💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

MarioD (Florida)
Posts: 7
Posted:
I’m the President of our HOA and we have decided to amend the current DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS, COVENANT, AND CONDITIONS.
Our HOA is in the state of Florida.

In one of the articles regarding the Developer, it has the following language:
“No amendment affecting the rights and obligation of the Developer and its successors and assigns may be made after turnover without the written consent the Developer or its successors and assigns and no such amendment shall affect or interfere with the vested rights previously acquired by lot owners.”

We cannot find anywhere within CHAPTER 720 FLORIDA STATUTES that this language is illegal, unless we missed it, but I and others have read this statute multiple times to make sure we didn’t miss something.

The developer still owns one lot that he kept for maybe a future home.
The covenants were created in 2005, the turnover and voting of board members was in 2015

Is there another way (legally) that we can remove that language without the Developer agreeing to it in writing?
Or is this one of those things that we agreed upon when we purchase our lots, and now we have to live with it.

I have other board members asking me if we should spend the money on legal counsel to verify if the above statement is legal and if it can be removed. So I would like to get some advice from the forum to help us in making a decision.

Thank you
TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,059
Posted:
Mario,

For legalities, you need to consult a local attorney.

In my laymans opinion, based on what you provided, as long as the developer still owns one lot, they will have to agree to any change that affects the Developers rights.

The question may become that if the developer owns one lot with intent to live there, is he still a developer? That question may need to have to be ran through the courts for a ruling.
LarryB13 (Arizona)
Posts: 4,099
Posted:
Mario,

Why do you think this should be removed? What harm does this passage create now that the owners have control and the developer has just one lot? What rights and obligations does the developer now possess that would be impacted by removal of this passage? I just do not understand all the angst; is there more to this?

TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,059
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By LarryB13 on 09/15/2016 12:35 AM

What rights and obligations does the developer now possess that would be impacted by removal of this passage?

I suspect there are differences in the number of votes per lot at least.

It's also possible that the developer may have authority to waive covenants for new construction (I've seen that in some documents in TX), the authority to appoint individuals to serve on the Board, the authority to have final say on changes to governing docs, etc.
DaveD3 (Michigan)
Posts: 796
Posted:
If the developer has turned the HOA over to the owners, he's no longer the developer. He's merely an owner. The authority/responsibility he once had as developer has been transferred.
TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,059
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By DaveD3 on 09/15/2016 6:24 AM
If the developer has turned the HOA over to the owners, he's no longer the developer. He's merely an owner. The authority/responsibility he once had as developer has been transferred.

Dave, that is not necessarily correct.

Many Assocaitions exist where the development is being built in phases. Often the developer has transferred control of the Association to the members while they continue to build out other phases of the development. Granted, this is not the issue described by the OP. I'm simply providing it as an example to demonstrate that an Association can be in the control of the membership while the declarant is still maintaining declarant rights and authority.
FredO1 (Florida)
Posts: 18
Posted:
Mario:

Take a look at the two cases of Residential Communities of America v. Escondido Community Association. One of the cases is at 603 So.2d 122 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) and the other is at 645 So.2d 149 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). You can find them online. Just enter the case name and citation in the search box.

The fact pattern of those cases is very similar to your situation. The HOA passed an amendment without the developer's approval. The declaration contained a similar "developer approval" clause. In the end the court held that the amendment was valid, but that it did not apply to the property still owned by the developer.

Suggestion: Write your amendment in such a way that it expressly exempts the property still owned by the developer.

Fred
EricH13 (Tennessee)
Posts: 13
Posted:
I agree with TimB4 that the Developer may retain all or some rights by simply holding onto one unsold property.
MarioD (Florida)
Posts: 7
Posted:
Thanks everyone for your responses.
It was late when I wrote my initial post and now reading your responses I need to add a few more pieces of information.

The main reason as Tim indicated, there are other issues.
Currently the developer receives a Transfer Fee of 1% of the sale of every property.
Currently the developer is exempt from paying HOA fees on his property
Currently the developer has long as he owns a lot can appoint one of the board directors
Currently the developer is part of the Architectural committee along with a few other members

As the HOA we can vote to remove any of the above mentioned, but because that would affect the Developer, then the clause I mentioned initially prevents the HOA from doing so, because the Developer has to agree in writing.

