Florida Ruling Empowers Voluntary Organizations in Disputes With Members
Citing judicial deference, the Fourth District Court of Appeal decided to bow out of this dispute between a Martin County man and and aviation community that stripped him of his membership.
November 21, 2019 at 10:38 AM
4 minute read
The Fourth District Court of Appeal invoked a rule of judicial deference that says courts should generally stay away from the affairs of voluntary organizations, reversing a decision against a Florida nonprofit.
The plaintiff, a Martin County aviation community called The Naked Lady Ranch Inc., had hoped to obtain an injunction against a former member accused of improperly using its runway and airstrip. But Martin Circuit Judge Barbara Bronis tossed the suit after a bench trial in May 2018. The judge found the plaintiff hadn't established a prima facie case on any of its counts, and that its documents didn't include a procedure for suspension or termination.
That was a step too far, according to the Fourth DCA.
The appellate panel found the trial court shouldn't have conducted a de novo inquiry into the community's decision to strip membership from Michael Wycoki Jr., who had used a private pilot to fly him and colleagues to work at medical clinics around Florida and allegedly caused a nuisance with early morning departures in a twin-engine plane.
The plaintiff alleges Wycoki used the runway for commercial use by operating a "for-hire aircraft," but he says he wasn't charging anyone. The co-workers were paid by their employer for the time they spent flying to and from work, according to the opinion.
Pointing to case law, the appellate panel found that governing bodies of private membership organizations are the final arbiters because "courts do not review disciplinary actions of social clubs,' including voluntary membership clubs tied to homeownership."
What the trial court should have done, according to the opinion, was simply decipher whether the organization violated its own governing documents and whether the defendant's membership was stripped because of a procedure that was fair, reasonable and carried out in good faith, under Florida Statute Section 617.0607(1).
The Fourth DCA found the plaintiff had met that burden and had been given notice of the allegations and the chance to be heard.
"We reject the defendant's argument that the board was powerless to suspend a member once admitted," said the opinion, written by Fourth DCA Judge Carole Y. Taylor. Judges Melanie G. May and Alan O. Forst concurred.
|Incorrect ruling?
Defense attorney Robin Bresky of the Law Offices of Robin Bresky in Boca Raton said she feels that ruling is incorrect and will seek a rehearing.
"Although it may look at first blush like it falls into these categories of where judicial deference should be given, we don't think that's the case," Bresky said. "We think the trial judge came to the right conclusion."
Breksy argues the organization's governing documents don't contain any procedures or authorization for suspension and termination, and so they aren't eligible for judicial deference.
"There are some places that say, 'If you join this club or you do this, these are going to be the rules.' As long as you know what the rules are, then that's fine. You have to abide by them," Bresky said. "In this particular case, we don't believe that the rules were set out and that our client knew what they were, because of the way the documents were written. We don't think that there was any procedure that was set out."
The Fourth DCA disagreed, pointing to the membership application Wycoki signed that said he "'may be suspended' if his actions violate the trust of acceptable airport operations,' and that 'commercial operations are not permitted.' " It also found Florida law doesn't require a written procedure for suspending or terminating an organization member.
Bresky counters that there are additional property rights issues at stake in the case, which remove it the judicial deference framework, and says the lower court judge was right to intervene because the rules were so unclear.
" For example, they said our client was using the plane very early in the morning," Bresky said. "Well, there was nothing in the rules saying when our client could or couldn't use the runway, and other people had used the runway early in the morning."
Counsel to the Naked Lady Ranch, David C. Borucke of Cole, Scott & Kissane in Tampa and Steven L. Brannock of Brannock & Humphries in Tampa did not respond to a request for comment by deadline.
Read the ruling:
More appeals:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMeet DBR Award Nominee Tequisha Yvette Myles: 'Patience, Passion, Advocacy'
Debate Over Florida LGBTQ+ Laws Shakes Up Planning for Bar Association Retreat
5 minute readUS: 48 Exploited Pandemic to Steal $250M From Food Program
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250