LAKEBRIDGE
HOMEOWNERS |
STATE
OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION
OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES IN
RE: PETITION FOR RECALL ARBITRATION LAKEBRIDGE
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,
INC.
CASE NO. 05- Petitioner, V. UNIT
OWNER VOTING FOR RECALL Respondent. PETITION
FOR RECALL
ARBITRATION COME NOW THE PETITIONER, by and through counsel, and files this Petition for Recall Arbitration as provided under Section 720.303(l 0)(d) Florida Statutes and 6 IB-23.0027, F.A.C., and does state as follows:
I . The Recall was called against three (3) of the five (5) members of the Board of Directors of the Lakebridge Homeowners Association, Inc. 2. The parties for
which Recall has been sought are as follows: a. Carmen
Trent,, b. Elizabeth
Larkins c. Stephanie Taylor 3. The designated homeowners' representative is Gina Gregoletto, 19 S.W. 3 rd Street, Pompano, Florida 33060.
4. The purported Recall is by written recall agreement, which documentation was delivered by personal service to the Association, through its property manager and registered agent, on December 5. 2005. A copy of the documentation sent to the Association is attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
5. A meeting of the Board of Directors was called for and held on December 12, 2005 at which meeting the Board determined not to certify the Recall for any of the named members of the Board of Directors. The meeting was called to order at 11:02 a.m. and adjourned at approximately 11:06 a.m. Attached hereto as Exhibit"B" are the Minutes taken from the meeting of December l2, 2005.
6. Attached hereto as Exhibit "C" is a complete set of the By-Laws and the Articles of Incorporation of the Lakebridge Homeowners Association, Inc. as well as the Declaration of Covenants for Lakebridge Homeowners Association, Inc.
7. The Condominium is composed of 120 homes.
8. The Association is of the belief that the Recall should not be certified for the following reasons: Vote Count Deficiencies. (a) The results of the Written Recall Agreement, as documented in Exhibit "A" and the minutes of the Board of Directors Meeting, as documented in Exhibit "B", fails to comply with the requirements of 720.3 03 (10)(a)(1), F.S., which states, in pertinent part, as follows: ...
any member of the board of directors may be recalled and removed from
office with or without cause by a majority of the total voting interests
(Emphasis added.) The Association consists of one hundred twenty (120) homes. Accordingly, in order to recall a member of the Board, a majority, or sixty-one (61) homes must vote in favor of the recall of such Board member. The purported Written Recall Agreement contained sixty-five (65) documents which each indicate a vote to recall the three (3) subject directors. However, upon review of the purported agreements and complaints from homeowners, the Board discovered discrepancies with the documents from the following homes: 67, 79, 81, 87, 93, 103, 109, 111, 115, 117 and 149. Additionally, duplicate recall agreements were provided for the following homes: 81, 147 and 173.
(b) Specifically, with regard to each home identified above, the Board made the following findings: the homeowners were only provided the signature page of the document and were never informed that the document that they were signing was to attempt a recall of the Board members or that their signature would be attached to the purported recall agreement. The pre-marked first page of the purported recall agreement was attached to the signature page without the signor's knowledge or consent. As such, these purported recall agreements are all invalid. (c) Specifically, with regard to each home identified as having submitted a duplicate agreement, the Board made the following findings: Unit
81: The purported recall agreement contained two copies of this re-call
agreement. Only one recall
agreement per unit may be considered.
As such, one of the purported recall agreements for Unit 81 is
invalid. Unit
147: The purported recall agreement contained two copies of this
recall agreement. Only one
recall agreement- per unit may be considered.
As such, one of the purported recall agreements for Unit 147 is
invalid. Unit
173: The purported recall agreement contained two copies of this recall
agreement. Only one recall
agreement per unit may be considered.
