August 27, 1980

In 1980, CHOA established articles of incorporation. The new corporation does not name any of the seven phases nor make reference to covenants or deed restrictions. It does foresee different "classes" of membership, and allows for people not living in Christina to be members.

October 06, 1980

CHOA's original bylaws allowed any homeowner in Christina (not just our seven phases) to apply to become members, and while all members were expected to pay dues, no one was required to apply for or become a member. People interested in Christina who were not residents of Christina were also welcome to apply for membership. Holding a deed in Christina (restricted or not) was not a requirement of membership. The bylaws were incorporated into the minutes of the first board meeting of Christina Homeowners Association.  (As shown in the September 28, 2017 board meeting minutes, CHOA president Joe Misiaszek indicated that "CHOA was formed by a unanimous vote of those homeowners in Christina who attended a meeting at Scott Lake Elementary School in the summer of 1980. There were about 200 homeowners at the meeting, representing about 90% of the properties that had been sold at the time." The minutes provided with the bylaws, below, establish that 1) residents were not given notice of the meeting for a valid vote to have been taken, and 2) no such vote was taken at this meeting. As this October 1980 meeting was the first board meeting and actually occurred in the fall, there was no other summer 1980 meeting to which this comment might refer.)

January 15, 1988

In 1998, while legally nothing about CHOA's voluntary, apply-for-membership, status had changed, companies identifying themselves as successor companies to two of the three the developers responsible for most of the seven subdivisions now associated with CHOA attempted to assign covenant rights to CHOA subject to CHOA being the "duly authorized and official organization formed by property owners." For CHOA to have had that status would have required votes of 51%-100% by phase per the terms of the covenants. That same year, the bylaws asserted control of the seven neighborhoods and provided for collection of dues without distinguishing between neighborhoods based on whether covenants authority agreements had been executed or according to the differing original deed restrictions for the neighborhoods, some of which didn't provide for dues collection or for pre-approval for construction or for tree removal, and others which did allow such control by a properly formed homeowners association. The court determined CHOA was not a duly authorized organization, explaining that it had not established that it had received the consent of the requisite number of homeowners, and saying that despite its name, it was not a homeowners association in the eyes of the Florida statutes. The case was appealed, and on remand another judge applied a higher evidentiary standard, concluding there was proof that CHOA had not received the required vote of homeowners and was not a validly formed homeowners association ab initio under the Florida statutes. Both legal rulings state that CHOA did not have the authority to assess dues, despite this assertion in its bylaws. Out of an abundance of caution, we requested information about any votes that would give CHOA the authority of a homeowners association subsequent to the court rulings. Upon review of available documentation from CHOA, we agree with the findings of the court.

​

CHOA's directors, officers and agents are reported to the state annually (except in 2011, when CHOA failed to report, and therefore had to file for reinstatement in 2012), and these reports are available for viewing online. These records show that CHOA has not been consistent in following its 1998 bylaws, appearing to violate provisions for

​

• having a minimum of four directors, a requirement not met in 30% of the years reported (as compared with covenants and amendments that require 5 directors; the bylaws say the covenants standards apply where the documents are in conflict);*

• having the officer roles of president, vice-president, secretary, and treasurer filled. a requirement not met in 60% of the years reported;* and

• allowing a director to serve a maximum of eight consecutive years, a requirement that has been violated twice.

​

In addition, CHOA president Joe Misiaszek announced at the March 2018 board meeting that he had assumed the treasurer's duties, which is also in violation of the bylaws. ​

​

While the bylaws call for only dues-paying members to vote for directors, this is in conflict with underlying covenants that do not permit this restriction. As stated in the bylaws, when they are in conflict with the covenants, the covenants govern so the vote may not be restricted according to dues status.

​

*It is possible CHOA reported less than the full slate of directors. 

The minutes from CHOA's May 12, 2016 board meeting acknowledge that CHOA has voluntary status as the board expresses interest in becoming a mandatory association. The board reports that its new attorney, who was identified by current CHOA director Ramona Blankenship, met with then directors Marie Kellam and Joe Misiaszek (who would become CHOA's president). The attorney advised them on how to become mandatory. This further contradicts 2018 board meeting statements by Joe Misiaszek that no attorney has advised that CHOA is voluntary. (A prior CHOA attorney, Steve Mezer, documented voluntary status in a CHOA newsletter, another board attorney is documented as having done so in board minutes in 2011-12, and many other CHOA official communications also document CHOA's voluntary status.)

August 27, 2016

As late as 2016, CHOA still acknowledged that there was no broad adoption of the amendments to the covenants drafted in 2000, maintaining the unamended original deed restrictions as the only covenants on its website through at least August 2016, even though most of these expired in 2002-2008. These original deed restrictions, not drafted by CHOA, are provided on this site for the seven phases. The covenant amendments drafted in 2000 were posted to the CHOA website after August 2016, even though amendments cannot stand once the underlying covenants have expired. A screenshot of the website with a datestamp of August 27, 2016 from the Internet Archive, a non-profit that archives web pages for historical purposes, is provided here. 

In its letter to Christina Woods Phase 1 homeowners, one of the oldest phases with covenants expiring the earliest, CHOA explained that any new covenant amendments would rely on the underlying original deed restrictions, and deed restrictions must be renewed for any CHOA-drafted covenant amendments to apply. CHOA acknowledged again that amendments did not extend the underlying expiration date when attempting to extend Christina Woods Phase 6 covenants. This documentation, along with a discussion of expiration dates for each phase, is provided for the seven phases.  Since CHOA did not claim on its website that the 2000 covenant amendments, for which only 30% voted, were in effect until late 2016, and it had documented that some of the underlying covenants it listed on its website had already expired, it makes sense that CHOA was operating as a voluntary association (even if it believed itself to have been properly formed, a claim disputed by the courts in 2003 and 2007). 

October 29, 2016

Thirty percent of lot holders across the seven phases supported the drafted 2000 covenants (with phase by phase approvals ranging from 15-45%, verifiable by tallying the attached document filed with the court). Given the meager support, CHOA did not claim the covenants drafted in 2000 were widely binding. It therefore maintained the unamended original deed restrictions as the only covenants on its website through at least August 2016 even though most of these original deed restrictions had expired in 2002-2008 (see Seven Phases for expiration details) and the covenant amendments could only amend unexpired covenants as documented by CHOA. 

By the end of October 2016, CHOA had removed the original deed restrictions and replaced them with the covenant amendments signed by 30% of lot owners in 2000 to amend the original deed restrictions. This did not solve the expiration problem since amendments to an expired document are also expired. Board meeting minutes indicate no new action was taken on the amendments at that time. In response to an April 2018 board meeting question from a homeowner about this change, the board represented that nothing had changed in 2016 to alter the legal status of these expired covenant amendments.

​

So much misinformation and so many conflicting opinions have been provided about the 2000 amendments that they are explored further here.