Judge: Circuit Judge Scott Blaue
Property: 1407 Cypress Trace Dr., Melbourne, FL 32940 (Lot 42, Cypress Trace Suntree Planned Unit Development Stage 4)
Outcome: Full Settlement Reached at Mediation — May 28, 2025

---

Case Overview

This case involved the Suntree Master Homeowners Association (SMHA) suing homeowners Michael William Cook and Marivic Carlos Cook over alleged failure to maintain the exterior of their home — specifically, failure to clean mold and stains from the roof. The HOA sought a declaratory judgment that the homeowners violated the community’s governing documents and an injunction ordering them to power wash or otherwise clean the roof. The case raised significant legal issues about HOA authority, standing, the enforceability of amended governing documents, and homeowner rights under Florida law.

Background and the HOA’s Claims

The Suntree community in Brevard County, Florida is governed by a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) originally recorded in Official Records Book 1545, Page 144. The governing documents were amended multiple times by the original developer, The Suntree Partners, with the last developer-era version being the Fourth Amended and Restated Declaration recorded in 1998 (Official Records Book 3854, Page 406). Developer control ended on January 1, 2000.

In October 2023, the SMHA issued a notice of intent to enforce the CC&Rs against the Cooks. The HOA alleged violations of Article V, Section 3 of the Declaration (requiring homeowners to maintain their property in good order and repair) and the Suntree Master Homeowners Association Covenant Enforcement Guidelines, which stated that obvious dark stains covering less than 25% of a structure “may constitute a violation” and that a roof with 25% or more of its surface covered by obvious staining/discoloration “may be considered in violation.”

On July 6, 2023, the HOA sent a Statutory Offer to Participate in Presuit Mediation pursuant to Section 720.311, Florida Statutes. When the Cooks did not participate in presuit mediation, the HOA filed suit on August 18, 2023, seeking:

• A declaratory judgment that the homeowners violated the governing documents
• An injunction ordering the homeowners to power wash or clean the roof
• Attorney’s fees and costs

The Homeowners’ Defense

The Cooks, represented by attorney Nicholas Vidoni of Vidoni Law PLLC, filed a vigorous defense raising multiple legal challenges to the HOA’s case. Their September 2023 Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses, and a subsequent 22-page Memorandum in Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees (filed April 1, 2024), presented the following key arguments:

1. Lack of Standing

The defense argued that the HOA lacked standing because it never demonstrated that its board of directors voted to approve the enforcement action at a properly noticed open meeting. Under Florida law, an HOA must act through proper corporate mechanisms — a single board member or officer cannot authorize a lawsuit on the association’s behalf. The defense cited Desch v. S. Fork of Hillsborough II Ass’n, Inc., 364 So. 3d 1064 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023), where a court reversed judgment for an association that never showed it had a meeting and vote to approve a special assessment. The defense argued the HOA had to prove it completed five required steps: (1) give notice to members, (2) hold an open meeting, (3) establish a quorum, (4) obtain a board vote, and (5) compile meeting minutes — and that the HOA had provided no proof of any of these steps.

2. Adequate Remedy at Law — Failure to State a Cause of Action

The defense argued the HOA’s complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief failed to state a cause of action because the Declaration itself provided the HOA with an adequate remedy at law. Under Article V of the Fourth Amended and Restated Declaration, the HOA had the right to enter upon the homeowner’s property, fix the alleged violation, and then assess the cost as a lien against the property. Because this legal remedy existed, the defense argued the HOA could not seek equitable relief (injunction). The defense relied on Alorda v. Sutton Place Homeowners Ass’n, 82 So. 3d 1077 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) and McConico v. Morgan’s Mill Prop. Owners Ass’n (Fla. 6th DCA 2023), where Florida courts reversed HOA judgments on exactly this basis.

3. Which Governing Documents Apply?

The defense raised a critical factual dispute about which version of the governing documents were actually enforceable. Since the developer’s control ended in 2000, any amendments to the Declaration or Bylaws after that date had to be adopted through proper member voting procedures — including notice, quorum, and majority vote requirements. The defense argued that the HOA had not proven that its post-2000 rules and amendments (including the Covenant Enforcement Guidelines cited in the complaint) were validly adopted. If these rules were adopted without proper procedure, they would be ultra vires and void under Florida law.

4. Evidentiary Hearing Required

When the HOA filed a motion for attorney’s fees claiming the case was moot due to “voluntary compliance” by the homeowners, the defense argued that the court could not resolve this at a non-evidentiary hearing. Citing Del Valle v. Biltmore II Condo. Ass’n, 411 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) and 51 Island Way Condo. Ass’n v. Williams, 458 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), the defense argued that the critical question was whether the homeowners came into compliance because of the lawsuit or for independent reasons — an issue of intent that required an evidentiary hearing to resolve.