As such, one of the purported recall agreements for Unit 173 is
invalid. By virtue of the elimination of the foregoing units due to the above-referenced discrepancies concerning the signor's knowledge and consent regarding the purported written recall agreements and/or duplicate submissions, there are less than a majority of the homeowners participating, in the proposed recall by agreement. Accordingly, a motion was duly made and seconded to not certify the recall and to submit the matter to arbitration. General Deficiencies. The Written Recall Agreement was not properly prepared and completed and therefore did not substantially comply with the requirements of Section 6IB23.0028, F.A.C., in that:
a. The recall/retain spaces on the purported recall agreements were impermissibly pre-marked thereby failing to allow the persons executing the agreements to indicate whether the board members should be recalled or retained as required by Florida Administrative Code Section 61B23.0028(l)(b). b.
When provided to the Membership for signature, the purported recall
agreement form failed to designate a unit owner representative as required
by Florida Administrative Code Section 6IB-23.0028(l)(f). Such designation
was only filled in subsequent to the execution of the signature page of
the Written Recall Agreements. With regard to the
individual purported recall agreements: c.
The purported recall agreements were prepared on two pages, with
the title of the document,
"Written Recall Agreement", as well as the names of the
Directors sought to be recalled and the replacement Directors on page one,
and the signature for the homeowners on page two. Based upon the foregoing
deficiencies, substantial compliance for an effective recall as required
by Section 6IB-23.0028(2) F.A.C. has not been achieved. 9.
Based upon the failure to acquire a majority (i.e. at least 61) of
the 120 homeowners to vote in favor of recalling any of the Board members,
the number of proposed votes for recall is insufficient to achieve a
Recall. Furthermore, there
has not been substantial compliance with the procedure set forth in
Section 6IB-23.0028 of the Florida Administrative Code.
As such, the Arbitrator should sustain the Petitioner's
determination not to certify the Recall. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing has-been sent by U.S. Mail and facsimile to Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Arbitration Section, Northwood Centre, 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 and to the homeowner representative, Gina Gregoletto, 19 S.W. 3rd Street, Pompano, Florida 33060 on this day 16th of December, 2005. ROBERT
KAYE & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Attorneys
for Petitioner Corporate
Park 6261
N.W. 6th Way, Suite 103 Fort
Lauderdale, Florida 33309 (954)
928-0680
By:
SIGNATURE Deborah
S. Sugarman, Esq. Florida Bar Number 0982172
LAW
OFFICES ROBERT
KAYE & ASSOCIATES, PA - 6261 NORTHWEST 6TH WAY - SUITE 103 - FORT
LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33309 TELEPHONE
(954) 928-0680 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF LAKEBRIDGE
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. December
12, 2005 A
Meeting of the Board of Directors of Lakebridge Homeonwers Association was
called to order at 11:02 a.m. at the Offices of Robert Kaye &
Associates. Present
are Carmen Trent, Betty Larkins, Stephanie Taylor and Mitch Montemayor. Fernando Toledo is absent.
A quorum of the Board is established. The
President asked the legal representative for the Association, Michael
Bender, to chair the remainder of the meeting. The
only order of business was to consider a proposed recall agreement
submitted to the Board. A
motion is made by Mitch Montemayor and seconded by Betty Larkins not to
certify the written agreement to recall Board Members Carmen Trent, Betty
Larkins and Stephanie Taylor and to file a petition for arbitration with
the Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes within
five (5) business days. A
purported recall agreement containing 65 signatures was delivered by
personal service to the Association by serving its Property Manager and
Registered Agent, James Miles of Consolidated Community Management, on
Monday, December 5, 2005. Upon
review of the purported recall agreements, the Board notes the following
deficiencies: With regard to the form of the
purported recall agreements: The
recall/retain spaces on the purported recall agreements were impermissible
pre-marked thereby failing to allow the persons executing the agreements
to indicate whether the board members should be recalled or retained as
required by Florida Administrative Code Section 61B-23.0028 (1)(b). When
provided to the Membership for signature, the purported recall agreements
failed to designate a unit owner representative as required by Florida
Administrative Code Section 61B-23.0028 (1)(f).
