Complaint letter recd by hoa regarding violatin

Our HOA board has received a resident complaint letter regarding a covenant violation. We are in Florida and follow 720.
Another resident has requested to see the letter sent to the owner by the board. We hesitate to do this for privacy reasons and having the letter circulate around the community. Does anyone know of a law in 720 that allows us to state privileged information and not make letter public?

Thank you for researching this. People who have complaints are afraid to put issues in writing because of it being made public and getting retaliation. You can see the problems we may incur

For sure.

How about saying once the matter is investigated and a decision made, then may view it? There is no timeline with it or what can be done prior.

I happen to think that this is not a bad option. It is maybe even an excellent option.

No. The person requesting the letter is not the original complainer. She is a neighbor and friend

This is a "the ends justify the means" kind of decision, and, I think, should be avoided in all but the most compelling of situations. If the Board is required to provide the letter, then it should provide the letter. A Board doing whatever it wants in spite of what it's required to do, especially when an Owner is a directly affected party whose right to the information is inherent in that person's equity in the Association, is exactly what creates the cynicism and hostility toward the Board in the first place.

Is a response of "Yeah, you have the right to the letter, but we're not going to give it to you, and if you disagree, sue us to enforce your right." a Board meeting its legal fiduciary responsibility? No, we all know it's not, even if we suspect the person exercising their right to see the letter may use that access for less-than-noble purposes.

The way my association handles violations, no matter how reported, is a BOD Member will investigate. If the violation is observed, a letter of violation is sent by our PM. No one has bothered to question any further.

Releasing original complaints perpetuates (1) the stereotype (reality?) of un-informed owners who complain about things that are outside the HOA's control; and (2) the stereotype that HOA Boards aim to humiliate complainers, something with which I think you have direct experience.

I do not have a problem with anyone saying, "Comply with state statutes and your covenants." I do object when someone asserts that either a covenant or statute section is good when it is clearly stupid; puts people at risk of retaliation; promotes gossip; and all while there is a better alternative.

scratching my head here. Which is it? Is it required to be provided or is it provided? You often do this August, playing both sides of the conversation...

By my reading of the Florida statute, an owner's complaint is an official record of the association that must be offered to owners who request it. The statute has a few caveats about records but none that seem to come into meaningful play here.

No, I do not like this covenant. You say it tamps down on those who are the "vocational dissident." I say sure, but it also discourages people who have legitimate and important complaints from complaining.

So yes, on the one hand, I am offering a legitimate strategy, approved by the law and every single attorney in your town, my town, and all across America, to cope with it. A HOA is doing nothing wrong by waiting until an owner threatens suit. In fact, this is also a way to deal with the vocational dissident.

On the other hand, Florida actually has statute sections that specifically deal with denial of records and imposes express punishment ($50 per calendar day of delay and so on, per the statute). So a Board needs to think long and hard about denying a record and getting into what may be a pissing match that takes a lot of time and money.

When it comes to HOA issues, I do not pay attention to those who do not make an effort to consider all sides. Also my views absolutely have and will continue to evolve in the course of a thread.

So far I am not persuaded that it is oh-so-black-and-white that this statute section does serve HOAs well.

Maybe it's much ado about nothing. I went googling for what Florida lawyers say on the point (really, anything they say on the point) and came up empty-handed.

I am very grateful to all who responded. Fl 720 lists what is considered official records but really does not deal with our issue. We have no problem releasing the complaint letter to the named resident in the complaint. Only that there could be retaliation which we fear. The other issue is that another resident demanding to see the letter the board sent to the violator. Is not part of the complaint. This resident has monthly meetings of select groups as primarily a complaint session.

Has the letter written to the violator now become part of the official records? I fear if we release it,this groups leader will use it to put additional pressure upon the recipient named in the complaint therefore starting a larger problem.

Your thoughts?

Why do you say FS 720 does not deal with the issue of whether the original complaint is an "official record" of the HOA, subject to inspection by owners? My impression is that the section of FS 720 that deals with inspection of HOA records is a "sunshine" provision that most certainly is intended to resolve whether a submitted complaint is an official record.

As for the letter written to the violator: You brought up FS 720. You know where to find FS 720 on the net. There is a sub-section of FS 720 that absolutely IMO says there are many instances where the violation notice that the HOA sends to the alleged violator is not, per the statute, subject to inspection by other owners. But I am asking you to see if you can find it. Big hint: It's in FS 720.303 (5).

When a complainant-owner in some cases is at risk of being harassed or threatened, correct, I am advocating that the view that "The law is what the court says tomorrow" may be appropriate.

