ex post facto restoration bill, HB 2382[3]

Wondering if any of you knowledgeable members is familiar with it? I will paste what I found very interesting and was wondering if Florida has anything similar?

Also in the legislative hopper, having passed the House, the Arizona Senate is ready to vote on another ex post facto restoration bill, HB 2382[3], that would prevent CC&Rs amendments from being enforceable if the affected homeowner does not consent to the amendment. This bill is a much broader bill pertaining to any amendment that affects less than all members. The effect of an HOA ex post facto amendment could be an eminent domain “taking” violation as the owner is not compensated by the “takings” amendment, which would bring the HOA in line with constitutional government.

Your response will be appreciated for research.
Thank you!

I agree with Larry that this could be an issue of, to use his term, patchwork CC&Rs.

the bill (select show versions in the link) can have an amendment, say on rentals, apply to your neighbor but not to you simply because you chose to vote against it.

I think it would be better to specify that any amendments require 100% agreement. Unfortunately, the house version appears to allow the Board to amend the covenants on their own and then solicit membership affirmation to agree to be bound by said amendment (which sort of amplifies the patchwork issue).

It also draws into question all previous amendments and which lots those amendments may be applicable or not applicable to. If made into law, recent purchases would be bound by all prior amendments (as they agreed to them when purchasing). Previous purchases would be hit and miss based on the date of sale and the date of amendment.

I have not read the senate version.

I certainly hope it doesn't become law based on this current writing (as it may work it's way into other States).

I agree, nothing in the bill.

Just normal protocol.

You agree to the contract upon purchase. One could argue that since the amendment was in the governing documents you agreed to them when you purchased (even if they didn't apply to the previous owner, simply because he voted against it).

There is nothing similar in Florida. The recently concluded legislative session had about 6 HOA "reform" bills that were proposed. None passed. They can't even get longstanding problems addressed here, I doubt anything like HB 2382 (AZ?) will ever be considered here; no law in FL can retroactively alter anyone's rights under an existing contract.

Granted, that language isn't there.
Unfortunately, it's also not addressed that the refusal would be binding on future owners.

Therefore, thinking outside the box, I could see an argument being made that all amendments now apply because they were in the governing documents when the person purchased. Hence an argument that they agreed with the documents as written (vs. what was previously applicable).

It would be an interesting case.

Personally, I would hope that such legislation would fail, but I'm surprised it has gone as far as it has.

A part of the backstory might be seen at a website licensed to George K Staropoli “HOA Constitutional Government” https://pvtgov.wordpress.com/ )

“Democracy in action : how your legislature functions” described further as “Published in ‘uncategorized’ on March 17 2016” with links to several related articles and comments.

https://pvtgov.wordpress.com/2016/03/17/democracy-in-action-how-your-legislature-functions/#comments

Whatever the various iterations of the Arizona bills eventually provide, I presume the Bills may recognize :

1- how shaky in Arizona might be affirmative obligations/"positive covenants" where claimed to be running bindingly on property titles merely by implication ( instead of express transfer of rights & obligations between grantor & grantee ).

Larry B13 has noted previously his state's Dreamland v Raimey http://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/89/opinionfiles/CV/CV080388.pdf

2 - owner apathy - or very valid concerns about common element/common services concerns - will skate things onside enough that slam-dunking will be unnecessary or its victims won't get politically heard.

- Mr Staropoli's site's article may express some degree of satisfaction with the proposals so far. Think it discloses he is neither lawyer nor paralegal.

- LarryB13's interesting Dreamland v Raimey 2010 is an appeal decision striking down a retroactive attempt to convert what was held to have been ( for development phases 1-17 ) a purely 'social club'- "join or ignore" - situation.

Several phases purported to infer jurisdiction to be able to vote bindingly to convert to 'pay/comply/pass along'. Some sections held (partial membership) votes to become mandatory. Then the demands started. Refusers lost in lower court.

The text shows the appeal court in 2010 was faced not only with these votes but an Arizona appellate decision noting SHAMROCK :

quote "Membership in a nonprofit corporation requires a person's express or implied consent. [Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) ] § 10-3601(B) [2004]. Our appellate courts have held that when a homeowner takes a deed containing [a] deed restriction that allows for amendment by the vote of a majority of homeowners, that homeowner implicitly consents to the subsequent majority vote to make membership in a homeowner association mandatory" unquote

But the appeal court looks at the Lakeland line of cases & at the site specifics/document contents at Dreamland to find that neither apply to the voodoo conversion votes nor thus to the compulsions claimed afterwards( para 30 ).

At least that is what it looks like to me. Perhaps with different wording in the root deeds & original CCRS etc ? ?

- My own jurisdiction is seeing a challenge to a 130 year long line of judgments that strike down affirmative obligations/'positive covenants ( such as 'pay /comply/pass along') unless those are expressly passed along between grantor and grantee. An outcome could be getting bound by "implication"