Rule 1-1 Case – Update 2022-09-13

The Club’s lawyer submitted a Legal Opinion about my suggested change to Rule 1-1
You can find the complete document below.

The Legal Opinion declares, I quote:
“the Club has exclusive responsibility and authority for the management and maintenance of all the property within the Club, including the Residential Lots”
This opinion should be made known to all of the 299 lot owners, as I believe many of us think that we have a say in the management and maintenance of the lots we bought.

I disagree with the Club’s Legal Opinion and find fault with the points the Club’s lawyer raised in order to justify Rule 1-1.

These are my points and argument:

My proposed change does not limit the Club’s exclusive responsibility and authority for the common grounds. See the first sentence in my proposed change.

As for the Declaration of Restrictions Article III Section 1. 
My proposed change allows the Club the enforcement of the terms, conditions, and covenants related to the privately owned 299 lots, see in my proposed change “subject to the deed restrictions set up in the declaration of Restriction”

As for the Declaration of Restrictions Article III, Section 3.
My change removes the EXCLUSIVE from the Club’s authority on each of the 299 privately owned lots; REASONABLE authority is a different story.

As for the Club’s Bylaws Article IV, Section 1.
This section is about THE PROPERTY OF THE CLUB, being the common areas and any of the 299 lots still owned by the Club; it does not say THE PROPERTY OF THE CLUB and the RESIDENTIAL LOTS. See Article I General for some definitions.

As for the Bylaws Article IV Section 10.
I don’t see what it has to do with the proposed change.

The proposed change takes nothing from The Bylaws and the Article of Corporation.
The laws of the State of Florida (and the Federal laws) supersede the Club documents and any of the Club’s rules. The proposed change includes “subject to the deed restrictions set up in the declaration of Restriction”

As for the Bylaws Article IV, Section 10.
I agree that the Board of Directors shall manage the Affair of the Club, but not the Affair of the Owner.

I am not a lawyer, and I believe I got to the end of my ability to convince the Club to correct what is wrong in this matter.

I have sent all of the information to my lawyer and I am awaiting his advice.

1 thought on “Rule 1-1 Case – Update 2022-09-13

  1. George Abraham

    Thank you for the Update. That is discouraging to read the Club’s attorney assessment. Did he sight any case law on the matter?

    George

    Like

    Reply

Leave a Reply to George Abraham Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s