this is why I can't live in an HOA (Sarasota: days on market, sales)

[bbronston]

Lady...unless I made a typo that I'm just not seeing, I have no idea where you got the idea that I said a disclosure isn't required.

I've been doing this for 11 years. I know the law and the requirements.

EDIT: You may be confusing the requirement to disclose the things listed in the form with the requirement to provide the actual governing docs and rules. I think I've said this 3x already but with HOAs, there is no requirement for the seller to provide the docs. With a condo, there is a requirement to supply the docs along with the disclosure. I am advocating a change to the HOA requirement. I think the docs should be provided and I think the buyer should have 3 days to review and back out, if desired, just as they can with a condo.

It's beyond me how anyone could argue against more consumer protection.

[imagardener]

It looks as through the Florida statutes have been updated to at least give the buyer a copy of the docs but not in advance and no review time. This is bare bones notice.

I agree with bbronston that condos in Florida have much more consumer protection.

But getting back to the news article about Lakewood Ranch and the fining. You will rarely find fines spelled out in docs. I am surprised that the HOA was able to put a lien on the property so that gem must indeed be in the docs.

I know far too much about Florida HOA's and condo docs and Roberts Rules too having been president of our condo association and a board member of the development association that our home was a member in. The crazy stuff I heard and aaw…..we have a recording of our last annual members meeting that would have made an great episode of Seinfeld. Funny if you aren't a homeowner there.

[bbronston]

Originally Posted by imagardener

It looks as through the Florida statutes have been updated to at least give the buyer a copy of the docs but not in advance and no review time. This is bare bones notice.

But getting back to the news article about Lakewood Ranch and the fining. You will rarely find fines spelled out in docs. I am surprised that the HOA was able to put a lien on the property so that gem must indeed be in the docs.

Not to beat a dead horse but I want to be sure that anyone reading this has the correct info. The statute does not "give the buyer a copy of the docs" for an HOA...only a condo. For an HOA, all you get is a suggestion that you read them and where you might look for them. It is entirely on the buyer.

Regarding the fining, I think the reason that fining and liens may not be covered in HOA docs is that the Florida Statutes handles all that so putting it into the docs is somewhat impractical. Laws change.

[imagardener]

Originally Posted by bbronston

Not to beat a dead horse but I want to be sure that anyone reading this has the correct info. The statute does not "give the buyer a copy of the docs" for an HOA...only a condo. For an HOA, all you get is a suggestion that you read them and where you might look for them. It is entirely on the buyer.

Regarding the fining, I think the reason that fining and liens may not be covered in HOA docs is that the Florida Statutes handles all that so putting it into the docs is somewhat impractical. Laws change.

You are correct, I misread "disclosure" to mean that they must be given the docs but it doesn't say that. It's just vaguely worded to say you have to pay fees and general blah-blah but nothing specific at all.

Re: fining--I am 8 years after leaving an HOA (maybe new FL laws?) but there were no FL guidelines then on fines, nor what a fine-able offense. There was a "Fine Committee" appointed (by the board president) who came up with the dollar amount, etc. Of course the president appoints people that share their attitudes.

Does anyone else think that the newspaper, which named the fined homeowner, should also name the HOA board members who approved the ludicrous fine? Maybe interview them to get their side. I always enjoy hearing what people really think.

[CindyRoos]

Originally Posted by imagardener

Does anyone else think that the newspaper, which named the fined homeowner, should also name the HOA board members who approved the ludicrous fine? Maybe interview them to get their side. I always enjoy hearing what people really think.

I think that would be great!!

[bbronston]

Just to play devil's advocate, I disagree that the board members should be publicly demonized for following the HOA rules and the statute's direction. Technically, they did nothing wrong (from the story) and, if the community members don't like the board's application of the rules and statute (not to mention following the advice of the property manager and attorney), they can always step up and volunteer. The problem is that so few are willing to step up while so many are ready to ****** about it. The other consideration is that if the board had not followed the rules and the statute, the association would be in a weaker position with each subsequent case that comes before them. So, they are damned if they do go the full enforcement route and damned if they don't. Plus, although I definitely agree that this case got completely out of control, the fact remains that it was the homeowner who was wrong.

Personally, I think the statute should be amended so these huge numbers can't be reached. But, attorneys write the laws that earn attorneys more money so....

[upgrader]

Originally Posted by CindyRoos

I think that would be great!!

Probably more useful to name and try to interview the HOA's law firm (like Inside Edition did in my previously mentioned piece).

I don't think it's fair to pick on the volunteer HOA directors. I question Ms. Onorato's lack of understanding of her association, the Florida HOA laws, and RE Agents that get away with selling properties without educating buyers on the additional layer of government they are subjected to.

I'm not against Florida HOA's. But I'm against the lack of transparency that goes with buying into an HOA.

[Sunshine Rules]

Originally Posted by bbronston

Just to play devil's advocate, I disagree that the board members should be publicly demonized for following the HOA rules and the statute's direction. Technically, they did nothing wrong (from the story) and, if the community members don't like the board's application of the rules and statute (not to mention following the advice of the property manager and attorney), they can always step up and volunteer. The problem is that so few are willing to step up while so many are ready to ****** about it. The other consideration is that if the board had not followed the rules and the statute, the association would be in a weaker position with each subsequent case that comes before them. So, they are damned if they do go the full enforcement route and damned if they don't. Plus, although I definitely agree that this case got completely out of control, the fact remains that it was the homeowner who was wrong.

Personally, I think the statute should be amended so these huge numbers can't be reached. But, attorneys write the laws that earn attorneys more money so....

Bob, agree with everything you said.

[upgrader]

Originally Posted by bbronston

Just to play devil's advocate, I disagree that the board members should be publicly demonized for following the HOA rules and the statute's direction. Technically, they did nothing wrong (from the story) and, if the community members don't like the board's application of the rules and statute (not to mention following the advice of the property manager and attorney), they can always step up and volunteer. The problem is that so few are willing to step up while so many are ready to ****** about it. The other consideration is that if the board had not followed the rules and the statute, the association would be in a weaker position with each subsequent case that comes before them. So, they are damned if they do go the full enforcement route and damned if they don't. Plus, although I definitely agree that this case got completely out of control, the fact remains that it was the homeowner who was wrong.

Personally, I think the statute should be amended so these huge numbers can't be reached. But, attorneys write the laws that earn attorneys more money so....

We were typing at the same time. I agree with you a bit, but disagree with more. I stepped up and volunteered for the board, subjected myself to a frivolous lawsuit, and in the end I realized I should have cut and run at the onset. In my condo, rules and statutes are routinely ignored, but who the heck wants to sue themselves (which is what you do when you sue your association).

We need to hold the paid providers (association attorneys and property managers) accountable.

[upgrader]

Originally Posted by bbronston

But, attorneys write the laws that earn attorneys more money so....

To make the situation more absurd, attorneys become judges that rule over association matters. The most straightforward laws can sit in continuance while association attorneys can run the money clock.