21-001241 Samuel Arnold, Tammy Arnold, Steven Crowley, Sherry Crowley, Bonnie Cowen, And Timothy Cowen vs. Sweetwater Pointe Homeowners Association, Inc. Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, January 5, 2022.

Summary: Petitioners failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Association's efforts to revitalize its expired Restrictive Covenants were improper.

S TATE OF F LORIDA

D IVISION OF A DMINISTRATIVE H EARINGS

S AMUEL A RNOLD , T AMMY A RNOLD ,

S TEVEN C ROWLEY , S HERRY C ROWLEY ,

B ONNIE C OWEN , A ND T IMOTHY C OWEN ,

Petitioners ,

vs. Case No. 21 - 1241

S WEETWATER P OINTE H OMEOWNERS

A SSOCIATION , I NC . ,

Respondent .

/

R ECOMMENDED O RDER

On October 27, 2021, Administrative Law Judge Robert J. Telfer III, of

the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH), conducted an

evidentiary hearing pursuant to section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2020), in

Tallahassee, Florida, via Zoom web - conference.

A PPEARANCES

For Petitioners: Brandon J. Stewart, Esquire

Attorneys Justin Clark & Associates, PLLC

500 Winderley Place, Suite 100

Maitland, Florida 32751

For Respondent: Frank A. Ruggieri, Esquire

The Ruggieri Law Firm , P.A.

111 N orth Orange Avenue, Suite 725

Orlando, Florida 32801

S TATEMENT OF T HE I SSUE

Whether Respondent , Sweetwater Pointe Homeowners Associat ion, Inc.

(Association), properly revived its expired Declaration of Covenants and

Restrictions in accordance with sections 720.403 through 720.407, Florida

Statutes (2020).

P RELIMINARY S TATEMENT

On October 20, 2020, the Department of Economic Opportunity

(Department) issued Determination Number 20163, which approved the

revitalization of the AssociationÔs ÑDeclaration of Covenants and RestrictionsÒ

and Ñother governing documentsÒ for the Sweetwater Pointe residential

subdivision.

On February 15, 2021, Pe titioners filed a Petition for Administrative

Hearing, and thereafter, on March 23, 2021, filed an Amended Petition to

Dispute Determination No. 21263, and Request for Hearing Pursuant to

§ 120.569 and 120.573 (Amended Petition). On April 7, 2021, the Depa rtment

forwarded the Amended Petition to DOAH, which assigned it to the

undersigned Administrative Law Judge to conduct the final hearing.

On April 29, 2021, the undersigned noticed the final hearing for May 27,

2021. The undersigned thereafter issued an Amended Notice of Hearing for

July 30, 2021. On July 20, 2021, Petitioners filed a Motion to Continue

Hearing Set for July 30, 2021, and Respondent, that same date, filed an

Objection to Motion to Continue Hearing and Motion for Protective Order.

Then, on July 23, 2021, Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Final Order.

On July 23, 2021, the undersigned entered an Order Denying Motion for

Summary Final Order. On July 26, 2021, the undersigned conducted a

telephonic status conference, and on July 30, 2021, e ntered an Order

Cancelling Hearing. Thereafter, on August 3, 2021, the undersigned noticed

the Final Hearing for September 23, 2021 .

On August 13, 2021, Respondent filed a Motion for Protective Order,

which the undersigned denied on August 23, 2021. On Au gust 31, 2021,

Respondent filed an Amended Motion for Protective Order. The undersigned

conducted a telephonic status conference on September 14, 2021, and on that

same date, entered an Order Granting, in Part, and Denying, in Part,

RespondentÔs Motion for Protective Order, and Ordering Petitioner to

Exchange Exhibits.

On September 23, 2021, the undersigned attempted to commence the final

hearing, but because a court reporter was not in attendance , continued the

final hearing. The undersigned thereafter no ticed the final hearing for

October 27, 2021.

