Category Archives: Board of Directors

Indian Hammock Homeowners Group

1 Reply

The Indian Hammock Hunt and Riding Club, Inc (the Club) is a Florida corporation formed on December 20, 1973.
In 1973 the Club filed Three governing documents:

  1. Articles of Incorporation.
  2. Declaration of Restrictions. (Amended and restated later, on November 2, 1998)
  3. The By Law.

These three documents established a governing system (the System) for the operation and governing of the Club.
A Forth Document, The Book of Rules or Club Rules, appeared much later.
It was not created with legal expertise and was changed and rewritten at will by the Club’s various Board of Directors.

The System was created to govern members utilizing the Club amenities like Hunting, Horse riding, Shooting, and Flying small Airplanes. Those members were camping on the bought lots or in weekend retreat bungalows.
No one can purchase a lot or a home in Indian Hammock without joining the Club.

About a quarter of Indian Hammock’s 3,600 acres was sold to members. The Club owns the remaining three quarters, with an obligation to manage the common areas for the benefit of all the members.
The members have “Ownership” of the common areas and the right to use them via their memberships in the Club.

Things have changed in half a century; we are now primarily a Residential Community of Homeowners, many living in Indian Hammock full time.
The System is unsuitable for Homeowners living in Indian Hammock full-time or part-time.

Over the years, the System developed a Club’s lawless culture, creating injustices like:

I am calling for forming an Indian Hammock Homeowners Group (the Group), consisting of homeowners who are ready to work together to change the existing System while following and obeying the three documents of 1973.

Until the System is changed, the Group will finance obtaining legal advice and take legal actions whenever the Club acts illegally or unjustly.

The Indian Hammock “Condo Commando”

Leave a reply

I was one of the recipients of chain of emails sent today by Ashley Zito.
I want to share it with Indian Hammock owners.

Dear Sandy,

FYI: I am glad that you finally decided to read IH Declarations to see the definition of what constitutes “Family” and what family can access in the community of Indian Hammock. This is what Stephanie Barnes and others have been saying to you all along. For the last year, I have been told that I am not allowed at the stables when I show up to feed my own horse and have recently been told that I am not even allowed to come to a stable committee meeting. My family has been verbally harassed by one of Indian Hammock’s own board members regarding me not being able to operate a side by side in this community, despite the fact that my husband of 13 years and mother whom we currently reside with both own properties here. Not to mention, there are countless other family members of this community that have been utilizing Indian Hammock amenities for years before you and I ever moved here. I do not think I am alone in saying that more than just myself want family to enjoy amenities in Indian Hammock. The inception of this community centered on that very purpose. Your verbal and written threats to send us violation letters regarding us breaking the rules for me driving to the stables to feed my own horse, were completely uncalled for. You certainly owe me and my family an apology as we continue to advocate for fair and just treatment for all members and family that hope to continue to enjoy Indian Hammock. 

Sincerely,

 Ashley Zito 

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Over the last few weeks I have had several questions/requests to allow family members (as defined in the Declarations and the rules) to go to the stable without being accompanied by the boarder. Most of the requests have been for adult children, but the Zitos would like for us to allow spouses also.
The SOP does not address family members at all. My proposal to you is to include a category for family members in the SOP. I am proposing that we allow adult family members who live with the boarder access to the stable to ride and care for their horses.
I have added the family category to the SOP that is attached to this email. See what you think. We can discuss it on Saturday.

FYI.
In the Declarations, Article 1  – this is the definition of a family

(h) “Family” means a natural person, his or her spouse, the children,
grandchildren, parents and the grandparents of each and their spouses.

The rules further define family and what they can access.

1.6.12. “Family”; is what is defined in the Declarations of restrictions and living with the
owner/member and the owner/member has given written permission for Family to
use roads and certain amenities and/or activities.

Thanks,
Sandy 
From: “Sandy Steinruck” <sandy.steinruck@ihammock.net>
To: “Joe Zito” <joe.zito@ihammock.net>
Cc: <ihammockmgr@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Permission Granted for (Boarding Horse) “Galahad” Zito
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 12:26:25 -0700

Joe, I submitted the violation.