Some members want to take this issue to court, to have wording
“No amendment affecting the rights and obligation of the Developer and its successors and assigns may be made after turnover without the written consent the Developer or its successors and assigns and no such amendment shall affect or interfere with the vested rights previously acquired by lot owners.” removed so that we can then amend the entire Covenants and remove those developer clauses

Others argue that because there's nothing in the law that says it's Illegal, we're setting ourselves up to loose and then not only pay for our legal fees but also the legal fees of the developer.

So this brings me to my initial question -- Do we have a good chance in court to have that language removed, or as some of our HOA members have said "We all agreed to the covenants when we purchased our properties, if we didn't like the language we should have looked for property somewhere else..."

Thanks
Mario
LarryB13 (Arizona)
Posts: 4,099
Posted:
Mario,

Thank you for explaining the problem in more detail.

I think you could attack the clause based on the one remaining lot. If the developer was actively trying to sell the lot then I would say he was still acting as a developer. But your original post indicated that the developer intends to build his own home on this lot at some future time. I take this to mean that the developer is not actively seeking a buyer for the lot and has constructively sold the lot to himself. Even though he was the developer he is now just one more homeowner and should have no more or less a voice than any other homeowner.

FredO1 (Florida)
Posts: 18
Posted:
Mario:

On the developer's 1% "transfer fee," take a look at Section 689.28, Florida Statutes (see below).

Fred

689.28 Prohibition against transfer fee covenants.—
(1) INTENT.—The Legislature finds and declares that the public policy of this state favors the marketability of real property and the transferability of interests in real property free of title defects or unreasonable restraints on alienation. The Legislature further finds and declares that transfer fee covenants violate this public policy by impairing the marketability and transferability of real property and by constituting an unreasonable restraint on alienation regardless of the duration of such covenants or the amount of such transfer fees, and do not run with the title to the property or bind subsequent owners of the property under common law or equitable principles.

(2) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Environmental covenant” means a covenant or servitude that imposes limitations on the use of real property pursuant to an environmental remediation project pertaining to the property. An environmental covenant is not a transfer fee covenant.

(b) “Transfer” means the sale, gift, conveyance, assignment, inheritance, or other transfer of an ownership interest in real property located in this state.

(c) “Transfer fee” means a fee or charge required by a transfer fee covenant and payable upon the transfer of an interest in real property, or payable for the right to make or accept such transfer, regardless of whether the fee or charge is a fixed amount or is determined as a percentage of the value of the property, the purchase price, or other consideration given for the transfer. The following are not transfer fees for purposes of this section:
1. Any consideration payable by the grantee to the grantor for the interest in real property being transferred, including any subsequent additional consideration for the property payable by the grantee based upon any subsequent appreciation, development, or sale of the property. For the purposes of this subparagraph, an interest in real property may include a separate mineral estate and its appurtenant surface access rights.

2. Any commission payable to a licensed real estate broker for the transfer of real property pursuant to an agreement between the broker and the grantor or the grantee, including any subsequent additional commission for that transfer payable by the grantor or the grantee based upon any subsequent appreciation, development, or sale of the property.

3. Any interest, charges, fees, or other amounts payable by a borrower to a lender pursuant to a loan secured by a mortgage against real property, including, but not limited to, any fee payable to the lender for consenting to an assumption of the loan or a transfer of the real property subject to the mortgage, any fees or charges payable to the lender for estoppel letters or certificates, and any shared appreciation interest or profit participation or other consideration described in s. 687.03(4) and payable to the lender in connection with the loan.

4. Any rent, reimbursement, charge, fee, or other amount payable by a lessee to a lessor under a lease, including, but not limited to, any fee payable to the lessor for consenting to an assignment, subletting, encumbrance, or transfer of the lease.

5. Any consideration payable to the holder of an option to purchase an interest in real property or the holder of a right of first refusal or first offer to purchase an interest in real property for waiving, releasing, or not exercising the option or right upon the transfer of the property to another person.

6. Any tax, fee, charge, assessment, fine, or other amount payable to or imposed by a governmental authority.

7. Any fee, charge, assessment, fine, or other amount payable to a homeowners’, condominium, cooperative, mobile home, or property owners’ association pursuant to a declaration or covenant or law applicable to such association, including, but not limited to, fees or charges payable for estoppel letters or certificates issued by the association or its authorized agent.