The undersigned conducted the final hearing on October 27, 2021, by

Zoom web - conference. Petitioners presented the testimony of Tamika Spires -

Hanssen, William ÑBillÒ Stephenson, and Samuel Arnold. The undersi gned

admitted PetitionersÔ Exhibits P4, P13, and P14. Respondent presented the

testimony of Timothy Bruce Cowen and Steven Crowley. The undersigned

admitted RespondentÔs Exhibits R1 through R14 and R1 7 , into evidence.

The two - volume T ranscript of the fina l hearing was filed with DOAH on

December 6, 2021. The parties timely submitted P roposed R ecommended

O rders on December 16, 2021, which the undersigned has considered in the

preparation of this Recommended Order.

All statutory references are to the 2020 codification of the Florida

Statutes, unless otherwise indicated.

F INDINGS OF F ACT

1. Petitioners are parcel owners within the Sweetwater Pointe residential

subdivision in Inverness, Citrus County, Florida.

2. Respondent, the Association, is a Florida n ot - for - profit corporation

formed under chapter 617, Florida Statutes, and governed by chapter 720.

3. The Department is the state agency responsible for reviewing and

approving submissions from associations seeking to revive declarations of

covenants that have expired or otherwise have lapsed. Chapter 720, part III,

contains the requirements for revitalization and also contains the specific

responsibilities of the Department.

Restrictive Covenants and Other Governing Documents

4. In January 1987, Little P rince Communications, Inc. , recorded a

ÑDeclaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of Sweetwater PointeÒ

in the public records of Citrus County, Florida, governing 62 lots in the

Sweetwater Pointe residential subdivision (Restrictive Covenants).

5 . The Articles of Incorporation for the Association were recorded on

April 7, 1987.

6 . Authority for the enforcement of the Restrictive Covenants was

subsequently transferred to the Association. The Restrictive Covenants were

amended in June 2002.

7. By operation of the Marketable Record Title Act (MRTA), chapter 712,

Florida Statutes, the Restrictive Covenants expired 30 years from their

initial recording , in January 2017.

8. According to the testimony of Ms. Spires - Hanssen, a copy of the bylaws

of t he Association was discovered when the AssociationÔs prior management

company Ð Village Services Ð provided the Association with boxes of various

Association documents. A document that she identified as the AssociationÔs

bylaws had, in numerous places, handwri tten strike - throughs of certain

portions, and handwritten notes, edits, or additions throughout.

9. Ms. Spires - Hanssen testified that Ñthere was a lot of controversy

whether the bylaws existed or didnÔt exist.Ò The Association received an

opinion from it s attorneys that the document identified in paragraph 8 above

was a valid copy of the bylaws. She further testified that at some point in the

past, the Association attempted to amend its bylaws, which led her to believe

that the marked - up document referenc ed in paragraph 8 was the original

bylaws of the Association.

10. Mr. Stephenson, a former board member of the Association from 2000

to 2003, and again in 2019, testified that during his service as board member,

he did not believe that there were bylaws. He stated that he had searched for

ÑvalidÒ bylaws previously, but was unsuccessful. He testified that the

Association decided to not record a copy of what he believed were draft

bylaws when the Association amended the Restrictive Covenants in June

2002 Ñ[b ]ecause as far as the board knew, we had no bylaws.Ò

11. The undersigned notes that there do not appear to be any recorded

bylaws of the Association. However, neither chapter 617 nor the statutory

procedures for revitalization require that the Association bylaws be recorded.

Revitalization Process

12. In 2020, in an effort to revitalize the expired Restrictive Covenants,

the Association formed an Organizing Committee, which was comprised of

the three serving board members: Ms. Spires - Hanssen; Tricia Berr y; and

Nolan Toth.

