2026-05-13 From the desk of Barbara Roberts, President

Leave a reply


Hi Neighbors.

We all received today’s monthly email, “From the desk of Barbara Roberts, President.”
The monthly report includes a paragraph that many of us have an issue with:
“We would like to bring you up to date on the ongoing lawsuit involving Dixon, Houlihan, Kennemer, and Ward.
On May 29, Indian Hammock will be returning to court. Mr. Dixon believes that Indian Hammock is in contempt of the Judge’s Order and clarification regarding the 2024 Hunt SOP. We want to assure all members that Indian Hammock has followed the Judge’s Order.
Mr. Dixon is also asking the Judge to allow him to place his equipment in the covered area of the Indian Hammock Quail Barn. As a reminder, the parking of equipment and other items in the RV parking area is reserved for members who pay a fee for designated parking spaces. There are no designated parking spaces in the covered area of the Quail Barn.“

I believe David Bass, our president prior to Barbara Roberts, covered this issue beautifully in his email.
Please see David Bass response

Hi Barbara,

Just read your Presidents letter dated today. I speak for a large number of members who have some concern about how you have communicated on the Dixon et al legal case.

The quail barn in its entirety is a “hunting facility” as defined by our declaration of restriction. It is not an RV parking lot. Your president letter has mis-informed the membership by claiming that it is an RV lot when it is a “hunting facility”. Is the tack room a pool? Can we store engines in the tack room? The hunt committee advises the board and has primary usage privileges of the quail barn in its entirety for hunting usage. Where are the minutes where the board has changed the primary usage of the quail barn?

The quail barn was built and approved for its intended purpose…a hunting facility in compliance with the donation letter and prior board’s properly noticed open board meeting motion(s). None of those prior motions have been modified by subsequent board motions. If you want to change that you need a motion to change the covered portion to something other than “a hunting facility”.

Your attempt to re-define the usage of the quail barn covered area is in contempt of the injunction and I ask the board to reconsider. Your position is going to cost all of the membership more in legal fees for what? Because of semantics? Fiduciaries should not act on emotions but instead act solely on the best interest of logic for the membership. Fighting over and spending legal fees to defend if a hunt buggy can stay or not stay at the quail barn or how many guests can join in on a paid bird hunt (even though FL720 clearly defines the reasonable application of that guests), makes absolutely no common sense and violates the board’s fiduciary duty to act prudently and in our best interest. I am sorry that there may be “feelings” otherwise, but feelings don’t support doing the right thing for the membership.

The board’s position on the covered area makes no fiduciary sense (just a quick read of the Club’s governing documents clearly states that game areas and hunting facilities are authorized as a primary usage of common land) and there are many members who are concerned that the legal fees will escalate with no benefit for the community and run against the Club’s covenants.

The Temporary Injunction, page 4, section 2, states, “…and provide all facilities required to fulfill the findings herein.” What part of that court order authorizes the board to deny facility usage? I was at the re-hearing and when Sarah asked Judge Wallace to explain what that reference meant, he clearly stated that he used the broad language, instead of naming specific hunting assets, because he wanted to make sure that the Club and the plaintiff don’t have to fight over what is or isn’t named in the injunction, but rather to promote resolution and move forward by allowing his injunction to be broad and not subject to further debate. I add this because there were no board members present to hear him say this, other than you and you have a history of interpreting facts differently than I do.

If the board wants to continue to disallow Hunt equipment to stay in the covered area then the board needs to motion to do that at a properly noticed open board meeting.

I have cc’d Ron and the board. I am a neighbor and always happy to discuss or debate. I hope that my concerns shared here foster some level of discussion. I look forward to any outreach. If I have missed something, as a past President and serving on the board for almost a decade, I would be the first to acknowledge and favor support.

I am just trying to help you and the board move forward with reason and respect for all members. That doesn’t mean listening to special interest groups (I have always hated that stereotype. We are a community of members who all bought here and agreed to live by our covenants. The only special interest are those that want to change those covenants.). If there is any doubt about what “all members” mean….read the Declaration of Restrictions.

Barbara, as you and I have done for 17 years, I look forward to discussing this further with you.

