KevinK7 (Florida)
Posts: 1,343
Posts: 1,343
Posted:
In the meantime the association just sent out enforcement letters stating they were going to be inspecting properties for violations. My property was cited for a couple things but I thought it was interesting because they stated that because of MRTA, they revitalized and all members and non-members must conform to their restrictions, by-laws, and rules and regulations and follow s. 720. So this led me to re-read the statute and their amended declaration.
As I had mentioned before, they lack the authority to lien but they also did something in their restrictions which is typical - they defined terms. Of interest was their decription of lots, real property, and owners.
Here is what was written:
First, they defined an "Owner" as meaning "any other person, firm or corporation which shall acquire or own any Real Property in such form as may now exist or may be created from time to time."
"'Real Property' means any parcel of land affected hereby."
"Lot" means any plot of land shown upon any recorded subdivision map of the Real Property.
Now what does it say about enforcement?
"If the Owner or Owners of Lots with The Property, or any other person or persons, or any of them, or any of their heirs, personal representatives, successors or assigns, shall violate or attempt to violate any of the Covenants and Restrictions contained herein, it shall be lawful for any other person or persons owning Real Property situate within The Property, or the Lime Tree Village Community Association, Inc. to prosecute any proceedings at law or in equity against the person or persons violating or attempting" to violate the Covenants and Restrictions.
And as I stated before, they stated 720 must be followed. 720 states that parcels are properties that must be members and face liens for nonpayment of liens. I am not a member and they cannot place liens on my property so by that logic, wouldn't their documents prohibit enforcement on everyone not a member?
The way I read this, they kind of boxed themselves into a corner. The original "mandatory" amendment was designed by an attorney who made future membership mandatory so as to avoid s. 720 and the regulations. They believed allowing homeowners to voluntarily sign up for life was a loophole around the requirements of the law. That was 2 attorneys ago so when the association had the new attorney file revitalization documents they never changel a thing so while they insist they can enforce even on non-members, 720 is very specific as to who the laws apply to.
This argument isn't really a big concern to me since me and my attorney maintain the revitalization never should have taken place because they failed to meet the requirements of the law, I am always looking at backup plans and thought this was peculiar.
Any thoughts?
As I had mentioned before, they lack the authority to lien but they also did something in their restrictions which is typical - they defined terms. Of interest was their decription of lots, real property, and owners.
Here is what was written:
First, they defined an "Owner" as meaning "any other person, firm or corporation which shall acquire or own any Real Property in such form as may now exist or may be created from time to time."
"'Real Property' means any parcel of land affected hereby."
"Lot" means any plot of land shown upon any recorded subdivision map of the Real Property.
Now what does it say about enforcement?
"If the Owner or Owners of Lots with The Property, or any other person or persons, or any of them, or any of their heirs, personal representatives, successors or assigns, shall violate or attempt to violate any of the Covenants and Restrictions contained herein, it shall be lawful for any other person or persons owning Real Property situate within The Property, or the Lime Tree Village Community Association, Inc. to prosecute any proceedings at law or in equity against the person or persons violating or attempting" to violate the Covenants and Restrictions.
And as I stated before, they stated 720 must be followed. 720 states that parcels are properties that must be members and face liens for nonpayment of liens. I am not a member and they cannot place liens on my property so by that logic, wouldn't their documents prohibit enforcement on everyone not a member?
The way I read this, they kind of boxed themselves into a corner. The original "mandatory" amendment was designed by an attorney who made future membership mandatory so as to avoid s. 720 and the regulations. They believed allowing homeowners to voluntarily sign up for life was a loophole around the requirements of the law. That was 2 attorneys ago so when the association had the new attorney file revitalization documents they never changel a thing so while they insist they can enforce even on non-members, 720 is very specific as to who the laws apply to.
This argument isn't really a big concern to me since me and my attorney maintain the revitalization never should have taken place because they failed to meet the requirements of the law, I am always looking at backup plans and thought this was peculiar.
Any thoughts?