[Teemotay]

I also liked the original post. Not all of the folks that read these threads live in TV, but in the surrounding area.

What’s with the crabby people requiring a reason for the post? The OP said they thought it was interesting and it is for some and not for others. Why bash the person if you don’t find it interesting? Get a life!

[G.R.I.T.S.]

Originally Posted by Orvil

I thought this might be of interest.

‘Their goal is to bleed owners dry.’ $34 million victory in Florida HOA lawsuit is rare, experts say
Trevor Fraser, Orlando Sentinel - Yesterday 4:42 PM
133 Comments



© Rich Pope/Orlando Sentinel/TNS

When Martin Kessler moved to the Solivita development in Poinciana, Florida in 2008, he says he quickly realized it was a big mistake. This was the first place the 97-year-old had ever lived with a homeowners association.

“Living in an HOA is not really a pleasant thing for a resident,” Kessler said. A retired economist, he said the fee he was required to pay was “a capitalist’s perfect dream of a business. People must join whether they like it or not, and they pay all the expenses of the business.”

Unique Filigree Vintage Ring In 18K Yellow Gold 2mm Width Band (Setting Price)
Ad
James Allen
Unique Filigree Vintage Ring In 18K Yellow Gold 2mm Width Band (Setting Price)
Kessler is among more than 5,000 members of the 55-plus community locked in a class action lawsuit since 2017 against Solivita developer Avatar Properties, which they allege improperly collected HOA fees. On Nov. 2, Polk County, Florida, Circuit Judge Wayne Durden awarded the residents $34.8 million.

“That’s the biggest award I’ve ever heard of,” said Harvella Jones, president of the National Homeowners Advocate Group. Based in Texas, Jones’ organization specializes in helping people fight HOAs and lobbies for homeowner protections. “We get calls from all over the country, but no one has ever reported to us a win as large as (Solivita).”

Experts agree that fighting HOAs is hard for residents and big wins are even rarer. In Florida, HOAs govern more than 44% of the population, according to research by analysts at iProperty Management.

With fees that can reach into the thousands of dollars from an estimated 3.5 million homes in the state, HOAs can make lawsuits long and costly for residents.

“Their goal is to bleed owners dry,” said Jan Bergemann, president of Cyber Citizens for Justice, a homeowner’s advocacy group based in DeLand. “They will hit you with motion after motion, tie it up for years.”

HOAs are infamous for limiting what signs can go up yards, raising free speech issues. They sometimes even ban basketball goals or other sports equipment from yards or tell residents how many cars they can have. A Florida HOA was accused this month of threatening a family with a $100 a day fine for putting up Christmas lights too early.

Avatar, which was purchased by homebuilder Taylor Morrison in 2018, developed Solivita and other communities in Poinciana in the early 2000s. Avatar also built amenities such as pools and clubhouses. When the time came to turn management of the community over to the Poinciana Community Development District, Avatar wanted to sell them to the community for $73 million.

But there was a problem. A certified appraiser said the amenities were only worth about a quarter of that.

“I was immediately against it. It was the most stupid thing in the world,” Kessler said.

Avatar based its number on the future value of a roughly $86 a month club fee they were charging, said attorney Carter Andersen of Bush Ross in Tampa, who represented the residents. That fee, the lawsuit alleged, was illegal. Residents couldn’t opt out of it and could even have their homes foreclosed upon for nonpayment.

Taylor Morrison, who has handled the defense in this case since acquiring Avatar, did not return requests for comment for this story.

Andersen said the $34 million figure is only the beginning. He estimates another $27 million in pre-judgment interest, and at least $4 million in fees collected this year that were not added to the ruling.

There will also be, Andersen estimates, $5 million to $10 million in attorneys’ fees for the two firms that represented the residents. The case was taken on a contingency with no retainer from the residents, which means it was a gamble for the lawyers who fought for it.

Bergemann says it’s rare to find attorneys who will take such a complicated case without some assurance of payment. “Unfortunately, wins [such as Solivita] would be very common if the owners had the money,” he said.

Bergemann says he’s spoken to attorneys who want thousands of dollars just to get building documents residents should be able to see anyway. “And who just has that?” he said.

Jones said another problem residents face is harassment for speaking up, which she says happens when residents don’t act together. “You can’t have one or two people taking the brunt of everything,” she said.

For Jones, much of the problem is a lack of government oversight. She says many HOA board members cling to their power.

“Even when we have rules about elections, they still won’t hold [to] them,” she said. “If you can’t get rid of them, that’s the main problem.”

Jones got started fighting a homeowners association in the 1990s when she lost her Texas home for nonpayment of HOA fees. “They take advantage of foreclosures, which is why they should be regulated,” she said.

Although Andersen says the Solivita case is likely to be appealed by the developer, Bergemann said wins such as Solivita’s are important because they can create a domino effect leading to more victories for homeowners around the state.

“Homeowners have rights but they often aren’t being enforced,” he said. “[HOAs] don’t want decisions coming down for homeowners.”

The win gives hope to people such as Slade Chelbian, a resident of the Bellalago community in Poinciana, also built by Avatar.

Chelbian has been a plaintiff in a class-action suit for the same activity that led to the Solivita suit since 2019.

“This was great news in the fight to stop this sort of action,” Chelbian wrote in an email. “This makes me believe we can win this action in court.”

For Chelbian, winning would mean an end to the fee he’s been challenging.

“Defeat is the status quo,” which he said is, “paying the developer a mandatory ‘for profit’ fee forever. That is not fair.”

