Category Archives: The Duty to Act within the Scope of Authority

Meet the B Team.

The governing body of Indian Hammock (IH) is the Board of Directors (BOD). 
Every type and size of government must be watched by the governed.

Barbara Roberts
– 2025 BOD (IH Government) President.
Barbara’s governing style: “The new board can do whatever they decide.”
(Declared on 2025-02-15 Saturday morning Hunting Committee Meeting.)

Carla Sapp – 2025 BOD (IH Government) First Vice President. 
Carla’s governing style: “Go ahead and sue us; we are insured.”
(Declared on 2025-02-15 Saturday morning Hunting Committee Meeting.)
Carla’s known conflict of interests:
Carla’s husband, Ron Sapp. – Indian Hammock’s property manager.
Carla’s brother, Danny Brewer. – Indian Hammock’s Maintenance Contractor.

The B Team’s controlled BOD – 2025 first three months report.

  • Lost the long-standing services of IH’s trusted treasurer, Corey Miller.
  • Complaints about Forced resignation/dismissal of IH manager Matt Dorriety.
  • The Quail Barn Special Members Meeting fiasco.
  • Complaints about concealing, deceiving, and lack of transparency.
  • Complaints about self-serving and conflict of interests.
  • Complaints about violating Florida statute 720.
  • A “painful to watch” Search Committee Zoom meeting.
  • Ignore requests to put the online voting on BOD’s Agenda.
  • Complaints about secret BOD meetings and destroying incriminating documents.

Anyone observing the situation should recognize the damage done to the Club’s reputation. Enlighten yourself, please follow the links:

The Quail Barn War
The Quail Barn War – Comments
Matthew Rector reporting BOD violations
March 10 Ad Hoc Search Committee Zoom Meeting
March 10 Ad Hoc Search Committee Zoom Meeting – Comments
Mike Dixon reporting BOD violations and the destruction of incriminating records.

Your comments and suggestions are welcome and needed.

Matthew Rector Lot 256 complaint – Indian Hammock BOD violations.

This is a complaint submitted under Article XIII, Section 2 of the Indian Hammock Declaration of Restrictions. I expect to receive a written response within 30 days of the date of this letter in accordance with the Declaration of Restrictions.

Dear Barbara Roberts,

     I heard that the “Special Members Meeting” was cancelled by the BOD:

  1. Please identify the time, date and attending BOD Members when they met to vote on this cancellation.

       2. Please provide when and where notification of this meeting was posted on the website as required by FS720303 (4) OFFICIAL RECORDS (m), and how it complied with FS720.303 (2) BOARD MEETINGS (a) (b) and (c) 1

       3. I am hereby officially requesting the minutes of that meeting as per FS720.3032 (3) MINUTES.  As per FS720.303 (5) (a) I will expect to receive these documents within 10 days.

  While on the subject, please provide the same information for the BOD meeting that occurred with a Burn Boss in the outback immediately after the last BOD meeting at the lodge. That burn meeting was conducting Hammock business, had witnesses including law enforcement, and was NOT disclosed at the BOD meeting held earlier. As you are well aware, per FS720.202 (2) BOARD MEETINGS  (a) A meeting of the board of directors of an association occurs whenever a quorum of the board gathers to conduct association business.

    At the BOD meeting held at the lodge, I spoke before the BOD and officially notified them of the Rule Violation committed by one of the Hunt Committee Co-Chairs. The Hunt Committee Co-Chair admitted his violation freely while speaking about this matter to the BOD. Please disclose what steps have been taken so far regarding that rule violation, and if as stated in the Meeting one or more Members of the BOD encouraged him to violate the IH rules in this matter. At that meeting, I also asked about the meeting that you, Albert Rossodivita, and Carla Sapp held with the Manager in his office. It seems you three IH officers apparently made him stay after normal working hours and had a meeting to inform him of new work requirements not stated on his original contract. He resigned shortly thereafter. Since such modifications of the Manager’s contract can only be a BOD decision, I request the same information referenced above regarding that meeting.

 Furthermore, I hereby request per the same information cited above regarding when the BOD met to appoint Ron Sapp, the Vice-President’s husband, as the new IH Manager. I question why that information has not been posted on the website as required. Additionally, as per HB1203 the following information should have already have been posted on the website regarding Association Managers:

·  Provide the members of the homeowners’ association the following information, post the information on the homeowner association’s website or application as required by section 720.303(4)(b), Florida Statutes, and update the information within 14 business days of any changes:

  • Name and contact information for each community association manager or representative assigned to the homeowners’ association.
  • Hours of availability.
  • Summary of the duties performed by the community association manager or representative.

        ·  Provide a copy of the contract between the community association manager or firm and the homeowners’ association to any member upon request. The contract must be included with the homeowners’ association’s official records.