Such designation was only filled in subsequent to the execution of
the signature page of the Written Recall Agreements. With regard to the individual
purported recall agreements: The purported recall
agreements were prepared on two pages with the title of the document,
"Written Recall Agreement", as well as the names of the
Directors sought to be recalled and the replacement Directors on page one,
and the signature for the unit owners on page two. The
owners of Units 67, 79, 81, 87, 93, 103, 109, 111, 115, 117 and 149 were
only provided the signature page of the document, and were never informed
that the document that they were signing was to attempt a recall of the
Board members, nor that their signature would be attached to the purported
recall agreement. The
pre-marked first page of the purported recall agreement was attached to
the signature page without the signor's knowledge or consent.
As such these purported recall agreements are all invalid. Unit
81 - The purported recall agreements contained two copies of this recall
agreement. Only one recall
agreement per unit may be considered.
As such, one of the purported recall agreements submitted for Unit
81 is invalid. Unit
147 - The purported recall agreements contained two copies of this recall
agreement. Only one recall
agreement per unit may be considered.
As such, one of the purported recall agreements submitted for Unit
147 is invalid. Unit
173 - The purported recall agreements contained two copies of this recall
agreement. Only one recall
agreement per unit may be considered. As such, one of the purported recall
agreements submitted for Unit 173 is invalid. After
discussion, the Chair called for the vote on the motion made by Mitch
Montemayor not to certify the recall and to file
a petition for arbitration. Four Directors, Carmen Trent, Betty Larkins,
Stephanie Taylor and Mitch Montemayor voted in favor of the motion not to
certify the recall. The
motion passed unanimously. Upon motion duly made by Betty Larkins and seconded by Stephanie Taylor, the meeting was adjourned at 11:06 a.m.
LAW
OFFICES ROBERT
KAYE & ASSOCIATES, PA - 6261 NORTHWEST 6TH WAY - SUITE 103 - FORT
LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33309 TELEPHONE
(954) 928-0680 ROBERT
KAYE & ASSOCIATES,
P.A. 6251 NORTHWEST 6th WAY SUITE 103 FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33309 WWW.RKAYELAW.COM
December
23, 2005 Michelle
Schatz-Rosen XXXXXXXXXXXXX Margate,
FL 33063 RE:
Lakebridge Homeowners Association, Inc. Dear
Mrs. Schatz-Rosen: As you may be aware, this Firm serves as counsel to the above referenced Homeowners Association. Your undated letter delivered to the Association's management offices on December 21, 2005, has been forwarded to me for response. You may direct any future written communication regarding this issue to this office. While
the Board of Directors is sympathetic with your request it is not in a
position to meet the demand.
As you may be aware, certain notice requirements exist under the
By-Laws of the Association prior to holding a meeting of the Membership,
which simply can-not be met prior to the end of the year.
Further, given the holiday schedule, as well other factors involved
in the holding of a meeting, it could not feasibly be done in such a short
period of time. Additionally,
as indicated in the letter which the Board sent to all homeowners when it
found it necessary to cancel the last meeting, the Board is in the process
of developing a method of proxy submission which will minimize the
possibility of the fraud which was experienced prior to the last attempted
meeting.
The information regarding the fraudulent activities was only
discovered on the day prior to the meeting,. So further notice of the
cancellation was not possible. The Board presumes that the majority of the
homeowners share its desire that the election process is free from
fraudulent behavior by a few disgruntled individuals.
To best protect the interests of all of the homeowners, the Board
will take the necessary time to develop the most effective method possible
and will not compromise from such a standard just to save a few days or
weeks. As
soon as the details are worked out and arrangements are complete you and
all of the homeowners will be notified of a new date for the annual
meeting.
The Board appreciates the desire of the homeowners to accomplish
this event and will be making every effort to meet that goal as quickly as
possible. Thank
you for your inquiry.
Very truly yours,
Robert L. Kaye RLK/mmh Cc: Board of Directors (Lakebridge)
LAW
OFFICES ROBERT
KAYE & ASSOCIATES, PA - 6261 NORTHWEST 6TH WAY - SUITE 103 - FORT
LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33309 TELEPHONE
(954) 928-0680 |