RECALL ARBITRATION RULINGS

The DBPR published various indexes of final order summaries:

• Recall Arbitration Final Order Subject Matter Index (January 2003-June 2005)

• Recall Arbitration Final Order Subject Matter Index (July 2005)

• Recall Arbitration Final Order Subject Matter Index (August 2005)

• Recall Arbitration Final Order Subject matter Index (December 2005)

FINAL RULINGS

• Holley By The Sea Improvement Association, Inc. V. Homeowners Voting for Recall             (Case No. 2007-00-7012)

• Sandpointe Townhouses Owners' Association, Inc. V. Homeowners Voting for Recall                 (Case No. 2006-00-7925)

• ELLIE PATRONE and SUSAN GIZA vs. BELLA VISTA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., (Case No. 2006-00-8669)

• Larkenheath Villas Homeowners' Association, Inc. v. Homeowners Voting For Recall           (Case No.2009-05-6469) 

• Lakeforest at St. Lucie Homeowners’ Assoc., Inc. v. Homeowners Voting for Recall,

  (Case No. 2004-05-5982) (Harnden / Summary Final Order / January 31, 2005)

  The failure of the recall agreement to include a date upon which the agreement was signed and the failure to identify a representative of the homeowners are not fatal flaws in the recall effort, but could be considered along with all other defects in determining whether the agreement achieved substantial compliance with the requirements of the rules and statute.

     

• Lake Charleston Maintenance Assoc., Inc. v. Homeowners Voting for Recall,

  (Case No. 2005-00-0387) (Harnden / Summary Final Order / January 25, 2005 and Amended Summary Final Order and Response to Petitioner’s Unopposed Motion for Clarification / February 9, 2005)

Where the board received well in excess of a majority number of ballots in favor of recall, and declined to certify the recall based on information that some of the owners may have provided a rescission of their recall ballots to a board member not in attendance at the board meeting, such objection was speculative and uncertain, and was rejected by the arbitrator. Pursuant to section 720.303(10)(h), F.S., the minutes of the board meeting must identify the parcel number for each ballot rejected and the specific reason for such rejection. Additionally, since there was no evidence that any rescissions were delivered to the board prior to service of the recall ballots on the board, any such rescissions were invalid.

Where the owners sought to recall a majority of the board, the fact that one of the board members subject to the recall sold his residence and moved from the community does not recast the recall effort into a recall for less than a majority of the board members.

• Bayside Key Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. Homeowners Voting for Recall,

  (Case No. 2005-05-7957) (Grubbs / Summary Final Order on Petition for Recall Arbitration / January 24, 2006)

  Where recall agreement was served on the property manager at the association’s management company, whose principal had attempted to resign as the association’s registered agent on the same day the recall agreement was served and the association had been in the process of terminating the management company, service of the recall agreement on the property management was service on the association in accordance with rule 61B-81.003(1)(g), F.A.C. Further, there were no allegations in the minutes or the petition for arbitration stating that the management company had refused to deliver the recall agreement to the board.

     

• Avalon Master Homeowner Ass’n, Inc. v. Unit Owners of Avalon Master Homeowner Ass’n, Inc. (Case No. 2005-05-2493) consolidated with 2005-05-2614 (Mnookin / Summary Final Order / December 20, 2005)

  Where in the course of a pending recall arbitration proceeding, a regular election was duly noticed but not held due to the lack of a quorum, the recall dispute was not moot. Although the owners had a chance to unseat the incumbent board at the election if a quorum had attended, the recall dispute would only become moot upon the conduct of an actual election.

     

• Lime Bay Condominium, Inc. v. Homeowners Voting for Recall

  (Case No. 2006-01-9712) (Catherine Bembry/Final Order July 10, 2006)

  Failure to provide the specific reasons for rejection of a ballot will invalidate the board's decision to reject it. Crestview Towers Condo. Ass'n. Inc. v. Unit Owners Voting For Recall, Arb. Case No. 2005-01-994, Summary Final Order (June 14, 2005). As the board's minutes did not identify the specific ballots that were rejected for the reasons stated by the board, its rejection of the ballots will be considered invalid.

   

• Lakeforest at St. Lucie Homeowners’ Assoc., Inc. v. Homeowners Voting for Recall,

  (Case No. 2004-05-5982) (Harnden / Summary Final Order / January 31, 2005)

     

  The failure of the recall agreement to include a date upon which the agreement was signed and the failure to identify a representative of the homeowners are not fatal flaws in the recall effort, but could be considered along with all other defects in determining whether the agreement achieved substantial compliance with the requirements of the rules and statute.

   

• Perez v. Las Palmas at Sand Lake Condo. Assn., Inc.,

  (Case No. 2005-03-3823) (Grubbs / Summary Final Order / August 24, 2005)

  Because the recall agreement was pre-marked with computer generated "X"s in the recall boxes, unit owners were not afforded the opportunity to mark their own ballots and decide for themselves who should be recalled and who would be retained. A ballot containing computer generated, pre-marked spaces is fatally flawed and void ab initio.

      

• Homeowners Voting For Recall v. Westridge Homeowners' Association, Inc. 

  (Case No. 2010-04-6707) (Campbell / Summary Final Order / October 8, 2010)

  Board, served with a sufficient number of recall petitions, failed to hold meeting as required by statutes. Owners filed for arbitration, asking arbitrator to certify recall. Arbitrator issued Summary Final Order certifying the recall based on the failure of the board to follow the statutes. Since the recall was not "void at the outset for failing to obtain a majority of the voting interests," the arbitrator certified the recall.

BACK TO HOA RECALL