    Finally, yesterday you fired the current Manager Matt Doherty, who gave a 60 day notice as per his contract, five weeks before he was scheduled to leave. You took his access card, keys and had Ron Sapp drive him home, seemingly in an attempt to humiliate him. I challenge your authority to do so, as that is necessarily a BOD decision. I find it to be a despicable act by you and anyone else involved. I demand you provide when that BOD meeting occurred. I am hereby officially requesting the minutes of that meeting as per FS720 as cited previously, and have that information posted on the website. The entire Membership needs to be informed of your actions, and how each and every BOD Member voted. You swore an oath to uphold our rules and Florida statues, as did every other BOD member. Violations of the Statutes in FS720 are criminal, and I believe they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. To whit:

FS720.3033 (5)(d) Any director or member of the board or association or a community association manager who knowingly, willfully, and repeatedly violates paragraph (a), with the intent of causing harm to the association or one or more of its members, commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. For purposes of this paragraph, the term “repeatedly” means two or more violations within a 12-month period.

FS720.3033 (5)(f) Any person who willfully and knowingly refuses to release or otherwise produce association records with the intent to avoid or escape detection, arrest, trial, or punishment for the commission of a crime, or to assist another person with such avoidance or escape, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

   It is very unfortunate that it seems the current BOD has been acting in a manner inconsistent with the intent of our documents, Florida Law, and the best interest of the Community. I personally consider your actions regarding our Manager Matt Doherty, including his firing yesterday, to be absolutely and completely unconscionable. By all appearances, you have acted in a grossly negligent manner on multiple occasions. It seems you have not considered the ramifications of your actions, and their negative effect on all Members of the Club and the Indian Hammock Community. 

Sincerely,
Matthew Rector
Lot 256

Upcoming March 2025 Special Members Meeting.

Fellow members, I have just sent this email to our Board of Directors.
This is an important meeting for all of us.
Please share your input and opinions with the members of our new board of directors.

My email:
Subject: Upcoming March 2025 Special Members Meeting.

Dear Barbara Roberts and Board Members.
You called for a Members Meeting to vote on a single motion.

Consideration of and vote on an Amendment to Declaration of Restrictions of Indian Hammock Hunt and Riding Club, to approve the construction of the quail barn at its current location, however, would further provide that no new buildings may be constructed on common area lands in the future unless the construction of the building is first approved by a vote of 2/3 of the membership.

I can’t vote on the above motion, as it combines two opposing issues.
I say YES to approving the construction of the quail barn.
I say NO to amending the declaration of restrictions and adding the restriction you are proposing.

Others will have the same problem, including those who disagree with me and wish to say no to approving the construction of the quail barn and yes to amending the declaration of restrictions and adding the restriction you propose.

Please consider splitting the issues on hand into two separate motions.

First motion:
To approve the construction of the quail barn at its current location.
This decision will be made by a simple majority of votes.

Second motion:
An amendment to the Declaration of Restrictions states that no new buildings may be constructed on common area lands unless the construction receives prior approval through a vote of two-thirds of the membership.
This amendment will require 200 votes to pass.

Respectfully.
David Etzion
Lot 246

Barbara Roberts
barbara.roberts@ihammock.net
Carla Sapp
carla.sapp@ihammock.net
Albert Rossodivita
albert.rossodivita@ihammock.net
Max Kolshak
kolshak@ihammock.net
Mary Jo Barkaszi
maryjo.barkaszi@ihammock.net
Babette Gildemeyer
babette.gildemeyer@ihammock.net
Steven Olsen
stevie.olsen@ihammock.net

Why am I running for the 2025 IH BOD?

From David Etzion Lot 246

I bought lot 246 in June 2017.
I did not pay much attention to the club documents and did not check or have any idea how the Club is operating.  
I built our new home in IH and moved Full-time in September 2018.

On December 15, 2019, during the club’s BOD meeting, the BOD stunned my wife Gloria and me, bringing Gloria to tears.  
Without following any procedures set up in the Club’s documents, without any notice or warning, the BOD announced that I had committed a violation, Issued a Fine on the spot, canceled my scheduled membership service for a second entrance, and disapproved a Building Application Packet that followed all requirements.

The following month was undeserved hell inflicted on my wife and me by the Club’s BOD. Hours of pleading, repleading, and arguing our case with the 2019 BOD led nowhere.

On January 19, 2020, the newly elected BOD reversed the ruling of the 2019 BOD, acknowledging that it was wrong and not in compliance with the Declaration of Restrictions or the By-Laws.

I realized the damage and abuse any BOD can bring to the property owner.

I made it my mission in IH to protect property owners from abuse by members of the board of directors.

