Tough Decisions for HOAs Facing a Failing Golf Course
A common model in Florida is for the community to be governed by a homeowners' association (HOA) and the golf course is separately owned, operated and maintained by a golf club.
April 10, 2020 at 09:48 AM
6 minute read
With its rich history of acclaimed golf courses, "The Sunshine State" has become a preferred destination for real estate developers seeking to build the next great golf course community. Including a golf course in a new residential community is a popular strategy implemented by developers to increase home values and promote sales. A common model in Florida is for the community to be governed by a homeowners' association (HOA) and the golf course is separately owned, operated and maintained by a golf club.
There are two varieties of this model that developers commonly incorporate in an HOA's Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (Declaration). Under the first variety, members of the HOA are also mandatory members of the golf club. As mandatory members of the golf club, they are required to pay a golf club membership fee. Under the second variety, members of the HOA can voluntarily opt-in to become members of the golf club, but golf club membership is not a mandatory condition of owning a home in the community. From a sales perspective, the voluntary model has traditionally been popular with developers because it makes selling lots easier. The lots come with a right to opt-in for golf club membership and pay the golf club membership fee, but there is no requirement to do so. This article explores the tough decisions and legal implications faced by Florida HOAs when their voluntary community golf clubs do not generate enough income to cover the long-term costs of operating and maintaining the golf course.
The supply of golf course communities has served a worthy purpose in Florida. It satisfied the market demand of prospective home buyers that were looking for convenient access to recreational sport activities, amenities (clubhouse, dining facilities, etc.) and aesthetically enhanced communities. For many years, the voluntary model resulted in a mutually beneficial financial relationship among the developer, the HOA and the HOA members. The developer recouped its investment through members of the HOA participating in the use of the golf course, and the success of the golf course sustained property values in the community. A community golf course benefits the entire community, although some non-golfer homeowners choose not to recognize it. Published data establishes that a profitable golf course favorably influences property values. However, this correlation between a profitable golf course and increased property values comes with consequences for homeowners when the golf course becomes a failing business.
In recent years, homeowners and HOAs throughout Florida have experienced a rise in golf courses failing in their communities. Some have attributed this, in part, to market conditions, a decrease in the popularity of golf, age restrictions in some golf course communities, and/or an array of other factors. Ultimately, without a requirement in the Declaration that all members of an HOA shall become members of the golf club and that they shall pay a golf club membership fee, the income generated at voluntary golf clubs is frequently inadequate to sustain the relatively high costs of operating and maintaining a golf course. To further exacerbate the problem, additional capital eventually becomes needed when golf course greens and bunkers need to be renovated and rebuilt after years of use.
When faced with a failing golf course, some HOAs are taking control of their own destinies. HOAs are purchasing golf courses, generating income by requiring homeowners to make some level of mandatory contribution to the operation and maintenance of the golf course, and contracting with a golf course management company to provide highly specialized operation and maintenance services. This process generally involves an amendment to the HOA Declaration that must be approved by the HOA membership in accordance with requirements established in the HOA governing documents. Some HOAs have even acquired golf courses through passing amendments that annex the golf course to the HOAs common area, and then HOA assessments collected for maintenance of the common area are used to help maintain the golf course. Because each HOA and its governing documents are different, and complex legal issues are involved, HOAs interested in acquiring a community golf course should work closely with legal counsel to examine whether golf course ownership is permissible and whether it is in the best interest of their specific community.
HOA golf course ownership has not been without its share of controversy. Requiring homeowners to fund a failing golf course can expose the HOA to potential legal challenges from dissenting homeowners. There are various reasons that homeowners may disagree with the requirement of contributing to the operation and maintenance of a golf course. Some homeowners object to paying for a golf course that they do not use. They argue that they did not agree to pay a golf club membership fee when they purchased their home, and they claim they would not have purchased their home if paying a golf club membership fee was a condition of home ownership in the community. Some homeowners also reject the notion that a mandatory golf club assessment is justified by the increased value of owning property adjacent to a well-manicured golf course.
However, most Florida courts have taken a narrower focus when ruling on whether an HOA can enforce an amendment to its Declaration that changes from voluntary to mandatory golf club membership. Courts that have ruled against such amendments have done so based on the legal principle that any amendments to an HOA's Declaration should be exercised in a "reasonable manner so as not to destroy the general scheme or plan of the community." This is founded on the principle that the Declaration is a contract, and homeowners who purchased prior to a mandatory golf course membership amendment rightfully believed at the time of purchase that they would not be required to fund the golf course. In anticipation of homeowner challenges, and to incorporate the considerations raised by Florida's courts, some HOAs have structured amendments to the Declaration to make mandatory golf club membership applicable to future homeowners only or to provide homeowners a golf course credit in the same amount as the golf course membership fee. Although these approaches do not generate income as effectively, some HOAs have attempted to minimize exposure to litigation in this way.
HOAs and homeowners in golf course communities have a vested interest in ensuring that sufficient revenue is generated for the operation and maintenance of the golf course. However, acquiring a golf course and implementing a plan to help sustain the golf course can be a risky venture for an HOA from a financial and legal perspective. The proposition should be carefully evaluated on a case-by-case basis as Florida's HOAs continue to make tough decisions when faced with a failing golf course.
Toby Snively is an attorney with the Law Offices of John L. Di Masi in Orlando and general counsel to Florida community associations.
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 AllNavigating Claims Under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and Florida Telemarketing Act
4 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Pusillanimous Press
- 2Contract Lifecycle Management Company ContractPodAi Unveils Leah Drive
- 3'Great News' for Businesses? Judge Halts Transparency Mandate
- 4Consilio Announces ‘Native AI Review,’ Expanding Its Gen AI E-Discovery Offerings
- 5Federal Judge Hits US With $227,000 Sanction for Discovery Misconduct
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