I think I am one of the people here who regularly scolds directors for thinking they can do what they want or not follow the CCRs, Bylaws, et cetera. I recently posted that complying with the governing documents keeps us all on the same page. It's important to encourage all directors and owners to be able to justify their actions with what's in the CCRs, state statutes and once in a while, case law (with the aid of counsel).

When I have history on the requester of the original complaint, and that history indicates a malevolent yada nature, and when I know the nature of the complaint, I may very well vote to not allow the requester to have a copy of the complaint without a legal fight, in violation of the statute section but in the interests of an individual's safety.

Call it rationalizing. I have seen enough retaliation poured on un-deserving complainants that I favor BarbaraT1's and SheliaH's wisdom here.

Here is a site that says for Florida condos, yes the original complaint must be made available on request by any owner:
https://www.floridacondohoalawblog.com/2017/07/10/complaint-letters-part-associations-official-record/

The Florida HOA statute is little or no different on this particular point.

For Florida HOAs/COAs I guess I could easily be talked into exercising the nuclear legal option only in extreme cases, where I truly feared for the complainant's safety, based on evidence.

Thomas posted an interesting comment:

There is no legal exception for the Board based on speculation about how an Owner may use the access to which he is entitled. Why, there's another current thread right now here where the problem is the Board's attitude of "we know what the law says, but we're going to ignore it and do what we want."

It is none of the BOD's business how one uses a copy of a document one is entitled to.

I understand the concern but I look at it this way: a complaint of a CC&R violation is, essentially, a claim of a breach of contract between owners. It involves all members. I personally believe owners, as members of the association, should have access to this information.

Post-o. I meant O'Aryan's complaint.

You and I disagree.

Let's change the scenario a bit. We're still in Florida. Now Paul Pruriently has submitted a complaint saying his neighbor's 13-year-old children, twins, are exposing themselves. He submits photographs of the two teenage girls, taken while their curtains were open in their bedroom and they are walking around in their birthday suits. Paul informs his neighbors that he has submitted this complaint. Jacob Pornpromo asks the manager, while the Board happens to be meeting, for a copy of the complaint and declares that he will be posting all of the complaint, including the photos on his web site. The manager turns to the Board for advice.

Still not going to budge?

Let's change the scenario and say the twins are your daughters, ThomasP13.

Any change of heart?

Which is why Boards, not individuals, make decisions.

Ah - a variation of the Kitty Dukakis hypothetical. How clever. It was never an issue of "the heart" in the first place. The principle remains, what is the Board required to do. Whatever it is, then the Board is obligated to do it. Assuming that the Board's attorney advises that no component of the complaint, which is now more than simply the foundational letter, may be withheld, then the Board is obligated to comply. Principles aren't worth much if they only apply when you agree with them.

And in your hypothetical, what Jacob is doing is illegal, and after the state gets done with him, I'll be taking his unit in civil litigation. But the Board won't be a party to this action, as it did what it was obligated to do.

This is dated 2018 from HOALeader. May help.

Florida — "Basically under Florida law in the HOA and condo statutes, what constitutes an official record to which the owner has the right to access is quite all encompassing," states Christopher J. Shields, a partner at Pavese Law Firm in Ft. Myers, Fla., who's represented associations for decades. "Except for records subject to the attorney-client privilege, and with respect to certain confidential information, such as Social Security numbers or information gleaned or received from applicants seeking to rent or live in the development, basically everything else is open to access."

There's a reason for that approach. "A person who's been sent a letter from the association or the association's counsel saying they're in violation of the governing documents might want to show selective enforcement or the waiver of enforcement of that provision," says Shields. "To do that, they'd want to seek information with respect to other violations and how those were dealt with.

"There's also a new provision that took effect July 1, 2017, that requires that the association provide to purchasers notice of any written violations that apply to the unit," adds Shields. "The association should state whether they're buying a piece of property that's been subject to that."

As Shields notes, Florida law has changed recently, which makes Brad van Rooyen, a partner at Home Encounter, a Tampa, Fla., company that manages community associations, happy. "What we're seeing is that the Florida statutes every year are undergoing revisions, and they're clarifying what's an official record and inspecting and copying issues.

"We also had a change clarifying access to management company software — that's not something you can request access to," adds van Rooyen. "That doesn't leave a gray area that requires legal interpretation, which I think is good."

Is she a friend of the person who received the letter? Why can’t she ask them to see it?
Why does she want to see it?
There are so many responses here but I think a lot of them are overkill - sorry.
If you have to provide can you remove all identifying information? Our violation letters just recite our decs so super boring.