Long shot modification of CCRs in Florida Volntary HOA

So, we made some progress this year ...
1. Bylaws updated and recorded
2. MRTA preserved and recorded
3. HOA Membership increased to 114 of 189 property owners
4. Reduced dues 30% based on increased membership
5. Filled Committees for architecture and audit per CCRs
6. Established new Beautification and Welcome Committees

Deep breath ... able to do all of this because the Board was flexible and interested in improvement from the low the community had been in for quite awhile.

My previous posts noted how our “voluntary” HOA, formed under FL S617, has made it very hard to maintain the common areas and the commonly owned, unsellable (recorded community prohibition) 1 plus acre park.

CCRs state 90% to modify the CCRs. Would this same percentage hold for modification that includes changing the membership to mandatory? If so, this means we would need at least 171 owners to agree.

This sounds really hard - and would certainly not be possible to attain at a special meeting - we would need to collect signatures, instead, on the new doc, from many long distance, non resident owners.

If there is a positive side, we would be able to simplify the covenants, and eliminate a couple that are unenforceable - like not allowing parking in the driveways. While this would interest many, I don’t know that it would be enough to get enough votes.

I would appreciate your thoughts on how to approach this ... tips, hints, etc, out of the box ideas, etc would be great.

Thanks, Melissa,

I have heard of HOAs having an open ended doc that allowed a rolling signing ... start with Special Meeting to explain process and get the first signers, then work the neighborhood getting signatures, and then reassess those that didn’t sign initially by meeting with them, or waiting them out ... as the non signers move, try and get the new owners to sign.

How open ended can it be? If yours took 3 years, could it go to five as long as the current Board keeps working it?

I would be surprised if you could force people into a mandatory association without their consent, so I would think only those that voted in favor would be required to belong. A good lawyer question though.

GeorgeS21,

The issue is:

90% of OWNERS or 90% of MEMBERS ?

IMO (worth 1.3 cents) it would be 90% of ALL OWNERS required to amend.

Presently,

All members are owners, not all owners are members.

All owners must comply with the restrictions.

Members (who are also owners subject to the restrictions) voluntarily pay for association's nonessential 'amenities'.

So,
can 90% of all owners force, via amendment to CCRs, membership by the remaining 10% ?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

for your consideration:
Perhaps, since y'all have no ESSENTIAL common elements, the original intent was for the people who want a 'pretty' entrance to fund same.

John B.