Talk to you soon,

Sandy Steinruck
President
Indian Hammock Hunt and Riding Club

— joe.zito@ihammock.net wrote:

From: “” <joe.zito@ihammock.net>
To: “IH Manager” <ihammockmgr@gmail.com>, “Sandy Steinruck” <sandy.steinruck@ihammock.net>
Subject: Subject: Re: Permission Granted for (Boarding Horse) “Galahad” Zito
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 05:41:35 -0700

Sandy,Based on the information that you shared with me at yesterdays board meeting you stated that the reason that you are not able to appoint me as a stables chair is because of the fact that my wife “Ashley” is in violation of the rules because she has been visiting the stables as a guest. If that is true and your sure of this I ask that you please file a formal complaint against us for this violation. That way we can resolve this and move on with it. If she is not in violation of the rules then I ask that you drop this issue entirely and appoint me as co-chair as you previous stated that you would at the close of our July 3rd stables meeting. This is really a simple issue and if you stand behind your words and decision now is the time to back it up. I eagerly await a prompt response back on this.

Sincerely,
Joe ZitoBOD2021 

Joe, I am sorry if I hurt your feelings, as that was not my intention.Julio is very familiar with the horses and the stable and since we have had very few issues lately I think he will handle it just fine. As you recall I said I was concerned about having someone who did not live here and that was when you volunteered. Since I have gathered lots of information I think Julio will do fine, I don’t think we need co-chairs. There is not that much to do.

Unfortunately as you are aware we have this on-going issue with Ashley going to the stable as a guest. The rules clearly state that guests must be accompanied by a member at all times at the stable. I know you don’t like it. As a Board member it is our job to enforce the rules. Several people have had this same issue in the past. Each of them has fixed it by either being added to the deed or becoming a contractor with a license and insurance. Everyone else has followed the rules and several other stable boarders have complained about this, asking why she does not have to follow the rules. The answer is that she does have to follow the rules. We can not just change the rule because one member does not like it. It is the Committee Chair’s job to ensure others are following the rules. You can’t do that if your wife does not follow the rules.

I had the same issue with the Hunt Committee this year. The gentleman I wanted to chair the committee had cut a gate in the south fence line. Since he did not respect the rules I could not make him the chair person. How could he tell others to follow the rules when he was not following them?
Keep in mind that the role of the stable committee does not take much time and is very different than the role of the owner/manager of a stable. The owner/manager of a stable manages the employees and their work everyday. Our Stable Committee does not manage the employees or Bob. The employees do not work for the Stable Committee. I understand the confusion and several people have misunderstood the role of the Stable Committee. The Committee only makes recommendations regarding the horses and their quality of life. We don’t worry about how the employees do their jobs or what they do. That is Bob’s role. The stable committee is a group of boarders who can make recommendations to Bob and the Board on topics such as we discussed in the meeting on July 3. They look at items such as the facilities, communication, horse feed, fly spray, and how excess money is spent. They have no power, just lots of opinions relating to the health and safety of their horses. They also let Bob know if a boarder is not following the rules. In the last few years the Stable Committee has spent the excess stable funds from previous years and made several improvements at the stable. We added large pads in the west pastures to give the horses high spots to get out of the water, improved the drainage in the west pastures, planted 12 trees in the east pasture, provided shelter for the horses in all the pastures, added water and wash racks at the different barns, put concrete and mats in front of the tack room, put lights in the arena, put power and lights in the barns and bought hay for the last few years. This last year the Stable Committee recommended that the Hammock rebuild the paddocks at the horse hospital and at the east and west barns. At the last Finance Workshop I lobbied for the Arena, the fence around the north pasture and the bathroom in the Tack Room based upon the committee’s recommendations.

We don’t need co-chairs on the Stable committee, where we really need help is on the Equestrian Committee. That committee has a much larger role than the Stable committee. We talked about a Dressage ring – it would be the equestrian committee who would create that. We also need to increase the equestrian community involvement to encourage them to contribute money to pay for the arena improvement. The arena project will be led by an equestrian on the Equestrian Committee because it is for all equestrians not just the stable boarders. The Finance Committee offered $6000 via matching funds to purchase clay or other dirt to improve the footing in the arena.The employees with level and disc the arena for no additional cost. (That may change as we go through the approval process.) I think you offered to lead the effort at the meeting to define what needs to be done and to lead the fund raising. We need your help here and this is a better opportunity for you since you know something about arena footings and it gives you and opportunity to make a difference in the Hammock for all the equestrians. What do you think?