8. Any fee, charge, assessment, dues, contribution, or other amount imposed by a declaration or covenant encumbering four or more parcels in a community, as defined in s. 720.301, and payable to a nonprofit or charitable organization for the purpose of supporting cultural, educational, charitable, recreational, environmental, conservation, or other similar activities benefiting the community that is subject to the declaration or covenant.

9. Any fee, charge, assessment, dues, contribution, or other amount pertaining to the purchase or transfer of a club membership relating to real property owned by the member, including, but not limited to, any amount determined by reference to the value, purchase price, or other consideration given for the transfer of the real property.

10. Any payment required pursuant to an environmental covenant.

(d) “Transfer fee covenant” means a declaration or covenant recorded against the title to real property which requires or purports to require the payment of a transfer fee to the declarant or other person specified in the declaration or covenant or to their successors or assigns upon a subsequent transfer of an interest in the real property.

(3) PROHIBITION.—A transfer fee covenant recorded in this state on or after July 1, 2008, does not run with the title to real property and is not binding on or enforceable at law or in equity against any subsequent owner, purchaser, or mortgagee of any interest in real property as an equitable servitude or otherwise. Any liens purporting to secure the payment of a transfer fee under a transfer fee covenant that is recorded in this state on or after July 1, 2008, are void and unenforceable. This subsection does not mean that transfer fee covenants or liens recorded in this state before July 1, 2008, are presumed valid and enforceable.

History.—s. 1, ch. 2008-35.

. .

Home

MarioD (Florida)
Posts: 7
Posted:
Larry...

Had a chance to actually speak with the developer. He cleared up the confusion regarding the building of a personal home in his lot, what he actually said is that he will either sell the lot or build a spec home on it for the purpose of selling it.

So I think he realizes that if he ever sells the lot, than he looses the ability to be the "developer", so I believe he's asking a much higher cost then market value so this way he won't sell the lot and can continue to hold the status of developer.

So basically what you're saying is that as long as he holds the title of developer (by owning a lot) that we really can't do anything regarding the statement where the developer has to approve in writing any changes that effect him?

Thanks

-------

Fred

Thanks for the info, we have looked Transfer Fee laws, but the HOA was established before 2008 when 689.28 was written. Furthermore, the legislation did not make it clear if Transfer fees prior to 2008 are legal or not -- they are very muddy on it.

The thing is as an HOA we can vote to have the transfer fee removed, but because this directly affects the developer, he would have to agree to have it removed.
This is our entire issue, how can we legally remove the following language;
“No amendment affecting the rights and obligation of the Developer and its successors and assigns may be made after turnover without the written consent the Developer or its successors and assigns and no such amendment shall affect or interfere with the vested rights previously acquired by lot owners.”

Once we can get around that, then we can make any other changes that affect the developer without him having to agree.
At this point if we make any changes to the rights of the developer without his acknowledgement in writing, I believe we would be breaking the law and open ourselves to be sued by the developer.

Thanks
FredO1 (Florida)
Posts: 18
Posted:
Mario:

Ordinarily contracts can only be amended by agreement of ALL parties (which would necessarily include your developer). Though declarations frequently have amendment provisions allowing a majority or a super-majority amendment powers, there are limitations on that power established by the courts and by the legislature (see, e.g., sections 720.306(1) and 720.3075(5), Florida Statutes).

My suggestion to you is to get a good attorney to draft a proposed complaint seeking to have a court declare those provisions null and void. I'd use the argument that, in the land development industry clauses like that usually apply to a developer who intends to sell out all the lots in a subdivision, not a developer who intends to hang onto one lot indefinitely. Hence, using industry standards for how long it would ordinarily take to sell out a subdivision like yours, there should be an implied time limitation on those clauses (which most likely has now expired). I'd have your attorney put in the complaint an attack under section 689.28 on the transfer fee as well.

Then, when he has the complaint drafted, have him mail a copy of the complaint to the developer, along with a section 720.311 demand for pre-suit mediation.

Then, at mediation, try to negotiate a "buy out" agreement of those provisions with the developer, offering him up to what you otherwise would have spent on attorney's fees to litigate the issue to a conclusion.

Good luck,

Fred
MarioD (Florida)
Posts: 7
Posted:
Fred, and everyone else that replied...thank you for your time.

Fred, it sounds like something we'll try and take it up as a vote and see how that goes.