5. Impairment of Contract / Retroactivity of Statutes

The defense made a constitutional argument that attorney’s fee provisions in the Florida Statutes could not be applied retroactively to impair the contractual rights established in the original Declaration. Under Florida’s constitutional prohibition on impairment of contracts (Art. I, § 10, Fla. Const.), the defense argued that fee provisions are substantive rights that must be governed by the statute in effect when the Declaration was recorded, citing Moser v. Barron Chase Sec., Inc., 783 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 2001).

6. Discovery Non-Compliance by the HOA

The defense filed a Motion to Compel and, later, an Amended Motion for Contempt and Motion for Sanctions (May 6, 2025), arguing that the HOA had failed to comply with a court order from April 18, 2024 requiring production of documents. The requested documents included board meeting minutes, records showing authorization for the lawsuit, evidence of proper notice and quorum for amendments, and the original Declaration. The defense noted the HOA had over a year to comply and asked the court to impose sanctions including dismissal, daily fines payable to Brevard County Legal Aid, and attorney’s fees.

Key Procedural History

• August 18, 2023: HOA files Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief
• September 14, 2023: Defendants file Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses
• October 17, 2023: HOA files Motion to Strike Defendants’ Demand for Attorney’s Fees, arguing Defendants forfeited fee recovery by not participating in presuit mediation (Fla. Stat. § 720.311(2)(b))
• April 1, 2024: Defendants file 22-page Memorandum opposing HOA’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees
• April 18, 2024: Court orders HOA to produce discovery documents
• November 22, 2024: Judge Scott Blaue issues pretrial order
• May 6, 2025: Defendants file Amended Motion for Contempt and Sanctions over HOA’s failure to comply with discovery order
• May 14, 2025: Notice of Mediation — scheduled May 28, 2025 via Zoom with mediator Nadine G. Mitchell
• May 26, 2025: Defendants file Witness and Exhibit List
• May 28, 2025: Mediation held — parties reach a full settlement agreement
• May 29, 2025: Notice of Cancellation of Hearing — the June 19 hearings on the contempt and sanctions motions are cancelled in light of the settlement

Outcome

On May 28, 2025, the parties attended a court-ordered mediation session conducted by certified mediator Nadine Mitchell of Select Mediation, LLC. The mediation report, e-filed May 28, 2025 (Filing # 224075423), confirmed that “The parties Reached a Full-Settlement Agreement.”

The specific terms of the settlement are confidential, as is typical of mediated settlements in Florida. Following the settlement, the Defendants filed a Notice of Cancellation cancelling all pending hearings, including those on the Defendants’ motion for contempt and sanctions against the HOA for discovery non-compliance.

Key Legal Takeaways for Florida Homeowners

• HOA Standing Is Not Automatic: An HOA must prove it properly authorized enforcement actions through a board vote at a noticed open meeting. Homeowners can challenge whether the HOA followed its own procedures to bring suit.
• Adequate Remedy at Law Can Defeat an Injunction: If an HOA’s own declaration gives it the right to enter a property, fix a violation, and assess costs to the homeowner, that adequate legal remedy may bar the HOA from seeking equitable relief like an injunction. Florida appellate courts have reversed HOA judgments on this basis.
• Post-Developer Amendments Must Follow Proper Procedure: After developer control ends, any changes to CC&Rs, bylaws, or rules must comply with the notice, quorum, and voting requirements set out in the governing documents and Florida Statutes. Improperly adopted amendments are ultra vires and void.
• Presuit Mediation Matters: Under Florida Statute § 720.311, homeowners who fail to participate in presuit mediation risk losing the ability to recover attorney’s fees even if they prevail. This statute was a key issue in this case.
• Discovery Compliance Is Required: HOAs that fail to comply with court-ordered discovery face sanctions, including potential dismissal. Homeowners should aggressively seek production of board meeting minutes, voting records, and other documents that may undermine the HOA’s case.
• The Constitutional Prohibition on Contract Impairment Applies: Florida’s constitution prohibits retroactive impairment of contractual rights established in recorded declarations. Fee provisions and other substantive rights are governed by the statute in effect when the declaration was recorded.

Applicable Florida Statutes

• Florida Statute § 720.305 — Obligations of Members; Remedies at Law or in Equity; Levy of Fines
• Florida Statute § 720.303 — Association Powers and Duties
• Florida Statute § 720.311 — Dispute Resolution (Presuit Mediation)
• Florida Statute § 720.306 — Meetings of Members; Voting and Election Procedures
• Article I, § 10, Florida Constitution — Prohibition on Laws Impairing Contract Obligations

---

This case summary is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified Florida attorney for guidance on your specific situation.