CHOA HISTORY THROUGH DOCUMENTS

August 28, 1972

Deed requirements for HOA: A vote of at least 51% of owners of all lots was required to establish a homeowners' association. When CHOA sued homeowners over dues, CHOA was required to show evidence of a legally sufficient vote. Upon review of all evidence CHOA provided, one judge determined there was no evidence of a legally sufficient vote so CHOA was not a "homeowners association" under Florida law and had no right to require dues. Another judge applied a higher evidentiary standard, confirming that there is proof that a legally sufficient vote did not occur and the CHOA was not validly formed. Covenants could only be enforced by neighbors suing each other, not by CHOA, until the covenants expired, and dues could not be required. (The specific ruling that the sued households, who prevailed in this case, could never be forced into a homeowners association regardless of whether the community established a valid HOA in the future only applied to these households. The finding of fact underlying this ruling and documented in the public record removes all doubt about whether CHOA was properly formed from the start as a valid homeowners association. This part of the ruling is relevant to every Christina resident.)

​

Developer assignment of rights: Receiving assignment of the developer's covenant authority was contingent on CHOA having been the duly organized official organization of homeowners. Contrary to this requirement, the 2003 and 2007 rulings described above said CHOA had to have had a legally sufficient vote to be a homeowners association in Florida and such a vote had not occurred. Because CHOA had not met the legal requirements it warranted to the developers, it had no right to have received assignment of developer rights over the covenants. (Some homeowners challenged that IMC-Agrico, the company that executed a covenant assignment agreement, had the authority to transfer rights that had been held by the Christina Woods Unit I developer, U.R.S. We do not know whether it did.)

​

Covenant expiration: Under Florida's Marketable Record Title Act, the covenants expire if they are not renewed within 30 years of root of title, generally 30 years from the date the developer sold to a homeowner. (Please ask in the Christina Community Facebook group if you'd like help determining the exact expiration date for your property.) The covenants for this phase were executed on August 28, 1972, and would begin expiring 30 years from that time if not renewed first. CHOA requested that homeowners vote to renew in 2002, noting that CHOA's 2002 covenant amendments had no authority without the underlying phase covenants remaining in force, which required a vote of at least 51% of homeowners. Homeowners voted against, and the covenants expired. CHOA sent official notice of vote outcome by mail to Christina Woods Unit 1 owners in 2002 during the week before the 30 year period since execution elapsed. The expiration of the covenants is confirmed by no renewal documents having been filed with the county clerk (by the developer or CHOA) as required under statute for renewal. You can search the clerk of courts site to confirm no notice of covenant renewal was posted as required by law to keep the covenants from expiring.

August 28, 1972

Deed requirements for HOA: A vote of at least 51% of owners of all lots was required to establish a homeowners' association. When CHOA sued homeowners over dues, CHOA was required to show evidence of a legally sufficient vote. Upon review of all evidence CHOA provided, one judge determined there was no evidence of a legally sufficient vote so CHOA was not a "homeowners association" under Florida law and had no right to require dues. Another judge applied a higher evidentiary standard, confirming that there is proof that a legally sufficient vote did not occur and the CHOA was not validly formed​. For this reason, covenants could only be enforced by neighbors suing each other, not by CHOA, until the covenants expired and dues could not be required. (The specific ruling that the sued households, who prevailed in this case, could never be forced into a homeowners association regardless of whether the community established a valid HOA in the future only applied to these households. The finding of fact underlying this ruling and documented in the public record removes all doubt about whether CHOA was properly formed from the start as a valid homeowners association. This part of the ruling is relevant to every Christina resident.)

​

Developer assignment of rights: Receiving assignment of the developer's covenant authority was contingent on CHOA having been the duly organized official organization of homeowners. Contrary to this requirement, the 2003 and 2007 rulings described above said CHOA had to have had a legally sufficient vote to be a homeowners association in Florida and such a vote had not occurred. Because CHOA had not met the legal requirements it warranted to the developers, it had no right to have received assignment of developer rights over the covenants. U.R.S. Inc., the Christina Lakes developer, had the ability to assign certain rights under the covenants, but in the Christina Lakes covenants assignment document executed by IMC-Agrico, IMC-Agrico stated it was acting as the successor company to IMCD, who was not the developer of this phase. The document does not claim IMC-Agrico had received Christina Lakes covenant rights from U.R.S. to transfer them (and the relationship between U.R.S. and IMC-Agrico was challenged).