13. At some point in 2020, the Organizing Committee prepared a packet of

documents that contained the following documents (Owners Packet):

a. Cover letter with instructions to homeowners from the members of the

Organizing Committee;

b . Second cover letter from Ms. Spires - Hanssen;

c. ÑRevived Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of

Sweetwater PointeÒ;

d. ÑRevived Articles of Incorporation of Sweetwater Pointe Homeowners

Association, Inc., a Corporation Not for ProfitÒ ;

e. ÑRevitalized By - Laws of Sweetwater Pointe Homeowners Association,

IncÒ ;

f. A list of all parcels in the Sweetwater Pointe residential subdivision,

including parcel owner(s), property address, legal description, and parcel I . D .

number;

g. Various le gal and graphical descriptions of the Sweetwater Pointe

residential subdivision; and

h. A ÑWritten Joinder and Consent to the Revived Declaration of

Covenants and Governing Documents of Sweetwater Pointe Homeowners

Association, Inc.Ò (consent joinder), w hich provided an owner to manifest

agreement with revitalization through its execution.

14. The cover letter with instructions to homeowners, contained in the

Owners Packet, contained the names, addresses, and phone numbers of all

three of the Organizing Committee members.

15. The Association introduced into evidence copies of documents entitled

ÑProperty Owner Information Sheet,Ò in which property owners within the

Sweetwater Pointe residential subdivision provided, inter alia, contact

information, and a uthorization to receive communications and documents

electronically, via email. Petitioners Samuel Arnold, Tammy Arnold, Steven

Crowley, and Sherry Crowley completed a Property Owner Information Sheet

and consented to receiving communications and documents electronically,

and provided an email address for such communications and documents.

16. The Association introduced additional evidence that the Organizing

Committee distributed the Owners Packet by hand delivery or regular mail to

all of the record owne rs in the Sweetwater Pointe residential subdivision.

Ms. Spires - Hanssen testified that the Organizing Committee mailed the

Owners Packet to the parcel owners who had not received the documents by

hand delivery, including all of the Petitioners. The evidenc e introduced

indicated that Owners Packets were mailed on May 27, 2020, with an

expected delivery date of May 30, 2020.

17. Ms. Spires - Hanssen testified that the Organizing Committee received

44 consent joinders from parcel owners who agreed with the prop osed

revitalization; however, the Organizing Committee rejected two of the

consent joinders for various issues. Ultimately, she testified that the

Organizing Committee received 42 properly - executed consent joinders.

Therefore, a majority of the 62 parcel o wners elected to proceed with the

revitalization process.

18. On September 11, 2020, the AssociationÔs attorney, Brian S. Hess of

the law firm Clayton & McCulloh, mailed to the Department a packet of

documents that sought approval of the revitalization of the Restrictive

Covenants (Department Packet). The Department Packet contained:

a. ÑRevived Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of

Sweetwater PointeÒ;

b. ÑRevived Articles of Incorporation of Sweetwater Pointe Homeowners

Association, I nc., a Corporation Not For ProfitÒ;

c. ÑRevitalized By - Laws of Sweetwater Pointe Homeowners Association,

Inc.Ò;

d. Verification of copies of previous ÑDeclaration of Covenants and Other

Previous Governing Documents for the CommunityÒ;

e. Legal descripti ons of each parcel subject to the ÑRevitalized Declaration

and other Governing DocumentsÒ;

f. Graphical description(s) of affected properties;

g. Affidavit of Compliance;

h. Verification of Written Consents;

i. ÑWritten Joinders and Consents to the Rev italized Declaration of

Covenants and Governing Documents of Sweetwater Pointe Homeowners

Association, Inc.Ò;

j. Affidavit of President; and

k. Letter to parcel owners explaining and enclosing covenant

revitalization documents.

19. In a letter dated Oct ober 20, 2020, the Department approved the

proposed revitalization of the Restrictive Covenants.

20. On November 3, 2020, the Organizing Committee recorded the

Revitalized Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of

Sweetwater Pointe ; the Rev ived Articles of Incorporation ; and Revitalized By -

Laws with the Citrus County C lerk.