Sandy Steinruck
President
Indian Hammock Hunt and Riding Club

— joe.zito@ihammock.net wrote:

From: “” <joe.zito@ihammock.net>
To: “Sandy Steinruck” <sandy.steinruck@ihammock.net>
Subject: Re: Permission Granted for (Boarding Horse) “Galahad” Zito
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2021 12:11:33 -0700

Sandy,Thank you for sending me that correction.Regarding the issue of non-boarders or Family members the SOP currently states that if Ashley adheres to one or any of the listed provisions stated in section #3. she has permission to care for our horse. It does not say that she has to obtain additional insurance. She is not an outsider and/or an additional liability to the hammock. She is a family member or in this case a “non boarder”. I’m not sure why this is such an issue? Maybe you can explain why my wife’s presence or her use of the stables is such an issue with you, Bob or anybody else?   Regarding your motion to remove me as co-chair,  I find this to be truly unprofessional, and utterly disrespectful. I personally show you and others the utmost respect regardless if I agree with your point of view or not. However, if I or somebody else doesn’t agree with your point of view or interpretation you are going to assert your authority and make changes to what was previously agreed to from our last meeting? I have been asked by many to Chair or Co-Chair this committee as I feel qualified and ready to help the stables to improve and to continue to approve in the upcoming months. I ask that you reconsider your motion to remove me as co-chair considering the way this has all played out. 
Sincerely,
Joe ZitoBOD2021
— sandy.steinruck@ihammock.net wrote:

From: “Sandy Steinruck” <sandy.steinruck@ihammock.net>
To: “Sandy Steinruck” <sandy.steinruck@ihammock.net>
Cc: <joe.zito@ihammock.net>, <ihammockmgr@gmail.com>, <steinruk@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Permission Granted for (Boarding Horse) “Galahad” Zito
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2021 17:12:22 -0700

Joe, In the Rules paragraph 2.3 states

2.3.All committee meetings shall be open to all Owners and/or permitted Family. Written minutes of each meeting shall be provided to the members of the Board monthly and kept on file at office. All actions of a Committee shall be done by recorded motion.

This means that Ashley is welcome to attend committee meetings even though she is not a member.

I apologize for the error.

Thanks,
Sandy Steinruck
President
Indian Hammock Hunt and Riding Club

— sandy.steinruck@ihammock.net wrote:

From: “Sandy Steinruck” <sandy.steinruck@ihammock.net>
To: “” <joe.zito@ihammock.net>
Cc: <ihammockmgr@gmail.com>, <steinruk@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Permission Granted for (Boarding Horse) “Galahad” Zito
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 12:59:02 -0700

Joe, i am sorry because you and I talked about this. It clearly says that no guest is allowed at the stable without a member accompanying them. The non-boarder statement does not contradict that. The non-boarder statement allows non-boarders to take care of other horses. It does not state that guests are allowed to take care of other horses.

This situation has occurred several times in the past. Joey Mohanna was added to George Abraham’s deed so she could keep horses at the stable and take care of them. Hilaire Hodgson and Katy Baker got their licenses and insurance so they could keep horses at the stable and take care of them. Eventually Katy’s name was added to the title on one of their lots. We have to be consistent and treat Ashley the same way we treated the other 3 ladies. Another option is for Ashley to get her license and insurance to care of horses at the stable.

Non-members are not allowed in any committee meetings or the board meetings. Because Ashley is not a member she is not invited to the stable committee meetings. The meeting we had a couple weeks ago was a meeting of the boarders and was not a committee meeting.

I am feeling much more comfortable with Juilio as the Stable Committee chair even though he is not a resident. At this point in time I don’t think we need a co-chair so Julio will be the Stable Committee Chair person. Thank you for volunteering.

Thank you,

Sandy Steinruck
President
Indian Hammock Hunt and Riding Club

— joe.zito@ihammock.net wrote:

From: “” <joe.zito@ihammock.net>
To: “IH Manager” <ihammockmgr@gmail.com>, “Sandy Steinruck” <sandy.steinruck@ihammock.net>
Subject: Re: Permission Granted for (Boarding Horse) “Galahad” Zito
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 07:04:33 -0700

Bob,I can see where it can be easily interpreted that any “non member” should not be given rights to the stables without written notice and supervision. However, Section 3 clearly states provisions for “non boarders” with any of the following qualifications (A,B,C,D) (ATTACHED)This SOP is poorly written, contradicts itself in places, and to be honest is not easily understood by many. That is why updating our current SOP is one of my agendas to clear things up to make all of our jobs easier moving forward. I hope this puts an end to any misunderstandings regarding my wife’s involvement at the stables for feeding and caring for our horses.

