Florida HOA

In the Fl Statute 720 when over 50% of all partials are out of the control of the developer, at least one board member can be elected by others than the developer. There is one house that was owned by people other than the developer but for unknown reasons to me, it was repossessed by the developer. Does this partial count for or against the 50% needed to bring about the election of one board member?

Good advice.

That is a good question--and you do mean "parcel" right? Will you please cite the exact wording of the 720 statute?

In reality, the developer is the 3rd Owner of this parcel. Put differently, It's hard to envision that after one owner has been elected as a director, the developer then must foreclose on a few parcels, giving him again over 50% ownership. The owner/director must step down from the Board and the developer now has that seat back? Doesn't make sense to me, but sometimes the law does not make sense to me.

I'm assuming you'd not take "legal action" to learn the answer, right?

The reason it is important to me is that the Board is very unwilling to communicate with the members outside of the very minimum. They are mostly out of state and the property manager ignores all, but a few issues brought up by members. Also, there is a volunteer "social committee" that is led by one lady that acts like they are in charge of everything in the community. So, even though one vote does not get control, it does gain input and information on what is going on. I do see your point and it may come to that if enough members cannot be brought to demand the election of the board member. Under this woman's regime, if you disagree with her, you are basically treated as "an enemy of the people." She of course has the ear of the property manager. They have even gone so far as to lock the kitchen to everyone because in this woman's words a member stole ice from the ice maker and supposedly some frozen meat was taken from the refrigerator. There are other issues that add to it being unacceptable to have this woman act as a Sudō-board president with no election. Anyway thanks for the advice.

we who favor pushing for the election understand that one director will not control the board. What it would do is give an director elected by the community a seat at the table to discuss and to hear about what is going. It gives access to the board by the residents. Right now the property manager is the barrier to the board of directors. There is no contact allowed except through him even if the issue surrounds him. The board is made up of people who do not even live in the area and mostly are out of state. They have no idea of what the issues are except what the property manager tells them and really as far as I can tell do not care. They neglect their fiduciary responsibility to the membership and only side with the developer because they are employed by the developer. Thanks for your input. There is a lot to think about.

Do you Bylaws state how often board meetings must be held? Often there's a distinction between "regular meetings of the Board" and "special meetings of the Board." Your Bylaws might say the board must hold ruler meetings at least four times a year or similar. 720 might say something similar: board must hold meetings of the board at least annually, or similar. Board meetings are open to owners in FL.

Is the board holding no Board meetings?