UPDATE: MRTA/HOA/Revitalization Matter

I apologize for not being online in a while to post. I had been very busy these past several months but I wanted to give an update on my situation.

For those who may have forgotten, a brief recap is as follows: In 2009 my restrictions expired. The neighborhood failed to preserve them. I was not a member (was one once) but they had continued to demand assessments and threaten legal action for enforcing the expired covenants. This led to a showdown between me and them. Eventually they kind of left me alone once my attorney made them aware of the statutes governing HOAs. They would occasionally send new enforcement or demand letters from me whenever they got a new property manager or attorney but they never amounted to anything. The folks here on HOATalk had made the recommendation that for any resolution to be made the courts would have to get involved. That is where we currently are.

A lawsuit was filed earlier this year naming the association and the State parties to a lawsuit. The basics of the complaint are as follows:

The property was sold in 1979. There was no HOA or any association of its kind. The C&Rs made no mention of any association, fines, fees, assessments, etc.

In 1984 A new developer built a clubhouse outside of the geographic area dictated in the original C&Rs. They assumed to be the voluntary HOA for the neighborhood. Interestingly, the new "recreation association" barred several properties from becoming members.

In 2001 the association realized they lacked jurisdiction. They stated this much in a public letter sent to every property owner. They attempted to remedy this by amending the original C&Rs to give them sole authority, with assessments to be determined by the BoD (via the by-laws) and forcing every member and new owner into mandatory membership. They did this by collecting signatures to reach the percentage to amend per the original C&Rs.

Here is where the problem lies: many of the signatures they filed were not valid. They counted several signatures for the same property as separate properties, filed signatures for homeowners that sold the property prior to filing, and in some cases when multiple owners owned a property, they only obtained half of the required signatures.

Despite this they filed and assumed control.

In 2009 they failed to file a preservation and the restrictions expired. This was brought to their attention in 2012 but they ignored all notifications.

In 2015 they filed a revitalization with the state. At that time they were again notified about the legalities. I had also requested my name be removed from the index. They ignored my request and filed their amended restrictions with the state, listing me as a member and continued to attempt enforcement of their restrictions on my property.

I had petitioned the state but it was their opinion that they do not research the applications presented to them. They simply verify everything was filed properly and that they stamp it when finished (which is odd because their state filing had various glaring mistakes).

Another part of the lawsuit points out that since the association does not physically exist in the geography outlined in the original declaration and restrictions, they lack standing to revitalize or amend the restrictions.

Now we wait for resolution I suppose. This is the first time I had ever done anything like this but I have gotten support from many in the neighborhood and it is my understanding that since the start of this whole fiasco membership had been down (many older residents claiming their properties had been grandfathered from the 2002 amendment) and that they are unable to meet quorum or conduct any business.

Hi, Kevin. Long time no see, thank you for the update. I'm with TimB4 in wishing you luck. Sometimes people doing bad things need to have their faces rubbed in it. I've been reading lately how the state's DBPR is an ineffective mess, and they hear mostly condo disputes anyway leaving HOA complaints in the dust. Florida's HOA statute isn't worth the paper it's written on, to be honest, but I wish you all the best anyway and hope you draw a decent judge.

UPDATE!

So my filing has seen a response from the association's lawyer. They filed two motions. They filed a motion to dismiss claiming that the case should be dismissed because of statute of limitations, claiming that the amendment is too old to dispute. They also claimed I had no standing because the title transferred completely to my name a couple months after they filed (it was in probate).

I find this interesting because while the amendment was filed 16 years ago and they claim the statute of limitations is 5, they completely ignored the revitalization process. Those restrictions expired in 2009. That means my property had zero restrictions on it at the time of revitalization, in which they refiled the original restrictions and the amendments, with all the incorrectly collected signatures (duplicates, non-owners signatures, etc.), which I would think would restart any clock.

Their standing argument was that since the amendment didn't change anything at the time of my "purchase," I couldn't argue the point. This I find odd because by that logic, if I have no standing to fight, then since the restrictions expired, they would in fact be changing the nature of my property.

In their motion they also make the claim that I am just a homeowner trying to weasel their way out of restrictions and responsibilities.

They also filed a motion to strike the part of my suit that requests payment of legal fees by arguing that since the association makes no claim to be a legally defined HOA that can file liens for non-payment of assessments. They also argue that since I argue that the amendment and covenants do not encumber my property then statute 720 cannot apply... Since the HOA is not a HOA...

I find that argument odd because by making such an argument would also tacitly admit that they lacked authority under s. 712 to revitalized, since that too requires a legally defined HOA.

I also find it odd that they claim nobody claimed to have lien authority yet the club actually filed a lien and foreclosed on a neighbor while the restrictions we're expired.

Tim brings up a good point.

Other than that I think it's normal for the other party to throw everything including the kitchen sink into their response, including things they know don't stand a chance of holding up under scrutiny. The issue isn't whether the 16-year old amendment can be challenged at this date because of the statute of limitations. That's irrelevant if MRTA extinguished the deed restrictions. The issue SHOULD be about whether or not the revitalization was lawful or not. The association wants to cloud that issue. The biggest problem you might have is if the state agency charged with approving the revitalization didn't do its job, the court could very well say that that agency has the final word and accept its "expert testimony" that the revitalization was done properly. The judge might say if you have a problem with the department's decision then that's who you should sue.

I don't want to be a Debbie Downer. I sincerely hope you prevail. My fear is that the deck is already stacked against you.