Dave


An update about “The President Letter” and the relevant Court case

5 Replies

Neighbours,

On February 27, 2026, the President sent an email to members stating that the lawsuit filed by Michael Dixon, George Ward, Paul Houlihan, and Hop Kennemer had already cost the community $9,700.

That email named these members.
It emphasized cost.
It did not explain what the case was actually about.
It did not explain the legal issues.
It did not indicate that the Board of Directors might be at fault.

At that time, the clear impression given was:
“These four members are costing you money.”

Now Fast Forward

On March 17, 2026, a judge issued a ruling — and it changes everything.

The Court granted a Temporary Injunction in favor of Michael Dixon, George Ward, Paul Houlihan, and Hop Kennemer.

This is not a minor step. It means the judge reviewed the evidence and found strong reasons to act immediately.

The Court found:

  • There is a strong likelihood that Dixon, Ward, Houlihan, and Kennemer will win the case
  • The 2025 rule changes were unreasonable
  • The Board of Directors likely violated Florida law (Statute 720.304(1))
  • The changes effectively eliminated long-standing hunting rights
  • The Club must go back to the 2024 SOP and cannot change it for now

Read That Carefully

A judge has already determined that there is strong evidence that:

The Board of Directors likely acted outside the law.

So Let’s Ask the Obvious Questions

Why did the February 27 email:

  • Emphasize cost — but not explain the real issues?
  • Name specific members — but not explain why they filed the case?
  • Suggest harm to the community — without disclosing the Board’s legal risk?

And most importantly:

Why were members not told that this case may have had serious merit?

What This Now Looks Like

With the Court’s ruling in hand, that earlier email is not just incomplete.

It appears misleading by leaving out critical facts.

Because now we know:

  • This was not a weak or frivolous case
  • This was not personal
  • This was a serious legal challenge — and the judge agrees

The Reality

The $9,700 cost did not come from four members doing something wrong.

It came from:

  • The Board of Directors adopted rules that the Court now says are likely unlawful
  • The decision to defend those rules instead of fixing them
  • Continuing that path until a judge stepped in

Bottom Line

This case was never about “members costing money.”

It is about:

  • Whether the Board followed the law
  • Whether the Club followed its own governing documents
  • Whether owners’ rights were restricted improperly

And now we have the first clear answer from a judge.

Final Point

Members deserve full and honest information, not selective messaging.

When leadership highlights cost but leaves out the legal reality, it creates a false picture.

Now that the facts are clear, everyone should reassess based on what has actually been proven — not what was implied months ago.

If you haven’t read the Court’s ruling yet, it is worth your time.
Facts matter; you can check them all (very long) on https://ihmyhome.com/violations-reported/2025-05-20-ward-houlihan-kennemer-dixon-vs-indian-hammock-club/

The President 17/02/2026 Email: What It Says and What It Avoids Saying

2 Replies

The President’s February 17, 2026, email informs members that the litigation filed by Ward, Houlihan, Kennemer, and Dixon has cost the membership $9,700 to date.

What the email does not explain is far more important than the number it highlights.

The lawsuit (Ward, Houlihan, Kennemer, Dixon v. Indian Hammock Hunt & Riding Club Inc.) concerns governance issues, including:

  • Whether the Board and its Architectural Committee are acting consistently with the Declaration and governing documents
  • Whether the enforcement authority has been expanded beyond what the documents authorize
  • Whether certain rules conflict with recorded covenants
  • Whether property owners’ rights are being restricted without proper amendment procedures

This lawsuit is not a personal grievance. It is a dispute about document compliance and fiduciary duty.

The President’s message presents only one fact:
The case has cost the membership $9,700.

It does not:

  • Describe the legal issues raised
  • Explain the alleged document inconsistencies
  • Acknowledge that members have a legal right to seek judicial clarification
  • State whether a settlement or mediation was attempted
  • Disclose how legal strategy decisions were made

Instead, it highlights a dollar amount and names the members involved.
That approach risks signaling to uninformed members that:
“These four individuals are costing you money.”
That is not responsible governance communication.

Board members have fiduciary duties of loyalty and care to all members, including those who disagree with them.

When leadership communications single out members and attach financial cost to their names without explaining the underlying governance dispute, it creates unnecessary division.

