Category Archives: Rule 1-1

Rule 1-1 The End

Leave a reply

On February 13, 2021, I single-handedly started a campaign to remove the abusive Rule 1-1 and replace it with a rule granting the owners control of their lots.
This was my main goal for all the Owners in Indian Hammock.
See the full story: https://ihmyhome.com/category/book_of_rules/rule-1-1/

On January 21, 2024, The Club Board of Directors scraped the abusive Rule 1-1 and replaced it with Rule 1-2 in the amended Book of Rules.

Thank you, David Bass and Joe Coyle, for leading a better board of directors and achieving this goal.  

The new Rule 1-2 declares.
The Club shall have the responsibility and authority in the management and maintenance of all Common Area for the benefit of all members of the Club.
Each Owner/Member shall have the responsibility and authority in the management and maintenance of their lot, subject to the deed restrictions adopted in the Declaration of Restrictions governing document.
The Club shall be managed and controlled by the Board. Only the Board can obligate the Club, and the President must review and sign all contracts.

Rule 1-1 Case – Update 2022-09-13

1 Reply

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.

brooks2.let_-1Download

Update 2022-08-30 Club’s Violation – Rule1-1

2 Replies

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. 

Regards
David Etzion
Lot 246

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.

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 BOD’s Book of Rules and the “Rules for Fools.”

Leave a reply

Over the years, the various BOD managed to create some amusing “Rules for Fools.”
Here are the delusional Rule 1-1 and another four “Rules for Fools,” all in simple language so that we, the Foolish Owners, can understand them.

Rule 1-1 “The Club shall have exclusive responsibility and authority in the management and maintenance of the Property, including Common Areas “
The Owners do not have any say in their private lots; the Club’s BOD has the Exclusive Authority in the Owners Lots.

Rule 7.3.1.3 “Issuance of the keys and gate access cards are declared to be a privilege, not a right.”
Allowing an Owner to access his home when the gate is unattended is a privilege, not an Owner’s right; as this is a privilege, it can be taken away, and the Owner will need to wait until 7:00 AM to access Indian Hammock and get to his home.

11.1. “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.”
I could not find the “unless approved by the Board of Directors for the financial benefit of the Club.” In The Declaration of Restrictions Article X Section 3.

The Club’s BOD will wrongly interpret the Declaration of Restrictions to fit with its Agenda.
Anything forbidden by the Declaration of Restrictions can be allowed by the Club’s BOD if the BOD “thinks” it is for the financial benefit of the Club.
Just joking, but what about 50 stories condominium tower? It can be a tremendous financial benefit to the Club.

11.2. “Any member that wishes to have berries picked on their OWN property must be present and escort the pickers to and from the gate and notify the manager the date that this is happening. The member CANNOT allow pickers to go on their own to the property unattended.”
I agree the ”pickers” are a significant security risk, Yet I see them roaming on the common property with no BOD supervision.
Regarding berries picking, the Owners’ actions are security risks; the same actions by the BOD are not a security risk?

13.1 “Any animal requiring a Class I or II wildlife permit from Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, and animals defined in the Declaration of Restrictions of Indian Hammock (Article X, Section 1), will not be permitted in Indian Hammock.”
The Declaration of Restriction ARTICLE X.  Section 1.  Says:
“…No swine, goats, poultry or fowl shall be kept on any Residential Lot…”
In the last Annual Members Meeting, a motion to amend the same ARTICLE X.  Section 1. and allow “up to Five Chicken no Rooster” failed, as it did not get the required 200 Owners’ votes
Yet, with Rule 13.1, the Club’s BOD adds animals to the “not allowed” list, amending ARTICLE X.  Section 1.  Without obtaining the required 200 Owners’ votes!

One needs to be a SUPER FOOL not to see what is going on.
If it suits its Agenda, the BOD will issue a Rule, amending the Declaration of Restriction, on the fly, without 200 Owners’ votes. The 76% of owners’ wish to have chickens is not on the BOD Agenda, so “Foolish Owners” carry on committing a “crime” and hide your chickens.

Okeechobee County controls the issue of “animal requiring a Class I or II wildlife permit from Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission,” and I wonder what was the BOD Agenda when the BOD decided to insert Rule 13.1, illegally amending Article X, Section 1.

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