Florida 720.3035

Referring to:
720;3035 "1) The authority of an association or any architectural, construction improvement, or other such similar committee of an association to review and approve plans and specifications for the location, size, type, or appearance of any structure or other improvement on a parcel, or to enforce standards for the external appearance of any structure or improvement located on a parcel, shall be permitted only to the extent that the authority is specifically stated or reasonably inferred as to such location, size, type, or appearance in the declaration of covenants or other published guidelines and standards authorized by the declaration of covenants.

Many items are not spelled out in the docs so this paragraph is always used for denial. It is from docs prepared in 1992. For example there are no specific paint colors.

Here is the DOC language:
"THEREFORE, the Developer has appointed an Architectural Review Committee (ARC) comprised of a combination of property
owners and paid professional consultants to evaluate proposed improvements with emphasis upon their harmonious incorporation·
into the community as a whole and with specific emphasis on external design, location of the improvement in relation to the
surrounding structures and landscape and/or improvements, topography, and conformity with the restrictive covenants,
criteria and procedures imposed by SEASIDE. The ARC shall, at its sole discretion, judge the adequacy of plans submitted and
may reject any proposed construction or alteration or development for any reason including purely aesthetic reasons provided
however that approval of plans shall not be unreasonably withheld."

The BOARD ARC simply uses "harmony" to deny anything they want. What can be inferred from that language?

PS Developer is gone and Homeowners running the HOA BOD and ARC (same members) small development less than 20 homes.

The word "proposed" seems to indicate the Board must decide if the plans submitted are harmonious BEFORE approving the plans.

What do you think.

Oops; this is assuming the court finds the Board was reasonable and agrees the plans are not harmonious.

-- The premises got muddled in my earlier post.

-- Assume a Board approves a landscape plan (and twice, to boot) submitted by member Sally Smith. Member Sally Smith understandably relies on this approval and installs the landscaping.

-- Suppose next the Board changes its mind and tries to force Sally Smith to change her landscaping. The dispute lands in court. From my reading of case law, and in general, I would expect the trial court to give the HOA two choices: Pay to correct Sally Smith's yard and in a way that Sally agrees to; or grandfather Sally Smith's yard as acceptable on account of Board error.

-- Suppose neighbor Bob Roe sues Sally Smith and the HOA, claiming Sally's yard violates the covenants. Bob Roe says the Board goofed when it approved the landscaping. I would expect the trial court to ask if the Board's approval was reasonable. If so, Bob loses. The HOA wins. Sally wins. If the court finds that the Board's approval was not reasonable, then the court orders the HOA to make Bob whole, somehow, perhaps with money, though quantification is important in court and I am not sure how to quantify Bob's damages. But I do know that, under these circumstances, Bob has a right to enforce the covenants. I think the trial court might order the HOA to pay to correct Sally's yard and in a way that Sally agrees to.

[snip detail I am desperately trying to avoid, probably just like a judge. Judges hate this HOA lawsuit cr-p]

Where the governing documents give a board discretion, nationwide the courts say this discretion must be exercised "reasonably." Time and again courts say that what is "reasonable" is not defined. Reality: The Trial Court gets to say what is reasonable. Appeals courts have to respect findings of facts by trial courts. Generally speaking. There is a lot of nuance in some of the case law on this. Remember, attorneys often do not care how long a dispute will take to resolve. They may prefer a long dispute. Because this is more billable hours for them. I agree "proposed" means "prior to approval."
You are welcome. I am helping a pro se defendant as we speak. Down the road, at trial or at a motion hearing, the plaintiff HOA has revealed it is going to argue that the Declaration gives the Board discretion on xyz point. I have the defendant saying to the judge, "Your Honor, could you please ask the plaintiff's attorney, as members of the bar, how they can say ____? " Because discovery reveals the plaintiff's attorney is raising a patently nonsensical argument. The plaintiff's HOA's attorney clearly has found a cash cow in the HOA's board.

Thank you Augustin and Geno. Very interesting and insightful points! It really helps.