Thanks again
Mario
LarryB13 (Arizona)
Posts: 4,099
Posted:
Mario,

The problem with searching through statutes is that most of the law in the US is common law. Statutes override common law but are usually enacted either to address a specific problem or to clarify conflicting common law. Researching statutes is easy; researching common law is extremely difficult for anyone outside the legal community as it requires reading and understanding opinions issued by state and federal courts.

In your situation you entered into a contract in good faith to purchase a home from a developer. It appears that the developer had a plan to keep himself in perpetual control of the association by holding that last lot hostage. I doubt that he disclosed that when you or anyone else purchased. You may have one or more valid claims against the developer and/or grounds to seek reformation of the contract (or the CC&R's) through the courts. You should consult with an attorney to see what action you may pursue.

MarioD (Florida)
Posts: 7
Posted:
Here is an update on amending our C&R

A vote by mail was sent out to all members.

Our C&R requires that changes to the C&R require a 51% passing vote.

Majority of the changes on the ballot received over the 51% vote, a few others were close but did not get enough votes.
Now some Board members want to vote to create a legal committee and hire an attorney to see if there’s anything illegal with some of those statements regarding the rights of the developer.

The argument is that a vote has been accomplished and the voting results show that those issues did not pass, therefore we cannot change them.
So, now can the board members vote to have a legal community and use funds to pay an attorney to address the issues that did not pass the members vote?

Thank you
MarioD (Florida)
Posts: 7
Posted:
I meant to say Legal Committee not community

Just wondering if anyone has any advise? We have an HOA meeting in about 6 hours

Thanks
AugustinD
Posts: 5,144
Posted:
Interesting situation. To get a flavor for Florida case law on a Declarant's rights, see http://law.justia.com/cases/florida/fourth-district-court-of-appeal/2015/4d14-1385.html. From this suit:
~~~
"The declaration of condominium, which is the condominium’s ‘constitution,’ creates the condominium and ‘strictly governs the relationships among the condominium unit owners and the condominium association.’ A declaration of condominium must be strictly construed.” Curci Vill. Condo. Ass’n v. Maria, 14 So. 3d 1175, 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (citation omitted). Furthermore, “[r]estrictions found within a Declaration are afforded a strong presumption of validity, and a reasonable unambiguous restriction will be enforced according to the intent of the parties as expressed by the clear and ordinary meaning of its terms....” Shields v. Andros Isle Prop. Owners Ass’n, 872 So. 2d 1003, 1005-06 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (citation omitted). “Under Florida law, which governs this dispute, ‘courts may not rewrite a contract or interfere with the freedom of contract or substitute their judgment for that of the parties thereto in order to relieve one of the parties from the apparent hardship or improvident bargain.’” United States v. Bridgewater Cmty. Ass’n, 2013 WL 3285399, at *9 (M.D. Fla. June 27, 2013) (citation omitted).
~~~

One may do a pretty decent search of Florida case law by googling the site http://law.justia.com/cases/florida . Adequate interpretation of any case law may require an attorney, of course.

It seems to me that the only genuine incentive for the Developer to keep the one property is either (1) the 1% transfer fee income; or (2) the desire to maintain the HOA at a certain standard because the developer has a financial interest in nearby HOAs whose property values depend on the maintenance of the present HOA; or (3) both (1) and (2).

How many homes are in this HOA? Are they all comparably priced? Is there much turnover?

What is the estimated value of the one lot the Developer still owns? How many 1% transfer fee charges would be needed to equal the estimated value?

You might want to ask the developer how much he wants for the one lot. Maybe the HOA could buy him out. My own HOA owns one unit, purchased via a loan from a bank, and rents it out for income. (I presume it was purchased at foreclosure at a good price.)

If you have a board majority, you could do your best to make sure the developer is crossing every t and dotting every i.

Else an attorney's opinion might be worth the few thousand dollars of fees.
MarioD (Florida)
Posts: 7
Posted:
Augustin

Thanks for that link.
We're a very small HOA, ONLY 15 lots
The current market value of the Developers lot is about 65K
The turnover is very slow, maybe one house sold per year - average value of homes about 400K

The main question I would like an answer on, if possible... how many times can the same members ask for all HOA members to vote on same changes. Specifically when it's the same changes that were voted before.

Thank you

🎯 You've read this entire discussion

Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:

  • ✓ Ask follow-up questions
  • ✓ Share your experience
  • ✓ Get expert advice
  • ✓ Access 350,000 discussions
Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in here