By North Shore at Lake Hart HOA Board Members

Several signed petitions were recently turned in to North Shore’s HOA attorneys requesting that the Board call a special meeting of the members for January 2023 for the sole purpose of voting to “veto” the 2023 budget that was approved by the Board in a meeting last November. A vote to reject the previously approved budget would require a supermajority of 700 or more homeowners voting in favor of a motion that would have to be made at the special meeting.  The request is being denied based on several errors in the method employed to distribute, collect and sign the petition.

Lynn Sandford posted a sample petition on a Facebook page and on a website that would allow anyone to download as many petitions as they wanted then drop them by her house or leave them in a box in front of it. Because of the way some of the petitions were collected, there is no way to determine who actually signed these petitions. In many instances signatures and printed names were not legible and some other names did not match that of the property owners as registered with the Orange County Tax Appraiser Office.

Holding this meeting would require finding a suitable location for at least 700 members to show up to vote in person, if they choose to. This is a sizeable and expensive proposition that could easily exceed $10,000, which the Association cannot responsibly do unless absolutely necessary by law. While our Bylaws and CC&R’s allow for a special meeting to be called by the Board upon the request of at least 10% (105) of the members, the Board must be able to determine without a doubt that each of the people requesting the meeting is in fact the owner (not a tenant) of a home in North Shore and that they personally completed and properly signed their petition since the cost of the meeting could be significant.

It is also pertinent to clarify some of the most glaring statements of misinformation that Ms. Sanford, who led the petition effort, and others in her camp made in a recent document mailed to their neighbors. Unfortunately, misinformation has an inherent advantage that they are exploiting: it is easy and cheap to propagate because it requires little effort other than the desire to tell a half-truth or a plain lie. Fiction is often flashier than the [sometimes even boring] plain truth. So that you may arrive at your own, educated decision, we provide some verifiable facts for your consideration that directly contradict this group’s allegations. And while at it, please bear in mind that the HOA’s website, www.northshoreatlakeharthoa.com is the only official site with verifiable and accurate facts as well as a library of legal documents you may review at leisure to find the truth.

• Copies of the final approved budget were mailed out to ALL homeowners on Dec. 1 contrary to this group stating, “No approved budget was mailed”. The Finance Committee and Board Treasurer answered in detail over 15 pages of questions during a community open budget meeting. Hundreds of hours were dedicated to preparing this budget.

• EVERY expense for 2023 is accounted for. The upcoming road repaving expense projected for 2026 is being accounted for in the form of money transferred to the reserve fund where this type of expense belongs when one follows the most basic rules of accounting. We are currently on track to have the necessary funding in place to cover the cost when the time comes. The scare tactic being employed by Sanford’s group when alleging this project will represent a stiff special assessment is simply not rooted in truth or reality.

• There is NO off-budget spending, and the budget is not “out of kilter”. Every expenditure during the year has been approved as part of an annual budget or in a few rare instances additional expenditures are approved at Board meetings during the year when unexpected expenditures arise (such as the breach in the Marsh Pine weir a few years ago caused by a sudden storm resulting in approximately $30,000 in repairs.) The Board met and approved this emergency expense to prevent further damage to the levy and weir, which we are required by law to maintain.

• The accumulated surplus is NOT to be confused with our Reserve Fund, something Ms. Sanford and her group often do. Reserve Funds were established by the original developer (therefore not requiring a vote of homeowners) and are used to accumulate money that will pay for refurbishments or replacements of all HOA owned major assets like road paving, gates, playground, tennis courts, pool, dock, clubhouse, irrigation system, retention ponds, etc. That’s why we have a new Reserve Study done every three years and updated each year by an independent firm which includes engineers and other personnel trained and qualified to do these studies. The result of the studies is to tell us exactly how much to set aside each year so that when the time comes the money is there to pay for these projects. Again, we are on target to execute scheduled infrastructure projects and this HOA’s fiscal health is sound. The HOA is a corporation and therefore may have an accumulated surplus (also known as retained earnings). The original developer added money to create a surplus in the early years of the HOA. A sizeable amount also was added later because of a lawsuit settlement with a prior management company. Additionally, some years there may be a small excess of revenues over expenses that also add to the accumulated surplus.  To help homeowners out and not increase dues as needed during 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023 (when a lot of homeowners were hurting financially due to furloughs and layoffs caused by shutdowns due to Covid-19) the Finance Committee recommended to the Board and the Board agreed to use the accumulated surplus as an additional source of funds to balance the budget each of those years. Those were planned budget line items and approved as part of the annual budget each of those years.
  

