Question about Quorum

Please give us the exact wording of the statute. Exact wording of the bylaws too. 2/3 of owners to make quorum at a members meeting and election (I assume?) seems very high.

I'm in an HOA

That 720 Statute says
(1) QUORUM; AMENDMENTS.—
(a) Unless a lower number is provided in the bylaws, the percentage of voting interests required to constitute a quorum at a meeting of the members shall be 30 percent of the total voting interests. Unless otherwise provided in this chapter or in the articles of incorporation or bylaws, decisions that require a vote of the members must be made by the concurrence of at least a majority of the voting interests present, in person or by proxy, at a meeting at which a quorum has been attained. A meeting of the members must be held at a location that is accessible to a physically handicapped person if requested by a physically handicapped person who has a right to attend the meeting.
(b) Unless otherwise provided in the governing documents or required by law, and other than those matters set forth in paragraph (c), any governing document of an association may be amended by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the voting interests of the association. Within 30 days after recording an amendment to the governing documents, the association shall provide copies of the amendment to the members. However, if a copy of the proposed amendment is provided to the members before they vote on the amendment and the proposed amendment is not changed before the vote, the association, in lieu of providing a copy of the amendment, may provide notice to the members that the amendment was adopted, identifying the official book and page number or instrument number of the recorded amendment and that a copy of the amendment is available at no charge to the member upon written request to the association. The copies and notice described in this paragraph may be provided electronically to those owners who previously consented to receive notice electronically. The failure to timely provide notice of the recording of the amendment does not affect the validity or enforceability of the amendment.
(c) Unless otherwise provided in the governing documents as originally recorded or permitted by this chapter or chapter 617, an amendment may not materially and adversely alter the proportionate voting interest appurtenant to a parcel or increase the proportion or percentage by which a parcel shares in the common expenses of the association unless the record parcel owner and all record owners of liens on the parcels join in the execution of the amendment. For purposes of this section, a change in quorum requirements is not an alteration of voting interests. The merger or consolidation of one or more associations under a plan of merger or consolidation under part I of chapter 607 or chapter 617 is not a material or adverse alteration of the proportionate voting interest appurtenant to a parcel.

So does it also mean that there must be a majority of the membership casting votes, either in person or by written proxy?

In this instance there is a bona fide conflict between the statute and the bylaws. Because of the hierarchy of laws and the rules for settling conflicts between statutes and covenants, in this instance the statute controls. As Max posted, this means the quorum for your HOA for membership meetings is 30%.

So I'm having trouble uploading the PDF for the HOA Docs. I've tried uploading the PDF, a screen shot
absent of someone telling me how to do it,

Here is a link, which is my site, the PDF for the HOA docs is at the bottom

https://dbatopgun.com

Well, this is how I see it. Here is an example of a “conflict” between the bylaws and state statute:

Bylaws: Quorum: A quorum at members’ meetings shall consist of persons entitled to cast a majority of the votes of the entire membership ..
Statute: The percentage of voting interests required to constitute a quorum at a meeting of the members shall be 30 percent of the total voting interests.

These two conflict or contradict each other. There seems to be ambiguity. But, since we know state law takes precedence over an association’s governing docs, with this wording, the state law prevails thus resolving the conflict.

The OP’s or similar case

Bylaws: Quorum: A quorum at members’ meetings shall consist of persons entitled to cast a majority of the votes of the entire membership.
Statute: Unless a lower number is provided in the bylaws, the percentage of voting interests required to constitute a quorum at a meeting of the members shall be 30 percent of the total voting interests.

There is no conflict. There is no ambiguity. The statute’s wording removes any potential conflict. It is clear that the bylaws only prevail if the precent required for quorum in them is less than 30%. They are not in the OP’s case in which the percent required for quorum is a majority, i.e., far more than 30%.

The quorum for the OP is 30% or lower. END OF STORY!