Litigation expenses are not “caused” by members who file suit. They are the result of:

  • The underlying dispute,
  • The Board’s decisions in response,
  • And the strategy chosen to defend the case.

If the Board believes it is correct, it can say so — and explain why.
If it believes clarification is needed, it can pursue resolution.
What it should not do is communicate in a way that appears designed to isolate or pressure fellow property owners.

A communication made in good faith would have included:

  • A neutral summary of the issues in dispute
  • A commitment to transparency
  • A statement reaffirming respect for members’ rights
  • An explanation of the steps taken to resolve the matter

Instead, the focus was placed on cost and names.
That is not a sign of constructive intent.

Reasonable people may disagree about how documents should be interpreted. That is why courts exist.
But framing a governance dispute as a financial burden imposed by specific neighbors risks damaging the community fabric. Indian Hammock deserves better.

Get informed, see: https://ihmyhome.com/violations-reported/2025-05-20-ward-houlihan-kennemer-dixon-vs-indian-hammock-club/

Boycott the upcoming members’ meeting

2 Replies

A call to boycott the upcoming members’ meeting

At the January 2025 members’ meeting, the 2024 Board of Directors made a motion to add Online Voting.
We were led to believe that this requires 200 YES votes from members.
It was a mistake of the 2024 Board of Directors.

Adding Online Voting could have been done by the Board of Directors; it did not require members to vote at all, for sure, nor to obtain support of 200 votes or more.

All this is water under the bridge, but what is extremely important is the results of the members’ voting and the 2025 Board of Directors’ resistance to adding the Online Voting option.

The established quorum at the beginning of the January 2025 members meeting was 247 votes.
104 came from members present on the floor.
143 by proxies.

The results were
150 voted YES for adding Online Voting.
97 voted NO.

Simply put.
61% voted to add the Online Voting.
39% voted against adding it.

During 2025, Barbara, the 2025 Board of Directors’ president, and other board members were advised about their legal authority to add Online Voting without members voting.

I communicated it and added that it is their duty to acknowledge that the majority of the members (61%) voted for Online Voting.

Unfortunately, for reasons which I am not going to argue now, the 2025 Board of Directors chose not to do it.

Further, this board of directors and others in their “camp” are still spreading misinformation, trying to delay the inevitable addition of Online Voting.

I believe that the way to get the Board of Directors to add Online Voting is to boycott the upcoming members meeting and any future ones until the Board of Directors fulfills its fiduciary duty and adds Online Voting.

Who can add Electronic/Online Voting?

2 Replies

It seems that some members (including board members) are misinformed about who can add Electronic/Online voting in Florida and how.
I hope this information helps.

1. Statutory Authority for Electronic/Online Voting in Florida Associations

Homeowners’ Associations — Chapter 720

  • Florida Statutes §720.317 permits a homeowners’ association to conduct elections and other votes through an Internet-based online voting system if a member consents to online voting and applicable technical and procedural requirements are met.
  • The statute does not require a member vote to authorize online voting; instead, a board resolution is sufficient to authorize and implement the system and to establish consent and opt-out procedures.

Condominium Associations — Chapter 718

  • Florida Statutes §718.128 similarly permits a condominium association to conduct elections and votes by Internet-based online voting if a unit owner consents to vote electronically.
  • Importantly, this statute expressly allows the board to authorize online voting by resolution. Once adopted by the board, the resolution must set out notice, consent, and opt-out procedures.

Cooperative Associations — Chapter 719

  • A similar provision (§719.129) exists for cooperative associations that permits online voting under comparable terms (board authorization plus member/owner consent).

2. What This Change Means in Practice

Board Authority

  • Under these statutes, the board of directors can adopt online voting by passing a board resolution that authorizes an Internet-based voting system, establishes procedures, and obtains member consent.
  • A formal membership vote to adopt online voting is not required if the board acts within the statutory framework and complies with notice, consent, authentication, and procedural requirements.

Added on 2026-01-17 11:40 AM
And for those who still refuse to accept it and leave misinformation in comments on our Facebook page, see one of my replies to our board member, Steven Olsen.