• It’s interesting to note that Ms. Sanford and her group object, in writing nevertheless, to the use of the accumulated surplus to offset costs during the COVID-19 pandemic arguing that “nothing in our governing documents” requires that the HOA Board assists residents during a pandemic. At a time that many of us saw our incomes go down and financial uncertainty kept many awake at night, they callously argue against empathy.

If you have questions or concerns about the budget, please do not rely on newsletters and websites devoid of truth like those that Ms. Sanford is behind. We encourage you to email your specific questions to Laurie Bihailo (HOA Manager) at lbihailo@accessdifference.com and she will answer all of your questions truthfully and in a manner that allows for independent verification.

By: North Shore at Lake Hart HOA Board Members

In the HOA’s most recent legal victory, a lawsuit  has been dismissed for a fourth time. Here’s what’s going on with that and a few other legal matters.

Homeowners versus the HOA: A lawsuit filed in 2020 by homeowners Lynn Sanford and two other anonymous plaintiffs was dismissed for the fourth time on Feb. 1^st. The lawsuit continues to be dismissed based on error and inconsistencies. This time, the judge told the plaintiffs they have one final chance to make a coherent legal case before the suit gets permanently tossed out. They will have 20 days to refile if they choose to do so. Currently, the only plaintiff left in the lawsuit is Ms. Sanford. All others have withdrawn their names. She is being represented by Bruce Burtoff, an attorney who is a homeowner in North Shore. The suit has seen many iterations in terms of number of plaintiffs, defendants and damages sought. One of its versions sought damages that could have cost each homeowner in North Shore approximately $20,000 in a special assessment.

Election Litigation:  This is a lawsuit brought forth in early 2020 by homeowners David Verlander, Brian Friedel, Lynn Sandford, Louise Dutton and John Baker (who since has moved from our community and dropped his name from the suit). It alleges that the HOA Board is in violation of a Department of Business and Professional Regulations order about the way the 2019 Board of Directors election was conducted.  The DBPR incorrectly found that elections for the three years prior had to be overturned because nominations were not taken from the floor, which the community has never done.  This was a procedural error since DBPR can only look at elections within 60 days from when they occur.

The plaintiffs wanted their lawsuit to be decided via a Summary Judgment, which was denied by a judge last year. This is a court ruling issued when the key facts of the case are not disputed. Since the purpose of a trial is to have either a judge, a jury or both decide what the facts are, when both sides agree as to what these are, a judge can decide how to apply the law without a trial. But this is clearly not the case with this lawsuit, causing the judge not to grant the judgement.

This case may eventually go to trial, but it’s unclear when. Despite insinuations on Ms. Sanford’s website that they are winning this case, the fact is that at the moment is not even in a trial docket and the one time they have been before a judge, they lost.

Defamation cases: The Board has acted in two different instances to protect Board members and other volunteers against slanderous and libelous comments made by homeowners in a public forum. These volunteers work thousands of hours per year and save the HOA hundreds of thousands of dollars performing services for free. There are currently two active suits of this nature. One against Maria O’Donnell and another one against Lynn Sandford.  The Orlando Law Group recently recouped $11,751 in legal fees from Maria O’Donnell who admitted defaming board members but later called it a “joke”. These fees were returned to the HOA (just as they should be). There will be another hearing on this case to structure and collect additional fees. The Sanford case is in full motion and we are moving aggressively to depose several individuals.