21. On November 21, 2020, the Organizing Committee mailed to the

parcel owners who had not consented to receive notice electronically, the

recorded documents, as well as the DepartmentÔs October 20, 2020, letter. On

that same date, the Organizing Committee emailed electronic copies of these

documents to the parcel owners who previously consented to receiving notice

electronically.

Issues Raised by Petitioners

22. Petiti oners raised various issues concerning the documents included in

the Owners Packet.

23. Petitioners contend that the cover letter from the members of the

Organizing Committee made numerous false or misleading statements that

failed to alert parcel owners that the Restrictive Covenants had expired. For

example, the cover letterÔs statements that there was a ÑriskÒ that the

Restrictive Covenants could be extinguished by MRTA, and that an

extinguishment could be ÑdisastrousÒ for the Sweetwater Pointe communit y,

were, according to Petitioners, misleading.

24. The undersigned finds that the Owners Packet contained the

documents required under section 720.405, and when considered as an

entirety, the Owners Packet was not false or misleading.

25. Next, Petitione rs contend that there were never governing bylaws of

the Association, so inclusion of the bylaws in the Owners Packet was

improper.

26. With respect to the inclusion of a copy of the bylaws in the packet,

Ms. Spires - Hanssen testified credibly that the byla ws found in the trove of

documents provided by the previous management company were the bylaws

the Organizing Committee decided to include in the Owners Packet, upon

advice of counsel. Although she could not attest that the various handwritten

strike - throu ghs and notations were in the original draft of the bylaws, she

testified that she provided this document to the AssociationÔs attorney. She

further testified that the previous management company , and the

AssociationÔs attorney , retyped the bylaws included in the OwnerÔs Packet, so

that this newly - typed document did not reflect the strike - throughs and

notations that were in the original document. 1

Issue Raised by Respondent

27. The Association elicited testimony and introduced evidence of the

actions of in dividual Petitioners during the revitalization process that it

contends establishes that Petitioners brought the instant action for an

improper purpose. For example, one of the Petitioners filed a complaint with

the AssociationÔs insurance company. As anot her example, one of the

Petitioners filed a complaint against Ms. Spires - Hanssen, a Florida - licensed

real estate broker, with the Department of Business and Professional

Regulation, which involved allegations concerning the proposed

revitalization. The und ersigned does not find that these activities were

1 Petitioners also introduced evidence that the Written Joinder and Consent document

included in the Owners Packet failed to include specific reference to the revived or revitalized

bylaws, although a copy of the ÑRevitalized By - Laws of Sweetwater Pointe Homeowners

Association, Inc. , Ò was included in the Owners Packet. Petitioners failed to raise this issue in

their Amended Petition or their unilaterally - filed Pre - h earing Statement, and did not

address it any further in their P roposed R ec ommended O rder.

primarily to harass or cause unnecessary delay for the underlying

revitalization matter, or were for a frivolous purpose or to needlessly increase

the cost of the instant matter.

C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW

28. DOA H has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this

proceeding in accordance with sections 120.569 and 120.57(1).

29. Petitioners have the burden of proving their claims by a

preponderance of the evidence. Fla. DepÔt of Transp. v. J.W.C., In c., 396 So.

2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

30. The Florida Legislature enacted MRTA in 1963 to simpl ify and

facilitate land transactions. Blanton v. City of Pinellas Park, 887 So. 2d 1224,

1227 (Fla. 2004). Under MRTA, restrictive covenants cease to be effect ive as

to land parcels governed by the restrictive covenants 30 years after the

restrictive covenants have been referenced in a deed that burdens each lot.

§ 712.02, Fla. Stat.

31. The Association concedes that its Restrictive Covenants expired by

operatio n of MRTA.

32. When MRTA extinguishes a communityÔs restrictive covenants, an

association can utilize the procedures set forth in chapter 720, part III

(sections 7 20 .403 - .407), to revive the expired restrictive covenants.

