 would apply.

Such brilliant ideas from you.

Thank you so much for the helpful contributions!

However, YOUR reply was much much much more helpful than mine>

We have an election problem also. Florida HOA Homeowner's took over HOA from builder in Nov 2014. Annual meeting held Nov 2015. The Board is 3 members. 4 people ran for office, 3 of these were members of the existing board plus 1 new person. There was not a member quorum at the meeting. Members were told that the existing board "rolls over" since all 3 board members from the 2014 elections expressed a desire to continue. There is nothing in the covenants regarding a roll over. Another meeting could have been called for in an attempt to get a member quorum of 30%. The existing board let it be known they had no intention of holding another meeting. Has anyone heard of a "roll over" in FL statutes?

I am having this issue. No one wants to be President. I am the current President and do not want this position for life. There are 3 other Board members but no one wants to be top banana. Plus, 2 of the three others will be moving in the near future. No one else comes to the meetings or participates unless they have an issue. I'd like to threaten receivership and see what happens.

I found an Arizona case where the court appointed a receiver for a condo complex. The receiver was on the job for about a year until the case was dismissed on procedural grounds. The receiver did make at least one report to the court. What he had to say was scary. The following is from the unpublished memorandum decision from the AZ Court of Appeals:

By February 2006, the Receiver reported [to the trial court] the Association needed over $1.5 million to finance repairs to the roofs, decks, and awnings; was facing over $80,000 in outstanding debts; and had been threatened with condemnation by the City of [****]. On March 8, 2006, the Receiver requested the court to “circumvent the Association’s governing documents with respect to levying special assessments for capital improvements” and to impose a uniform special assessment against each condominium unit. The Receiver asked the court to levy the assessment because the Association did not have the funds to cover the expenses of the pre-levy special meeting mandated by the Association’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (“CC&Rs”). In addition, he advised the court that, based on his experience, he believed “[f]ollowing the Association’s internal procedures for . . . a special assessment . . . [would be] futile” because a quorum could not be achieved due to owner apathy.

Receivers tend to state the actual, albeit unpleasant, facts.

They ARE 'officers of the court'.

Not every system is perfect.

Not even Hammurabi's Code was perfect.

BUT

One is free to suggest a better system by writing the codes and laws themselves.

Good Luck with that.

Seasons Greetings

and

Merry Christmas

Actually Dave, the governing documents give them the authority. My original Bylaws stated "All Directors shall hold office unless their successors are elected."

In looking through the records of my old association, they hadn't had an election in over eight years. So eight years no ballots were ever opened. Some years, they tried twice to achieve quorum, with no luck. The last year we would have, but the association's attorney wrongly put an end to the election. The next year we eliminated quorum and have had elections for the past years years with no problem. What a concept! and everyone is afraid of doing the same. Quorum only allows Boards to hand pick their replacements, sometimes so they can take a break for a year or two.

The records over the years showed the incumbent directors never bothered to mail a nomination form in. They name was automatically put on a ballot. I found nomination forms turned in that names never got unto the ballot.

The nonsense I have witnessed in 7 years is unbelievable. Most posters here have only lived in one HOA, some a couple. Manage over a 100 HOA's, youthink you heard of everything, but quite haven't.

Many of the topics brought up here, I have experienced first hand. I have seen bad management companies trying to hold onto accounts, at whatever cost. The worst though, is the attorneys, who know better, allowing the nonsense to go on.

I have seen states that want to regulate management companies, yet have no regulations for the Board who self manage, multi million corporations.

If your association is still looking for a management company at $100.00 a door, I am willing to relocate, (jk). Matter of fact, California Dept of Real Estate has a Operating Cost Manual for HOA's and they per unit base fee up to $50.00 a door. We have companies bidding at $8.75 a door, but the extras will eat you alive.