In January 2020, I started a website, Indian Hammock Owners’ Voice, and a Facebook group, Indian Hammock Owners’ Rights.
For over four years, I have been a crusader against BOD violation of property owner rights.

I am fully transparent and say what I think. What I stand for is published on my website and the Facebook group page. Some members love it, and some hate it. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

If elected to the board, my Goal will be to protect the property owners’ rights to sole responsibility and control over their 299 Lots.
We bought all of these lots from the club, and these 299 lots can only be restricted by Federal regulations, Florida State Regulations, Okeechobee Regulations, and the IH Declaration of Restrictions.

My second goal will be to promote ways for individuals to use their lots and for the Club to utilize common ground to increase sustainability in Indian Hammock.

My third goal is to convince the BOD members to follow “Live and Let Live,” not just say it. This golden rule governs everyone and requires a lot of tolerance.

I am not a Hunter; I don’t hunt or shoot birds, but I will support the hunter’s community in improving their facilities as long as they finance such improvements.
I regretfully don’t own a horse and don’t ride, but I will support the equestrian community in improving their facilities as long as they finance such improvements.
Members with conflicting interests must compromise on using and developing the Club’s common ground and facilities.

In short, MY AGENDA:
Property Owners’ rights
Sustainability
Live and Let Live

Respectfully
David Etzion
Lot 246

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Declaration of Restrictions is the Law in Indian Hammock.

The Declaration of Restrictions is what its name implies, Restrictions, taking away some of the Individual Owner/Member’s Rights, in order to create a livable Community.

The Declaration of Restrictions contains all of the Deed Restrictions and it is the only document a Deed Restrictions can be placed.
Deed Restrictions cannot be amended, added, or removed without being voted on by the Owners and getting a 2/3 majority vote of the Owners.

The Declaration of Restrictions also contains those Guidelines, Rules and Regulations which cannot be added to, removed from, or amended without being voted on by the Owners and getting a 2/3 majority vote of the Owners.

The Declaration of Restrictions protects the individual Owner/Member’s rights by establishing that any future restriction on individual Owner/Member’s rights can not be done without being voted on by the Owners and getting a 2/3 majority vote of the Owners.

The Declaration of Restrictions Article XII – General Provision; Section 3. says: “The Club, by two thirds (2/3) vote of approval of the membership, may modify, amend or add to this Declaration of Restrictions.”

The 2019 Florida Statutes 720.306; Section (b) says: “Unless otherwise provided in the governing documents or required by law, and other than those matters set forth in paragraph (c), any governing document of an association may be amended by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the voting interests of the association.”

The Declaration of Restrictions only gave the Board of Directors the authority to create Rules and Regulations relating to administration and management, as long as those Rules and Regulations are not in conflict with the Declarations of Restrictions.
Only such Rules and Regulations can be voted in by the majority of the Board of Directors.

What is this fight about?

Let us start with definitions:

Restrictions – Individual Owner’s Rights that Owners agreed to sacrifice in order to create a livable community. Restrictions should be kept to the bare minimum; only 2/3 Majority of Owners’ vote can add, remove, or amend a restriction.

Restrictions are part of the Declaration of Restrictions.
Example of a Restriction is the “50’ No Build Zone” in the Declaration of Restrictions, Article Viii Section 3:
“No Building shall be erected on any Residential lot closer than 50’ to the front, side or rear lot lines…”

Rules – Managerial, Administrative and Operational Regulations that do not take away Individual Owner’s Rights.

Rules can’t be in conflict with the Declaration of Restrictions or the By-Laws.
Rules are suggested by the BOD to the Owners for discussions and are voted in by the BOD. Rules are part of the BOD Book of Rules.
An example of a Rule is the “Establishing of Committees”  in the Book of Rules 1. General paragraph 2.1
“The Board shall at its first meeting of the New Year, establish by written resolution its committees for the coming year (“Committee or Committees”) and the role of each Committee”

What are we fighting for and why.

Over the years when the BODs did not believe they would get the required 2/3 Majority Owners vote, chose to pass Restrictions disguised as Rules, and incorporated them in the Book of Rules.
This practice illegally shifted Power and Rights from the Owners to the BODs.
The goal is to restore this power and rights back to the Owners by forcing the BOD to cancel those illegal Rules; alternatively, the BOD can try to get the required 2/3 majority vote of the Owners.

The goal is to Restore power and rights back from the BOD to the Owners.

It will require time, effort and perseverance as the BODs will fight back using all their assumed power to maintain the gain in power they have achieved.
With time, using information channels that were not available when Indian Hammock started, we will be able to get transparency and information that is not easily available now, share it, and get enough Owners involved in order to shift the power and Rights back to where they belong.