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.
As of February 2021, I am arguing the issue of Owners’ Rights in Indian Hammock.
The best example of the Club encroaching on Owners’ Rights is the Club Rule 1-1 in its Book of Rules.
The Club insists it has exclusive authority in managing my lot 246, precisely as it has exclusive authority in managing Indian Hammock common ground.
I bought, paid for, and got a fee simple deed to my Lot 246 in Indian Hammock; yet another party claims it has the sole control in managing my Property.
The Club based its view on the Indian Hammock Declaration of restrictions, and
I argue that the Club’s interpretation of the relevant clause in the Declaration of restrictions is wrong.
If the Club’s interpretation is correct, this applicable clause in the Declaration of Restrictions contradicts real estate ownership law, making it invalid.
On 2022-08-24, I met with the Club’s President and the Club’s Manager; the same day, I submitted the following:
Dear Tom and Bob,
In our Meeting today, I proposed changing Rule 1-1 to say:
“The Club shall have the exclusive responsibility and authority in the management and maintenance of the common ground for the benefit of all the members. Each member shall have the exclusive responsibility and authority in the management and maintenance of their lot, subject to the deed restrictions set up in the Declaration of Restrictions. The Club shall be managed and controlled by the Board. Only the Board can obligate the Club, and the President must sign all contracts.”
I explained my interpretation of the Declaration of Restrictions and why I think such a change in Rule 1-1 does not contradict the law of the land and the Declaration of Restrictions.
See also Rule 1-1 and my Interpretations to the Declaration of Restrictions (February 18, 2021)
I don’t have the legal expertise to produce a professional legal opinion about this issue, nor does the club board of directors.
As discussed, the Club will contact its lawyer and request a legal Report/Opinion about the issue. Such a report will be made known to all of the owners.
If the report supports my interpretation, Rule 1-1 will be voted on to be changed accordingly.
If the report supports the current Rule 1-1, stating that an owner has no say whatsoever in the management of his Property, then all efforts should be made to call a special member meeting and put this issue to vote.
Knowing that a change to the Declaration of Restriction requires 200 votes, the club lawyer should be consulted about doing the voting by mail or any way that will encourage high participation of owners.
As mentioned, I will be happy to meet with the Club’s lawyer to discuss.
Please confirm receiving.
On 2022-08-25, The Club advised me that it forward my email to the Club’s lawyer.
I await the Club’s lawyer’s input within two weeks and will keep updating this page.
The Club’s Book of Rules violates the Owners’ Rights.
As of February 2021, I am arguing this case with the Club, demanding changes in the Clube’s Book of Rules.
See, The BOD’s Book of Rules and the “Rules for Fools.”
Change Rule 1-1 to include:
The members have the exclusive responsibility and Authority in the management and maintenance of their lots, subject to the deed’s restrictions stated in the declaration of restrictions.
The Club has exclusive responsibility and Authority in the management and maintenance of the Common Areas for the benefit of all the members.
Change Rule 18.104.22.168 to read:
Issuance of the keys and gate access cards are declared to be a right, not a privilege.
If the Club carries on and refuses to make such changes, this case should be dealt with in court.
Please see how the Club operates (granting itself the power to ignore the Club’s Declaration of Restrictions) when it wishes to push its agenda.
“In accord with the Club’s Declaration of Restriction, Article X Section 3, the harvesting of palmetto berries on the Common Property is prohibited unless approved by the Board of Directors for the financial benefit of the Club.”
“unless approved by the Board of Directors for the financial benefit of the Club.” One can laugh at such a level of ignorance, I am not laughing; this evil governing system must be changed