Clear understanding of wording

Hi, I live in a HOA now for 30 years. We have a Stormwater retention pond and common area in our back yard. So does 38 other neighbors. Everyone has maintain their share from the first day they moved in. One neighbor has interpreted the DC&R's to his advantage and refuses to maintain his share. Here is what the section says:

Section 3. Permitted Uses.
The Common Area, shall be restricted to the following uses:
(a) The common Area, Tract A, now and forever, shall be restricted hereby such that the tract shall be maintained as a retention area, with easements to the City of Melbourne so that in the event that said maintenance is not performed by the Homeowner’s Association, the City will have the authority and right to enter said tracts and maintain said tracts and lien each Owner for their share of said maintenance.

Tract A on our documents is the retention pond. Isn't this section 3. requiring every homeowner to maintain this common area?

The definition is clear who "Homeowner's Association" is and who "Owner" is.

My association's CCRs include this:
Owners of lots, which abut any part of a lake or waterway, shall be obligated to maintain the lot grass and landscaping up to the water line.
If yours don't have this kind of language, then the owners would only need to take care of their property, tract A would be the association's responsibility.

The bolded verbiage above suggests to me that all members of the association would be charged for their share of any maintenance that the city performs, not just those adjoining tract A or those specific lots that have not maintained to the water's edge. Do all lots abut tract A or only some of them?

Hmmmm ....reads pretty clearly to me.

HOA is responsible for the common area, of which the retention pond is a component.

HOA does the maintenance via dues to all members (don’t all members get benefit from this retention pond?), and, if HOA doesn’t maintain it, the

My take:

1.
The HOA is responsible for the maintenance of each retention pond.

2.
If any retention pond is not maintained, then the bill for any maintenance the City ends up doing (for safety yada reasons, say) will be apportioned equally among the HOA members.

Aside: I do not believe the governing documents can dictate to the city how it bills for enforcing what may be a stormwater agreement on the plat. I think it's more likely the city would come in with its bulldozer, fix the retention pond, see that the plat shows the retention pond belongs to the HOA, and bill the HOA. Then from the governing documents, the HOA would say the bill is to be split among members equally. The latter would happen naturally via the HOA's budgeting process. E.g. line item in the Profit and Loss statement: Retention pond maintenance.

I would hope the City bill is far in excess of what the HOA would have to pay had it arranged for the maintenance of the retention ponds itself.

That this is the first time a member has challenged the interpretation of this DC&R is interesting. So far it seems to me that Rhoda's HOA ought to start arranging for an annual inspection of each retention pond and maintenance as needed, to take advantage of a scale discount. The city might have some advice on how often inspection should be done. Perhaps annually and after any major disruptive weather that damages the sizing et cetera of retention ponds?

Wouldn't that just complicate it for the city? I think I agree with Augustin. The city will most likely just look up who owns the plot and bill them. It will be up to the HOA to then use the bylaws to split it up equally and bill each owner and file liens if necessary.

JMO

I'm pretty sure IF the city had to step in to remediate a problem with Tract A that they would bill the HOA for the work and it would be up to the association to then bill the owners equally, such as with equally divided assessments. If Tract A is common property then it's the HOA that would be responsible for its maintenance.

I think the city stepping in to do the work is a big IF. Things would have to get really bad before they'd even consider that. Rhoda, what about St. Johns River Water Management District? Is there anything written on the Plat of the community or in your documents about the water district? They, too, often have the right to perform maintenance and then bill the cost back to the party responsible for maintaining retention or detention ponds. My understanding is they have the right to do it but not the obligation. That might also be the case with the city.

This pond is not visible from the street. Since the pond is only accessible through property openers side yard it makes sense why we were required for 30 years now to maintain the section behind our home. I have come to the conclusion that the document has failed us. I had another newborn knock on my door yesterday with the same attitude. He is not going to maintain his share either. I can’t even rap my head around what the view will be in a few more months. The city said they will not be bothered since their plate is full. Ugh!

I agree.

GenoS,
Thank you so much for the link, I started reading the letters and documents. I had no idea this was on line. I hope I can find what I am looking for.
Rhoda