Sincerely,
Joe ZitoBOD 2021 

— ihammockmgr@gmail.com wrote:

From: IH Man;”””””””””””;’/ager <ihammockmgr@gmail.com>
To: joe.zito@ihammock.net, Sandy Steinruck <sandy.steinruck@ihammock.net>
Subject: Re: Permission Granted for (Boarding Horse) “Galahad” Zito
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2021 15:01:27 -0400

July 12, 2021Joe,On May 18th you sent to me a letter allowing your wife to care for your horses at the stables. After reviewing the stable sop, guests are not allowed in the stable area unless they are with a member border.
 The sop reads as follows, Under 1. b. All guests at the Indian Hammock stable and related equine facilities must have a signed liability release from the guest and written permission from the horse owner on file in the office. They must be accompanied by a Boarder at all times. Under 2.  .    The terms “visitor” and “guest” as used throughout these rules and procedures shall refer to anyone who is not a Member. 
The office has been trying to work with you and Ashley for some time now to have her put on the deed to approve her as a member. The last document we received from Ashley and Mrs. Sewell, was a warranty deed. This document looks to be filled out properly and all that needs to be done is to file it with the clerk of courts. Once that has been done we can then put her on the agenda for the board to approve her as a member. Until then unfortunately she is a guest/ family member. Stables, hunting, shooting sports are only allowed by members, and all guests must be accompanied by a boarder/member. 
If you have any questions or concerns please let me know.
Thanks,
Robert Baum,ManagerIndian Hammock Hunt & Riding Club, Inc.CAM41705

On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 12:17 PM <joe.zito@ihammock.net> wrote:
I, Joseph Zito,grant my wife, Ashley Zito, permission to care for our horse Galahad Zito at Indian Hammock Stables.Please keep this on file at the Indian Hammock Office for future reference.  Sincerely, Joseph Zito<Stable SOP V2 Updated July 2021.docx>

The Club’s BOD thinks it has the EXCLUSIVE Authority on the Owners’ Lots.

1 Reply

Earlier this month, I contacted the members of our BOD to discuss Rule 1-1. None of the seven BOD members came forward to support my “radical idea” that …The members have the exclusive responsibility and Authority in the management and maintenance of their lots and the club shall have exclusive responsibility and Authority in the management and maintenance of the Common Areas… should replace  Rule 1-1 …The club shall have exclusive responsibility and Authority in the management and maintenance of the Property, including Common Areas…

On the contrary, in her  February 9, 2021  email, the BOD’s President advised me as follow: …“You are proposing that Rule 1-1 be changed to “The members have the exclusive responsibility and authority in the management and maintenance of their lots and the club shall have exclusive responsibility and authority in the management and maintenance of the Common Areas”  You are correct that the Board can change the Rules. However if the rule was changed as you have proposed then it would not be consistent with the Declarations”…

The deafening silence of six BOD members and the President’s response represents the BOD’s wrong and illegal interpretation of the Declaration Of Restrictions.

Unfortunately, the Club’s BOD is under the delusional belief that they, the BOD and not the Owners, have the Exclusive Authority on the 299 residential lots. Or the BOD prefers the “power grab” its illegal interpretation, and Rule 1-1 will allow it. None of these two possibilities is acceptable, and no effort should be spared until Rule 1-1 is changed or removed.

Fellow Owners, your silence is an acceptance that the  BOD, not you, has Exclusive Authority on your lots. Join us in demanding that the BOD relinquish its illegal “power grab” as declared in  Rule 1-1

David Etzion

Lot 246

Rule 1-1 and Interpretations to the Declaration of Restrictions

2 Replies

The Declaration of Restrictions is the Club’s most important legal document.
When the BOD and Owners argue about the Declaration of Restrictions, each side presents his interpretation of the Declaration of Restrictions.

