CHOA HISTORY THROUGH DOCUMENTS

To Whom Did the 2000 Amendments Apply?

A discussion in the August 2016 board meeting minutes questions whether the 2000 document amended the original covenants, and whether the amendments applied to all homeowners. The 2000 amendments were written as mandatory, but they did not automatically apply since the terms for amending the covenants were set out in the original covenants. For existing lot owners, amendments would apply only if voluntarily signed by the current owner, and they would apply to new lot owners purchasing after the date the amendments were recorded, but those buying homes prior to the amendments could not be forced to comply with the amendments. The only exception to this was for Cliffside, which required an 80% vote for amendments to apply to all Cliffside owners. That subdivision was 15% in favor. You can read the amendment terms of the original covenants on the Seven Phases page.

​

How Long Would the Amendments be in Effect?

As the amendments amended the original covenants, they would only be in force for as long as the underlying covenants were in force. Under the Marketable Record Title Act, the effective period ends 30 years from root of title, generally when the developer sold to the first homeowner, unless covenants are renewed before then. The covenants of the seven phases started to expire in by 2002 (three phases), 2005, 2006, 2007 or 2015, depending on the date of the underlying covenants. They were not renewed and have expired. Further detail is provided on the Seven Phases page.

​

What If They Weren't Really Amendments?

A parenthetical note in the September 2017 minutes says one director felt the amendments "were not amendments." If he meant that these were new covenants, the requirements for 51% or 100% vote by phase would have applied. None of the phases had a majority of households sign the document, so this standard was not met. While the 2000 amendments document is labeled amended declaration of covenants, as are the voting documents (including officially registered invalid votes not signed by Christina lot owners), either interpretation leads to the necessity of the original covenants having been renewed for any covenants to be in effect now.

​

Did CHOA Have the Authority to Amend the Covenants?

In 2003, the court said that despite its name, Christina Homeowners Association hadn’t shown that it was a homeowners association under Florida law, and following the appeal, in 2007 the court concluded that there was evidence that the 51% vote required to make it a homeowners association under Florida law never occurred. As a condition of receiving the right to administer the covenants from the developers of six of the seven phases (it never received this right for the seventh), CHOA warranted that it had followed the appropriate process to become a valid homeowner's association. As it had not, the court found CHOA was "not validly formed ab initiio." CHOA therefore had no right to receive the authority to administer or amend the covenants.

​

Would Amending the Covenants Preserve or Renew the Underlying Covenants?

Some have questioned whether the 2000 amendments would automatically renew the underlying covenants. Florida's Marketable Record Title Act provides for a specific process that requires giving notice, taking a vote, and registering a statement of marketable title action using particular language from the statute with the clerk of courts in order to renew covenants. This process was not followed for the 2000 amendments, and the law does not allow for amendments to substitute for this process.

 

CHOA expressed its understanding of these statutory provisions in official documents when it tried to renew the underlying covenants. In 2002, CHOA asked homeowners in the 1972 covenant phases to renew their covenants, which at that time required a majority vote of homeowners. In the renewal request letter, CHOA explained that any amendments would not extend the life of the covenants. Homeowners voted not to renew and CHOA documented that their covenants would expire starting very soon, 30 years from the "root of title," which is normally the date the developer sold a particular lot to its first homeowner, and which thus varies by a few months between lots. CHOA did try to properly register renewal of the Christina Woods Phase 6 covenants (and only that set) in 2007, since at that time of their expiration, homeowners' consent was not required. However, per the section preceding this one, CHOA did not have standing under Florida law as a homeowners association to have done that. CHOA's Phase 6 renewal attempt noted in CHOA's own words that the 2000 amendments were not sufficient to prevent the underlying covenants from expiring ("[T]he 2000 Amendment was ineffective to establish the covenants, restrictions, limitations and conditions set forth therein... .")