I, too, would like to know what is of interest? My guess is that someone isn’t happy with living with deed restrictions TO WHICH THEY AGREED when purchasing in TV. My advice: go away.

[Ski Bum]

The main point I took away was not the HOA dues and restrictions, but that the developer wanted to charge the HOA for all assets when it turned them over. In TV, those assets are built into the price of the home and bond. Need a little more info on why the developer thought they could charge on the way out. Actually, it was the future value of the amenity fees they wanted compensated for? Obviously, they can't because they lost.

[Mortal1]

useless posting

[Serendipatti]

After living in two HOA communities over the years and hearing people complain about having to put their trash cans away, not being allowed to park in street overnight, or have to pick up dog poop, all I say to them now is “why the hell did you pick an HOA community if you didn’t want to follow rules - that makes zero sense!”

[Jim 9922]

Originally Posted by Ski Bum

The main point I took away was not the HOA dues and restrictions, but that the developer wanted to charge the HOA for all assets when it turned them over. In TV, those assets are built into the price of the home and bond. Need a little more info on why the developer thought they could charge on the way out. Actually, it was the future value of the amenity fees they wanted compensated for? Obviously, they can't because they lost.

The Villages Developer sells the rec. centers and certain other amenities such as the executive golf courses to the CDD's after the build-out of a major area is completed. The price is determined based upon an appraisal which is usually based upon the discounted value of future amenity fees. The purchase is funded by the sale of bonds which becomes an obligation of the CDD's and the within the CDD's budgets payment of "rent" to the Developer now replaced by the principal and interest payments due on the new bonds. Until the sale, the Developer owns and maintains the facilities for which the CDD's pay rent. That is why they can operate sales centers, open and close restaurants, "remodel" areas at will, etc., etc. Until the "take-over" of the facilities by the CDD's, rent for use of the facilities is paid to the developer by the CDD's. The system has worked pretty well in the past for The Villages except for the $100 million settlement awarded years ago to the CDD's north of HY 466. I think the principal contention in the award was lack of proper maintenance of the facilities before the sale. That provided those CDD's a nice "reserve fund" to help with unexpected repairs and projects and is funding a large portion of the new First Responders' recreational area.

[donfey]

Originally Posted by Marathon Man

It is not.

Then why did you read it?

[PugMom]

Originally Posted by Djean1981

How is this very long post related to The Villages (which does not have an HOA)?
It would be great if there were a "thumbs down" feature; and after so many down votes, the post disappears.

i usually rate the thread, but maybe op is saying how lucky we are that we haven't got 1 here>?

[Cybersprings]

[QUOTE=Djean1981;2033851]How is this very long post related to The Villages (which does not have an HOA)?
It would be great if there were a "thumbs down" feature; and after so many down votes, the post disappears. [/QUOTE

Or if there was at least the ability to scroll on and ignore the post ….oh wait…

[Tsalla Apopka]

Originally Posted by Jim 9922

The Villages Developer sells the rec. centers and certain other amenities such as the executive golf courses to the CDD's after the build-out of a major area is completed. The price is determined based upon an appraisal which is usually based upon the discounted value of future amenity fees. The purchase is funded by the sale of bonds which becomes an obligation of the CDD's and the within the CDD's budgets payment of "rent" to the Developer now replaced by the principal and interest payments due on the new bonds. Until the sale, the Developer owns and maintains the facilities for which the CDD's pay rent. That is why they can operate sales centers, open and close restaurants, "remodel" areas at will, etc., etc. Until the "take-over" of the facilities by the CDD's, rent for use of the facilities is paid to the developer by the CDD's. The system has worked pretty well in the past for The Villages except for the $100 million settlement awarded years ago to the CDD's north of HY 466. I think the principal contention in the award was lack of proper maintenance of the facilities before the sale. That provided those CDD's a nice "reserve fund" to help with unexpected repairs and projects and is funding a large portion of the new First Responders' recreational area.

This is the most correct and logical reply I've seen so far.
DEVELOPERS OF PROPERTY/COMMUNITIES ARE BUSINESSES - NOT FRIENDLY NEIGHBORS.
Sale of a business always includes the businesses potential earnings. The homeowner dues are the earnings of the business. I'd take the value of the amenities, the value of 10 years of dues minus the cost of operation/maintenance and repairs and come up with sale price.
Some of the numbers in previous posts don't sound that far off.

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by Mortal1

useless posting

….

[Marathon Man]

Originally Posted by donfey

Then why did you read it?

I didn't. Why the concern?

[Marathon Man]

Originally Posted by Teemotay

I also liked the original post. Not all of the folks that read these threads live in TV, but in the surrounding area.

What’s with the crabby people requiring a reason for the post? The OP said they thought it was interesting and it is for some and not for others. Why bash the person if you don’t find it interesting? Get a life!

Why bash people who make comments?

[Velvet]

Originally Posted by G.R.I.T.S.

I, too, would like to know what is of interest? My guess is that someone isn’t happy with living with deed restrictions TO WHICH THEY AGREED when purchasing in TV. My advice: go away.

We bought in TV partly BECAUSE of the deed restrictions. If one does not like them they should not buy here. It is similar to; if you do not like to eat quiche Florentine, don’t buy it!

[Arctic Fox]

Originally Posted by Cybersprings

Or if there was at least the ability to scroll on and ignore the post ….oh wait…

I thought it was in our deeds that we have to read every post and criticize those with which we don't agree?