One must evaluate if any interpretation is illegal and in conflict with Federal or State law; an interpretation that conflicts with Federal or State laws cannot be considered.

I do not have a problem with the Declaration of Restrictions; I have a problem with the Club’s BOD illegal interpretation as presented in Rule 1-1 in the Book of Rules.

The BOD’s wrong interpretation of the Declaration of Restriction goes against Federal and State property laws and cannot be considered.

The Declaration of Restriction states:
“the Club was expressly created to have exclusive responsibility and authority in the management and maintenance of Indian Hammock Hunt and Riding Club (the “Property”),”

My interpretation is as follow:
When the Club was created in 1973, it held all the deeds to the Common Areas and the 299 numbered lots; therefore, this statement did not contradict any Federal or State laws.
Each time the Club sold one of the 299 numbered lots to an Owner, the Club also transferred the exclusive responsibility and authority to the Owner, the new holder of a Fee Simple deed to the lot.

Suppose the Declaration of Restrictions’ goal is for the Club to retain forever the exclusive responsibility and authority on the 299 numbered lots, as Rule 1-1 implies. In that case, the Declaration of Restrictions should have said, “the Club will have exclusive responsibility and authority in the management and maintenance of Indian Hammock Hunt and Riding Club (the “Property”).” and the Club will not be able to sell the numbered lots. The Club may be able to rent them to Members, and the Club could not transfer any of the deeds.

This Rule 1-1 is the most critical issue in IH; it represents BOD’s attitude that cannot be tolerated by Owners and must be speedily removed from the Book of Rules.

The BOD must consult its lawyer before brushing off the Owners’ interpretations; if this issue is not settled amicably, then an impartial legal firm should be obtained by the disputing Owners and the BOD. Not following this route will lead to Owners being forced to litigation, a painful and costly exercise for the Owners, not so much for the BOD members.

Fellow Owners, please let me know if you agree and ready to discuss our options.

David Etzion
Lot 246
Indian Hammock Owners’ Voice
https://IHMyHome.com
Indian Hammock Owners’ Rights
https://www.facebook.com/groups/188079885581793

OWNER vs. MEMBER and “Book of Rules” Rule 1-1

2 Replies

When one buys a lot in Indian Hammock, he becomes an OWNER. He holds a “Fee Simple” deed to his PROPERTY.

Each OWNER undertook to become a MEMBER in Indian Hammock Hunt and Ridding Club (the CLUB).

When an OWNER becomes a MEMBER in the CLUB, it makes him subject to the CLUB’s administrative rules and regulations; it also gives him RIGHTS in the CLUB’s PROPERTY, the COMMON AREAS
On the other hand, being a MEMBER in the CLUB does not give the CLUB any RIGHT in the OWNER’s PROPERTY.

Federal and State Property Laws protect the OWNER’S EXCLUSIVE authority in his PROPERTY.
The OWNER’s RIGHTS are only restricted by the County zoning and usage codes and the CLUB DEED’s RESTRICTIONS.

In December 2020, the CLUB’s BOD adopted Rule 1-1 in its Book of Rules, stating the following: “The club shall have exclusive responsibility and authority in the management and maintenance of the Property, including Common Areas”

Rule 1-1 transfers all of the OWNER’s RIGHTS in his PROPERTY, granting them to the CLUB’s BOD.

The following is the legal definitions of EXCLUSIVE:
“Shutting out; debarring from interference or participation; vested in one person alone. An exclusive right is one which only the grantee thereof can exercise, and from which all others are prohibited or shut out. A statute does not grant an “exclusive” privilege or franchise, unless it shuts out or excludes others from enjoying a similar privilege or franchise.”

I call on OWNERS to join me in motivating the BOD to immediately remove Rule 1-1 from the current Book of Rules.

David Etzion
Lot 246

A motion to have up to five chickens, no rooster

1 Reply

On January 17, 2021, in our Annual Members Meeting, one of the members initiated a motion to amend the Declaration of Restrictions to allow up to five chickens, no Rooster, per residential dwelling.

The members voted as follow:

YES      168

NO       53

I am thrilled that out of the 221 votes, 76% SUPPORT and WANT members to have chickens in IH, with the limitation of a maximum of five and no Rooster.

Unfortunately, to change the outdated 1973 Deed Restriction, we legally need 200 votes out of the 299 total IH available votes.