“Given that membership is mandatory and assessments are lien-capable, Indian Hammock Hunt and Riding Club, Inc. meets the statutory definition of a Florida homeowners’ association under Chapter 720, even though it is incorporated under Chapter 617.

That point is decisive.

Bottom line (clear answer)

Yes. Under current Florida law, the Board of Directors may add an online (electronic) voting option without a membership vote, provided it follows the requirements of §720.317, Florida Statutes.

A member vote to “approve” online voting is not required.

Why this is legally correct

1. Chapter 720 controls

Because the Club is:

  • a Florida corporation,
  • with mandatory membership, and
  • lien-capable assessments,

it is a Chapter 720 HOA by definition, regardless of being styled as a “club” or incorporated under Chapter 617.

When Chapter 720 applies, it supersedes contrary bylaw provisions on voting methods to the extent of any conflict.

2. §720.317 expressly authorizes board action

Section 720.317, Florida Statutes (Electronic voting) provides that:

  • The association may conduct elections and membership votes using an Internet-based online voting system
  • “If the board of directors authorizes online voting by resolution” There is no requirement in the statute for a membership vote to adopt online voting.

What the Board must do (and must not do)

The Board must:

  1. Adopt a board resolution authorizing online voting
    • At a properly noticed board meeting
    • With at least 14 days’ notice
    • File an affidavit of notice in the official records
  2. Ensure consistency with the bylaws
    • Online voting must follow existing election rules (quorum, notice, secret ballot if required, etc.)
    • The board cannot change substantive voting rights—only the method
  3. Obtain individual member consent
    • Members must opt in (electronically or in writing)
    • Members must be allowed to opt out and vote by traditional means
  4. Use a compliant system
    • Secure authentication
    • Vote confirmation receipts
    • Ballot secrecy where required
    • Record retention for inspection and recounts

The Board does not need to:

  • Amend the bylaws to add online voting
  • Put the question to a membership vote
  • Obtain unanimous or majority member approval to authorize the system

Common misconceptions (and why they are wrong)

  • “We’re a club, not an HOA”
    → Incorrect. Chapter 720 applies based on function, not the name.
  • “Bylaws don’t allow online voting”
    → Chapter 720 authorizes it by statute; bylaws cannot prohibit what the statute permits.
  • “Members must vote to allow online voting”
    → Not under §720.317. Member consent to use online voting is required; member approval to authorize it is not.

Practical risk note

If the board implements online voting without strictly following the statutory steps (notice, affidavit, consent, system compliance), the vote can be challenged. But the authority to do it by board action is settled law.

Conclusion

Because Indian Hammock Hunt and Riding Club, Inc. is a mandatory-membership, lien-capable community, the Board of Directors is legally authorized under Florida law to implement online voting by board resolution alone, subject to §720.317’s procedural safeguards.

I HOPE THIS MAKES IT ALL VERY CLEAR
David Rtzion
Lot 246

Online Voting

Leave a reply

The current Indian Hammock’s Board of Directors resists requests to adopt online voting.
It is not my intention to debate why this BOD chose to do it.

My goal is to add online voting, not replace any of the existing voting methods.

I believe the only way to get Indian Hammock’s Board of Directors to adopt online voting is to boycott all general meetings and elections, including the upcoming one, until it is added.

I am going to do just this and call on any member who understands what’s going on and insist on adding the option of online voting to join me and to the same.

David Etzion Lot 246.

Autocycle War Instead of Online Voting

Leave a reply


Indian Hammock is now a thriving Residential Community with many Full-Time Residents.
 
I rode motorcycles for some 55 years and gave up before moving to Indian Hammock.

I applauded the A Team 2024 BOD for their work, as presented in the current Book of Rules Chapter 6. Driving Privilege (I still object to driving in IH being considered a “Privilege“)

I am too old to ride a two-wheel motorcycle, but I am considering an Autocycle, a Slingshot, which is currently allowed in Indian Hammock.

The B Team 2025 BOD seems ready to ignite a new war, the Autocycle War.
They are trying to amend Rule 6.4 Prohibited Vehicles to ban Autocycles like the SlingShot.

The B Team received repeated requests to put Online Voting on the BOD agenda.
Most members want Online Voting; see the last membership meeting numbers.