33. Section 720.405 describes the procedure and documents required to be

provided to the parcel owners in order to obtain parcel owner approval with

respect to the revival of expired restrictive covenants. Section 720.405

provides as follows:

720.405 Organizing Committee; parcel owners

ap proval. Ð

(1) The proposal to revive a declaration of

covenants and an association for a community

under the terms of this act shall be initiated by an

organizing committee consisting of not less than

three parcel owners located in the community that

is pr oposed to be governed by the revived

declaration. The name, address, and telephone

number of each member of the organizing

committee must be included in any notice or other

document provided by the committee to parcel

owners to be affected by the proposed revived

declaration.

(2) The organizing committee shall prepare or

cause to be prepared the complete text of the

proposed revised declaration of covenants to be

submitted to the parcel owners for approval. The

proposed revived documents must identify each

parcel that is to be subject to the governing

documents by its legal description, and by the name

of the parcel owner or the person in whose name

the parcel is assessed on the last completed tax

assessment roll of the county at the time when the

proposed revised declaration is submitted for

approval by the parcel owners.

(3) The organizing committee shall prepare the full

text of the proposed articles of incorporation and

bylaws of the revived association to be submitted to

the parcel owners for approval, unless the

association is then an existing corporation, in

which case the organizing committee shall prepare

the existing articles of incorporation and bylaws to

be submitted to the parcel owners.

(4) The proposed revised declaration and other

governing documents for the community shall:

(a) Provide that the voting interest of each parcel

owner shall be the same as the voting interest of

the parcel owner under the previous governing

documents;

(b) Provide that the proportional - assessment

obligations of each parcel owner shall be the same

as proportional - assessment obligations of the parcel

owner under the previous governing documents;

(c) Contain the same respective amendment

provisions as the previous governing documents or,

if there were no amendment provisions in the

previous governing document, amendment

provisions that require approval of not less than

two - thirds of the affected parcel owners;

(d) Contain no covenants that are more restrictive

on the affected parcel owners than the covenants

contai ned in the previous governing documents,

except as permitted under s. 720.404(3); and

(e) Comply with the other requirements for a

declaration of covenants and other governing

documents as specified in this chapter.

(5) A copy of the complete text of the proposed

revised declaration of covenants, the proposed new

or existing articles of incorporation and bylaws of

the association, and a graphic depiction of the

property to be governed by the revived declaration

shall be presented to all of the affected pa rcel

owners by mail not less than 14 days before the

time that the consent of the affected parcel owners

to the proposed governing documents is sought by

the organizing committee.

(6) A majority of the affected parcel owners must

agree in writing to the r evived declaration of

covenants and governing documents of the

association or approve the revived declaration and

governing documents by a vote at a meeting of the

affected parcel owners noticed and conducted in the

manner prescribed by s. 720.306. Proof o f notice of

the meeting to all affected owners of the meeting

and the minutes of the meeting recording the votes

of the property owners shall be certified by a court

reporter or an attorney licensed to practice in the

state.

34. Section 720.406 describes the procedure and documents required to be

submitted to the Department in order to revive expired covenants. Section

720.406 provides as follows:

720.406. Department of Economic

Opportunity; submission; review and

determination. Ð

(1) No later than 60 day s after the proposed revived

declaration and other governing documents are

approved by the parcel owners, the organizing

committee or its designee must submit the

proposed revived governing documents and

supporting materials to the Department of

Economic O pportunity to review and determine

whether to approve or disapprove of the proposal to

preserve the residential community. The

submission to the department must include:

(a) The full text of the proposed revived declaration

of covenants and articles of in corporation and

bylaws of the homeownersÔ association;

(b) A verified copy of the previous declaration of

covenants and other previous governing documents

for the community, including any amendments

thereto;

(c) The legal description of each parcel to be subject

to the revived declaration and other governing

documents and a plat or other graphic depiction of

the affected properties in the community;