Our request can be better conveyed to the 299 total possible votes in IH.

IH lawyer should prepare a suitable document, with the motion to amend the Declaration of Restrictions, to allow “up to five chickens, no Rooster,  per residential dwelling .”

This document should be email or snail-mailed by the BOD to each of the 299 voting members of IH.

I hope that IH’s local governing body, being the BOD, realizes that if a YES got 76% of the votes and a NO got 24% of the votes, they have to get involved and serve the members’ wishes.

I am ready to meet and discuss it with any member of our “fresh” 2021 BOD.

I also ask you to support me, contact our BOD members, and motivate them to serve the members’ wishes.

Thank you

David Etzion
Lot 246

What I want to achieve and what I will use GoFundMe for.

3 Replies

What needs to be fixed

Indian Hammocks Hunt and Riding Club (IH) Declaration of Restriction and By-Laws were created in 1973 by the Developers, protecting the Developers’ interests and vision for IH.
Amenities that did not exist in 1973 are now essential and changed the way communities operate.
Since 1973 IH has transformed from a Hidden Weekend Retreat lots and cabins to mostly full-time and some part-time residences of an outdoor-oriented community.
IH Owners’ needs changed, and the Governing Documents need to be revised and updated to accommodate the technologies and demographic changes that took place since 1973.
The outdated documents and IH members’ apathy allowed the IH BOD to overstep their authority and caused erosion in IH Owners’ rights.  

What I want to achieve

As of November 2019, I am campaigning for IH’s Owners’ Rights and got to the stage where actions and finance are needed to achieve important goals.

I will use GoFundMe to benefit the IH members, desiring changes in IH outdated Declarations of Restrictions and By-Laws and looking for restoring and protecting the Owners’ rights in Indian Hammock.

These are the three issues/goals I intend to address.

1. Restore and Promote Owner’s rights on his Lot:

We already have three Governmental bodies imposing Restrictions and Laws, limiting individuals’ usage of their privately owned Lot.
We have Federal Laws, State Laws, and County Laws.
It makes no difference if one believes that there are too many of these Laws or not enough; we cannot change or remove any of these Laws or Restrictions by voting in IH.
I believe that we should not further restrict Owners on what they can do or can’t do on their Lot.
I believe we should not add more laws and restrictions in a fourth, lower governmental body, being IH Club and its Board of Directors (BOD).
The BOD should not be allowed to establish any Guideline, Law, or Restriction concerning an Owner’s Lot; we have enough of those imposed by the Federal, State, and County

Let remove the Laws and Restrictions imposed on Owners’ Lot by IH Club and the BOD.

2. Enforcement in Indian Hammock to be done by Okeechobee County:

IH does not have the workforce or the financial resources, and many times the BOD lacks the interest to enforce the restrictions and laws.
This fact creates selective enforcement, total injustice, and a high level of animosity and mistrust.
The management or any objecting Owner can refer all alleged violations to Okeechobee County.

3. Limiting the BOD control in the Common Area:

The BOD will have the authority to manage the common area.
The BOD should only administrate and maintain the common area.
The BOD should not be allowed to make any changes to the common area’s usage without obtaining 200 or more votes supporting such change.
The BOD Should not issue any law or restriction in contradiction to the Declaration of Restriction or the By-Laws.

What will be paid for by “GoFundMe”

A.  Obtain and maintain Email Marketing Software to keep supporting owners informed.
B.  Hire legal services to:
      1.   Research IH Documents.
      2.   Established the legal procedures to amend IH documents in the spirit of the above set goals.
      3.   Prepare proxies requests to obtain 200 votes for each required change.
      4.   Deal with the BOD to secure the amendments to the Declaration of Restriction and By-Laws.

Join me if you agree.

David Etzion
Lot 246

GoFundMe

Leave a reply

This GoFundMe will be used to benefit the members of Indian Hammocks Hunt and Riding Club (IH), desiring changes in IH outdated Declarations of Restrictions and By-Laws and looking for restoring and protecting the Owners’ rights in Indian Hammock.

IH Declaration of Restriction and By-Laws were created in 1973 by the Developers, protecting the Developers’ interests and their vision for Indian Hammock.
Amenities that did not exist in 1973 are now essential and changed the way communities operate.
Since 1973 Indian Hammock transformed from a Hidden Weekend Retreat lots and cabins to mostly full-time and some part-time residences of an outdoor-oriented community.
The needs of Indian Hammock Owners changed, and the Governing Documents need to be revised and be updated to accommodate the technologies and demographic changes that took place since 1973.