The B Team BOD is bent over dismantling the good work the A Team has done.
They devote their time and efforts to an Autocycle War and procrastinate on Online Voting. The B Team BOD doesn’t give a hoot about what the members want, the Online Voting.

Why does the B Team not expedite Online Voting? This is a breach of  BOD Fiduciary Duties, and I challenge members to explain where I am wrong in pointing this out.

And to those who still don’t know what an Autocycle is, please check out my favorite, the Slingshot. Two wheels in the front and a steering wheel, not a handlebar, require a regular driver’s license; no motorcycle endorsement is needed. It can not be driven on a dirt trail without being destroyed.

Governing and Managing Indian Hammock.

Leave a reply

What is Governing

Governing and Individualism are two opposing philosophies.
Governing is controlling Individualism.
Governing makes us live according to what the Governing one thinks is right.
Anything Governing is a “Beast” hungry for more power, laws, regulations, and control.

What is my Agenda

Governing is a necessary evil, but we should minimize Governing.
I campaign for changes leading to less governing by the Club BOD.
IH Members should strip the Club BOD governing to the bare minimum.
There must be a Club BOD in IH.
There must be a Professional Management Office in IH.

What should the Club BOD handle:

  • Hire a Professional General Manager to run the Management Office.
  • Sign contracts on behalf of IH.
  • Manage the Member’s Meetings.
  • Communicate with and Report to members.

The Management Office’s duties:

  • Ensure compliance with Florida Status 720 and all laws and regulations.
  • Guard the Club’s interests and ensure the Club BOD doesn’t fail to keep its Fiduciary Duties.
  • Carry out the daily administration and maintenance of the common areas.
  • Provide Membership Services.
  • Report to the Club BOD.
  • Report to the Members in Members Meetings.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly – Part Two.

Leave a reply

How I choose a GOOD one.

Members become candidates for the BOD to get something they want.
No one will serve on the board and “fight” for something I want unless they also want it.

Before voting for a candidate, I consider two things:

A.             What skills does the candidate possess?

I research the candidate’s management experience and business history. I don’t wholly rely on the candidates’ resumes; some will write what they believe will get them elected.
I consider my experience with any candidate who has already served on the board.
I also check two available sources.
1. For background check: https://www.truthfinder.com/dashboard
2. For further verification of skills:
https://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/ByOfficerOrRegisteredAgent 

B.             What is the Candidate’s current Agenda?

For candidates who already serve on the board and any long-time residents, I rely on how the candidate acted and his interests.
Agendas may be fluid and can change or be traded on a dime.
Candidates avoid declaring their current Agenda and use generic, politically correct phrases.  A candidate may say he doesn’t have an Agenda and runs only to serve the community; I see that as a red flag and a warning.

Choosing the GOOD one.

Usually, the lineup of candidates is a dozen or more, and I am asked to choose seven.
I never managed to find seven skillful candidates.
If elected, a candidate who lacks the required skills will be a BAD board member.
Acquiring the required skills will take longer than the twelve months on the board.
Next, I eliminate skillful candidates with agendas I can not live with.

The GOOD one is a Candidate with the required skills and one whose agenda I can live with.

Since joining IH in 2017, I have never found more than four GOOD ones to vote for in any yearly election.

For more entertainment, please see                The GOOD, The BAD, and the UGLY.

Meet the A Team

1 Reply

The 2024 Board Members who gave IH the Quail Barn and were placed on IH’s “Bad Boys” list.

David Bass.
Articulate professional David Bass led the IH BODs in 2023 and 2024.
The best president and BODs I have experienced in IH.   

Joe Coyle.
Master of valuable technologies, a great asset to IH.
Until his retirement, Joe held high executive positions in various corporations that appreciated his skills and contribution.
Joe served on several previous BODs under different Presidents, bringing IH to the “Internet age.”

Corey Miller.
The cool-headed, devoted Indian Hammock ex-Treasurer was probably the longest-serving BOD member.
Corey was a candidate for the 2025 BOD. Corey got elected but immediately gave up his seat.

Matt Rector.
Business Owner who served on many of the BODs and has experience as a board member.
Matt contributes a lot to IH, especially to the hunting community.

Tim Ward.
Business Owner. Indian Hammock’s own Gunsmith.