(d) A verified copy of the written consents of the

requisite number of the affected parcel owners

approvin g the revived declaration and other

governing documents or, if approval was obtained

by a vote at a meeting of affected parcel owners,

verified copies of the notice of the meeting,

attendance, and voting results;

(e) An affidavit by a current or former off icer of the

association or by a member of the organizing

committee verifying that the requirements for the

revived declaration set forth in s. 720.404 have

been satisfied; and

(f) Such other documentation that the organizing

committee believes is supporti ve of the policy of

preserving the residential community and

operating, managing, and maintaining the

infrastructure, aesthetic character, and common

areas serving the residential community.

(2) No later than 60 days after receiving the

submission, the de partment must determine

whether the proposed revived declaration of

covenants and other governing documents comply

with the requirements of this act.

(a) If the department determines that the proposed

revived declaration and other governing documents

comp ly with the act and have been approved by the

parcel owners as required by this act, the

department shall notify the organizing committee

in writing of its approval.

(b) If the department determines that the proposed

revived declaration and other governin g documents

do not comply with this act or have not been

approved as required by this act, the department

shall notify the organizing committee in writing

that it does not approve the governing documents

and shall state the reasons for the disapproval.

3 5. Petitioners contend that the Association did not comply with the

requirements of the revitalization procedure set forth in sections 720.403

through 720.406. The undersigned addresses each alleged violation below.

36. Petitioners first contend that the Association improperly formed an

organizing committee, in derogation of a homeowners associationÔs powers

and duties prescribed in section 702.303, when it retained a management

company and attorneys before notifying the AssociationÔs members of its plan

t o revitalize the Restrictive Covenants. Petitioners additionally contend that

the Organizing Committee failed to comply with section 702.405, as it was

comprised of the AssociationÔs board members, with no notification to the

AssociationÔs members of their appointment. The undersigned concludes that

Petitioners have failed to present any persuasive evidence concerning these

allegations, and further concludes that the competent, substantial evidence

presented at the final hearing established that the Associa tion properly

formed the Organizing Committee in accordance with the governing statutes.

37. Next, Petitioners argue that the cover letter authored by the

Organizing Committee in the Owners Packet contained numerous misleading

statements. According to Pet itioners, this cover letter confused the

homeowners concerning whether the Restrictive Covenants had actually

expired. Section 720.405 is silent, and therefore does not specify the

requirements of, a cover letter (other than section 720.405(1)Ôs requiremen t

that Ñany notice or other document provided by the [organizing] committee to

parcel ownersÒ contain the name, address, and telephone number of each

member of the organizing committee). The undersigned finds that the

Owners Packet included the documents r equired under section 720.405, and

when considered as an entirety, was not false or misleading.

38. Petitioners also argue that the Owners Packet failed to comply with

the requirements of section 720.405 , as it included bylaws which it contends

are not th e original bylaws of the Association.

39. Section 720.405(3) provides that the Organizing Committee Ñshall

prepare the existing articles of incorporation and bylaws to be submitted to

the parcel owners.Ò Section 720.405(5) states that Ñ[a] copy of the È proposed

new or existing È bylaws of the association È shall be presented to all of the

affected parcel owners by mail or hand delivery È.Ò

40. The undersigned concludes that the Organizing Committee obtained a

copy of what it credibly concluded were the bylaws of the Association, and

reproduced a retyped ÑcleanÒ copy of it (that removed handwritten strike -

throughs and edits) as part of the Owners Packet. The undersigned concludes

that this reproduction complies with section 720.405Ôs requirement that the

Organizing Committee ÑprepareÒ a copy of the existing bylaws of the

Association. The undersigned concludes that Petitioners failed to establish,

by a preponderance of the evidence, that the copy of the bylaws the

Organizing Committee included in the Owners Packet were invalid or

otherwise improperly included under section 720.405.