​

Covenants expiration: Under Florida's Marketable Record Title Act, the covenants expire if they are not renewed within 30 years of root of title, generally 30 years from the date the developer sold to a homeowner. (Please ask in the Christina Community Facebook group if you'd like help determining the exact expiration date for your property.) The covenants for this phase were executed on August 28, 1972, and would begin expiring 30 years from that time if not renewed first. Renewal would have had to have been filed with the clerk of courts, and was not. You can search the clerk of courts site​ to confirm no notice of covenant renewal was posted as required by law to keep the covenants from expiring. Had covenants not already expired under the MRTA in the months following August 2002, they would have expired on January 1, 2010 per the original deed restrictions. As CHOA documented, amendments by CHOA would only be in force if the underlying covenants had been renewed. 

October 30, 1972

Deed requirements for HOA: A vote of at least 51% of owners of all lots was required to establish a homeowners' association. When CHOA sued homeowners over dues, CHOA was required to show evidence of a legally sufficient vote. Upon review of all evidence CHOA provided, one judge determined there was no evidence of a legally sufficient vote so CHOA was not a "homeowners association" under Florida law and had no right to require dues. Another judge applied a higher evidentiary standard, confirming that there is proof that a legally sufficient vote did not occur and the CHOA was not validly formed​. Covenants could only be enforced by neighbors suing each other, not by CHOA, until the covenants expired, and dues could not be required. (The specific ruling that the sued households, who prevailed in this case, could never be forced into a homeowners association regardless of whether the community established a valid HOA in the future only applied to these households. The finding of fact underlying this ruling and documented in the public record removes all doubt about whether CHOA was properly formed from the start as a valid homeowners association. This part of the ruling is relevant to every Christina resident.)

​

Developer assignment of rights: Receiving assignment of the developer's covenant authority was contingent on CHOA having been the duly organized official organization of homeowners. Contrary to this requirement, the 2003 and 2007 rulings described above said CHOA had to have had a legally sufficient vote to be a homeowners association in Florida and such a vote had not occurred. Because CHOA had not met the legal requirements it warranted to the developers, it had no right to have received assignment of developer rights over the covenants. (Some homeowners challenged that IMC-Agrico, the company that executed a covenant assignment agreement, had the authority to transfer rights that had been held by the Christina Woods developer, U.R.S. We do not know whether it did.)

​

Covenants expiration: Under Florida's Marketable Record Title Act, the covenants expire if they are not renewed within 30 years of root of title, generally 30 years from the date the developer sold to a homeowner. (Please ask in the Christina Community Facebook group if you'd like help determining the exact expiration date for your property.) The covenants for this phase were executed on October 30, 1972, and would begin expiring 30 years from that time if not renewed first. Renewal would have had to have been filed with the clerk of courts, and was not. You can search the clerk of courts site​ to confirm no notice of covenant renewal was posted as required by law to keep the covenants from expiring. Had covenants not already expired under the MRTA in the months following October 2002, they would have expired on January 1, 2010 per the original deed restrictions. As CHOA documented, amendments by CHOA would only be in force if the underlying covenants were renewed. 

October 17, 1975

Deed requirements for HOA: The covenants did not provide for a homeowners association, so under the law, 100% vote from homeowners would have been required to form a HOA. The developer or lot owners could enforce covenants on other neighbors in court absent a duly formed official organization of property owners.

​

Developer assignment of rights: Receiving assignment of the developer's covenant authority was contingent on CHOA having been the duly organized official organization of homeowners, although a 100% vote of Annex homeowners never occurred so CHOA did not meet the requirement to receive authority under the covenants. (Under the covenants, until October 17, 1985, approval was required from the developer for construction or tree removal, at which point approval rights expired. This expiration of approval rights occurred before IMC-Agrico attempted to transfer rights to CHOA.)

​​

Covenants expiration: Under Florida's Marketable Record Title Act, the covenants expire if they are not renewed within 30 years of root of title, generally 30 years from the date the developer sold to a homeowner. (Please ask in the Christina Community Facebook group if you'd like help determining the exact expiration date for your property.) The covenants for this phase were executed on October 17, 1975, and would begin expiring 30 years from that time if not renewed first. Renewal would have had to have been filed with the clerk of courts, and was not. You can search the clerk of courts site​ to confirm no notice of covenant renewal was filed as required by law to keep the covenants from expiring. As CHOA documented, amendments by CHOA would only be in force if the underlying covenants were renewed. Further, after the initial court ruling against CHOA, Mr. Steven Mezer, a CHOA attorney writing in an official CHOA newsletter in 2003, if some neighbors did not want to sign new covenants at that time, CHOA would have no authority over those lots. Only 33% of Annex residents signed the now expired 2000 covenant amendments.

February 25, 1976

Deed requirements for HOA: The covenants did not provide for a homeowners association, so under the law, 100% vote from homeowners would have been required to form a HOA. The developer or lot owners could enforce covenants on other neighbors in court absent a duly formed official organization of property owners.