The statute starts with "Unless a lower number is provided in the bylaws" The bylaws do not have a lower number, so the latter phrase is ignored. The statute continues with: "... the percentage of voting interests required to constitute a quorum at a meeting of the members shall be 30 percent of the total voting interests."

Statute says quorum shall be 30%.

Bylaw says quorum shall be 2/3rds.

This is a conflict. Hence rules for resolving conflicts have to be applied. The Rules say that, in a conflict, the statute controls. Hence the quorum is 30%.

Yeah no, I did not try to load dbatopgun or whatever. Too much data.

Someone can quote here exactly what it says if they want. If the bylaws have some peculiar wording about what it takes to have a meeting, then we can discuss whether it conflicts with the statute. Or what. Ever.

RobertP32, thank you. I believe this Bylaw and FS 720 translate to the following requirements:

-- The votes (in person or by proxy) have to be verified. The secretary, under supervision of the board, can set the requirements for verification. (These requirements have to be reasonable. Case law suggests best practices is not to place too much of a burden on owners to get their proxy or presence verified. If you do not understand what I mean, ask, and I will explain some of what case law has said about imposing burdens on HOA voters.)

-- For determining whether quorum is met, only votes that are verified count. (Normally this will be all or nearly all votes submitted in person or by proxy.)

-- Subject to the above, quorum is 30% (per FS 720 and the rules for settling conflicts).

-- Before business can be transacted, 2/3rds of whatever votes are present (submitted in person or by proxy) must be verified.

Example:

Suppose a HOA has 1000 members.

600 owners are present in person or by proxy.

The secretary begins verifying votes. This is going to be a head count of those present plus a count of proxy forms, where the secretary has verified that those present, in person or by proxy, are owners. Once 300 votes (or voters) are verified, the President should announce that quorum (per FS 720, the bylaws and the rules for resolving conflicts) is met, but business cannot yet be transacted. Announcements could be made, but votes on, and discussion of, issues on the ballot should not occur.

Once the Secretary verifies at least 400 (= 2/3 x 600) of the votes (present in person or by proxy), business may be transacted.

Thanks, What I think is a shame is that our HOA has 50 members, so low quorums allow a few to monopolize the community when it come to spending and raising HOA fees. The claim from the HOA president is as follows.

Your interpretation of what a quorum is for annual voting is incorrect. There are 50 homes in our neighborhood, 3 were ineligible to vote due to owing the HOA dues, only a simple majority is required, half of 47 is 23.5

So it sounds like he may be wrong and an even lower number is required?

What cause the issue, is that in order to get quorum, it was probably falsely assumed that proxy could be verbal. As nothing was signed. I have requested a copy of the sign in and copies as the proxy. My concern now, is that they voted on board members and conducted business(raised dues) at a meeting that shouldn't have happened without a proper quorum. It sounds you are saying only 30% of the 47 homes is required for quorum and that 30% can elect directors and raise rates.

This is a gross violation of the requirements for proxies in FS 720, and you should call the board on it. From FS 720:

"To be valid, a proxy must be dated, must state the date, time, and place of the meeting for which it was given, and must be signed by the authorized person who executed the proxy."

See http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0720/0720.html . I advise getting comfortable doing keyword searches of the latter FS 720 site. Where there's smoke, there's fire. If some bozo at your HOA is saying assignment of a proxy can be verbal, then I can just imagine how many other abuses this board is perpetrating, often in violation of the Florida statutes, bylaws and covenant.

If you give me more details of this election, like the outcome, total votes for each candidate, and so on, I can way more and draft a letter where you request (meaning "legally demand") such-and-such as a remedy.

If this election was close, and these (verbal proxies) made a difference, I expect I would be seething.

Is the answer to get rid of elections, and only let "experienced" directors decide who should be on the board?

Only 30% of voting members is required to meet quorum as your documents have a higher amount vs a lower amount. Keep in mind that State Laws supersedes your governing documents. Over time governing CCR’s can become a little bit obsolete as things change and State Laws change.

Old thread.