41. Petitioners next argue that the proposed revived Restrictive

Covenants are more restrictive than the original Restrictive Covenants, in

derogation of section 720.405(4). The undersigned notes that Petitioners

failed to raise this issue in their Amended Petition, or in their unilaterally -

filed Pre - h earing Statement and , further, presented no evidence on this issue

at the final hearing. ÑPretrial stipulations prescribing the iss ues on which a

case is to be tried are binding upon the parties and the court, and should be

strictly enforced.Ò Broche v. Cohn, 987 So. 2d 124, 127 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)

(citations omitted). See also Palm Beach Polo Holdings, Inc. v. Broward

Marine, Inc. , 1 74 So. 3d 1037 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (holding that a pre - hearing

stipulation constitutes Ñthe final agreed - upon Óexecutive summaryÔ as to what

the impending trial is about and the specific issues that remain on the

table.Ò). Because Petitioners failed to rai se this issue in either their Amended

Petition or their Pre - h earing Statement, the undersigned concludes that they

cannot raise it for the first time, in their proposed recommended order, for

resolution; regardless, the undersigned concludes that Petitione rs did not

establish this issue by a preponderance of the evidence. 2

42. Petitioners also contend that the documents included in the Owners

Packet differed from the documents included in the Department Packet,

because the Owners Packet did not include ori ginal bylaws ( i.e., the one with

the handwritten strike - throughs and edits), and that this discrepancy

violated the requirements of sections 720.405 and 720.406. As previously

2 The undersigned additionally notes that Petitioners raised numerous other issues in its

Amended Petition and Pre - h earing Statement, that they either did not pursue at the final

hearing or in their P roposed R ecommended O rder. The undersig ned declines to address those

issues Petitioners originally raised but abandoned at the final hearing.

found and concluded, the undersigned finds and concludes that the Owners

Packet contained a reproduced version of what the Organizing Committee

concluded were the original bylaws. The Department Packet contained copies

of the revived bylaws, as well as the original bylaws ( i.e., the copy with the

handwritten strike - throughs and edits) , which the undersigned concludes is

consistent with the requirements of section 720.406.

43. As detailed above, the undersigned concludes that the Association

complied with the requirements of sections 720.403 through 720.406.

R ECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the

undersigned hereby R ECOMMENDS that the Department of Economic

Opportunity enter a final order approving the revitalization of the

Sweetwater Pointe Homeowners Association, Inc.Ôs , expired Restricti ve

Covenants and governing documents.

D ONE A ND E NTERED this 5th day of January , 2022 , in Tallahassee, Leon

County, Florida.

S

R OBERT J. T ELFER III

Administrative Law Judge

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

www.doah.s tate.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 5th day of January , 2022 .

C OPIES F URNISHED :

Justin Clark, Esquire Jaiden Foss, Agency Clerk

Attorneys Justin Clark & Associates, PLLC Department of Economic Opportunity

Suite 100 Caldwell Building

500 Winderley Place 107 East Madison Street

Maitland, Florida 32751 Tallahassee, Florida 3 2399 - 4128

Brand on J. Stewart, Esquire Frank A. Ruggieri, Esquire

Attorneys Justin Clark & Associates, PLLC The Ruggieri Law Firm, P . A .

Suite 100 Suite 725

500 Winderley Place 111 North Orange Avenue

Maitland, Florida 32751 Orlando, Florida 32801

Tomika Spires - Hanssen Dane Eagle, Executive Director

Sweetwater Pointe Homeowners Department of Economic Opportunity

Association, Inc. Caldwell Building

Post Office Box 636 107 East Madison Street

Inverness, Florida 34451 Tallahassee, Florida 3 2399

Tom Thomas, Gener al Counsel

Department of Economic Opportunity

Caldwell Building, MSC 110

107 East Madison Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 4128

N OTICE OF R IGHT T O S UBMIT E XCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from

the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended

Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final O rder in this

case.