​

Developer assignment of rights: Receiving assignment of the developer's covenant authority was contingent on CHOA having been the duly organized official organization of homeowners, although a 100% vote of Phase 5 homeowners never occurred so CHOA did not meet the requirement to receive authority under the covenants. (Under the covenants, until February 25, 1986, approval was required from the developer for construction or tree removal, at which point approval rights expired. This expiration of approval rights occurred before IMC-Agrico attempted to transfer rights to CHOA.)

​​

Covenants expiration: Under Florida's Marketable Record Title Act, the covenants expire if they are not renewed within 30 years of root of title, generally 30 years from the date the developer sold to a homeowner. (Please ask in the Christina Community Facebook group if you'd like help determining the exact expiration date for your property.) The covenants for this phase were executed on February 25, 1976, and would begin expiring 30 years from that time if not renewed first. Renewal would have had to have been filed with the clerk of courts, and was not. You can search the clerk of courts site​ to confirm no notice of covenant renewal was filed as required by law to keep the covenants from expiring. As CHOA documented, amendments by CHOA would only be in force if the underlying covenants were renewed. Further, after the initial court ruling against CHOA, Mr. Steven Mezer, a CHOA attorney writing in an official CHOA newsletter in 2003, if some neighbors did not want to sign new covenants at that time, CHOA would have no authority over those lots. Only 33% of Phase 5 residents signed the now expired 2000 covenant amendments. 

September 23, 1977

Deed requirements for HOA: The covenants did not provide for a homeowners association, so under the law, 100% vote from homeowners would have been required to form an HOA. The developer or lot owners could enforce covenants on other neighbors in court absent a duly formed official organization of property owners.

​

Developer assignment of rights: Receiving assignment of the developer's covenant authority was contingent on CHOA having been the duly organized official organization of homeowners, although a 100% vote of Phase 6 homeowners never occurred so CHOA did not meet the requirement to receive authority under the covenants. (Under the covenants, until September 23, 1987, approval was required from the developer for new construction and tree removal, at which point the approval rights expired. This expiration of approval rights occurred before IMC-Agrico attempted to transfer rights to CHOA.)

​

Covenants expiration: Under Florida's Marketable Record Title Act, the covenants expire if they are not renewed within 30 years of root of title, generally 30 years from the date the developer sold to a homeowner. (Please ask in the Christina Community Facebook group if you'd like help determining the exact expiration date for your property.) The covenants for this phase were executed on September 23, 1977, and would begin expiring 30 years from that time if not renewed first. While renewal was filed by CHOA, CHOA appears not to have had the right to do so per the prior paragraphs. As CHOA documented, amendments by CHOA would only be in force if the underlying covenants were renewed. Further, after the initial court ruling against CHOA, Mr. Steven Mezer, a CHOA attorney writing in an official CHOA newsletter in 2003, if some neighbors did not want to sign new covenants at that time, CHOA would have no authority over those lots. Most of Phase 6 did not sign the now expired 2000 amendment to the covenants.

August 29, 1985

Deed requirements for HOA: The developer could form an HOA to which all lot owners would be members. HOA voting and dues are by lot without regard to dues payment. (Those with two lots get two votes and pay twice the dues of those with one lot.) However, there is no record with the clerk of courts nor found in CHOA records indicating CHOA was granted any authority by the developer as this phase's homeowners association.

​

Developer assignment of rights: The covenants allowed for transfer of rights to a homeowners association, but no document has been found on file with the clerk of courts nor in CHOA records indicating CHOA was assigned rights for Cliffside Estates. Notably, the proposed 2000 covenant amendments referenced the authority CHOA believed it had from the developer for each of the other phases (despite this assignment being contingent on CHOA having been a duly formed official organization of property owners, a standard which was not met), but no source of authority over Cliffside was cited in these proposed amendments. You can search the clerk of courts site​ to confirm no document assigning rights to CHOA, had it been properly formed, was filed.

​

Covenants expiration: Under Florida's Marketable Record Title Act, the covenants expire if they are not renewed within 30 years of root of title, generally 30 years from the date the developer sold to a homeowner. (Please ask in the Christina Community Facebook group if you'd like help determining the exact expiration date for your property.) The covenants for this phase were executed on August 29, 1985, and would begin expiring 30 years from that time if not renewed first. Renewal would have had to have been filed with the clerk of courts, and was not. You can search the clerk of courts site​ to confirm no notice of covenant renewal was posted as required by law to keep the covenants from expiring. As CHOA documented, amendments by CHOA would only be in force if the underlying covenants were renewed.