The outdated documents and IH members’ apathy allowed the IH Boards of Directors to overstep their authority and caused severe erosion in IH Owners’ rights.  

As of November 2019, I was personally campaigning for IH’s Owners’ Rights and got to the stage where actions are needed to achieve our goals.

I cannot do it without your help, which will enable us to obtain professional channels of communication and the legal advice and actions necessary.

Please join me in these critical tasks.

David Etzion
Lot 246

Response to IH BOD proposed version of the “Book of Rules.”

1 Reply

2020-10-19
Dear Board of Directors (BOD)
The following is my response to your latest proposed version of the “Book of Rules.”

Page 4.
General Rules:
1.1. You don’t have the “exclusive responsibility and authority in the management and maintenance” of my lot 246, which is part of “the property.”
I have such responsibility and authority.

1.2. You are missing the main point; this is the place to make a statement:
No rule shall apply if it contradicts or violates the Declaration of Restrictions.

1.6.10 “Rules and regulations adopted by the Board” does not regulate activities on my lot 246. Only the Declaration of Restrictions and the By-Laws do.

Page 7
7.3 Unattended Status:
7.3.1.3 Total nonsense. You can’t block my access to my Lot 246; I am entitled to free access 24 hours, seven days a week each day of the year.

Page 8
8. Driving Privileges.
Driving is Owner’s Right, subject to Florida Laws.
No BOD can take away my right, and replace it with a “privilege”, to drive from the gate to my lot 246.

Page 11
Property Use:
11.1 This is an admission and announcement by the BOD that they will continue to ignore and violate the Declaration of Restrictions when the BOD allows itself to do so.

The BODs are “struggling” to justify that in contradiction to currently existing rule 27, they violated the Declaration of Restrictions and entered into a contract for picking palmetto berries; they have done it in 2019 and again in 2020.

Adding the words “for the financial benefits of the club” has no meaning or weight, BOD, you govern within the power limitations instated by the Declaration of Restrictions, or you are a renegade BOD fabricating laws to amend the Declaration of Restriction without obtaining 2/3 of the owner votes.

11.2 The BOD states that the Declaration of Restrictions forbids Berries Picking but makes a rule that allows Berries Picking.

Page 11
13. Animal Restrictions
13.1 The BOD is adding a Restriction camouflaged as a Rule.
This Restriction can’t be enforced without amending the Declaration of Restrictions with the required 2/3 owners’ votes

Page 12
15.1.7 If the Tenant is not allowed to use Indian Hammock amenities (see page 13 paragraph 15.3.1), why should the owner also give away his right to use Indian Hammock amenities?

Page 14
Paragraph 16.
This issue is covered in The Declaration of Restrictions.
It should not be rewritten here.

David Etzion
Lot 246

https://ihmyhome.wordpress.com

Upcoming Election – Asking for Proxies’ Holders Names and the number of proxies.

1 Reply

January 2019 election was determined by:
Proxies Used and Unused – 115 of 299, being 38.5% of the voting power.
In Attendance – 81 of 299, being 27.1% of the voting power.
(103 Votes, being 34.4%, did not participate in any way.)

In the January 2019 election, a candidate needed 79 or more votes to win a board seat.
The bigger three or so proxies’ holders can determine the outcome of the election,
agreeing which candidates they will jointly support and put on the BOD.

Our documents allow this faulty Election System and should be changed to establish a much better-updated system that will incorporate computers, the internet, emails, video conference, etc. All were not in existence when Indian Hammock documents were written.
It probably will take years to achieve these changes, as it requires 2/3 of the voting power

My goal and the reason for this posting is to achieve some transparency BEFORE the upcoming election.
I call on the BOD to publish and advertise the names of the five biggest proxies’ holders in each of the last three elections and the number of proxies each had.
I call on the BOD to make it a standard procedure to provide this information each year.

I understand this is not a “priority” for the BOD members who may enjoy the current system.

If you wish to bring a little transparency to the upcoming election, help put the pressure on the BOD and join me in demanding the list of names and the number of proxies each had.