Skip to content

Eastpointe Resident Survey 924

Recently, 205 Eastpointe property owners submitted a legal petition to the Eastpointe HOA Board addressing grievances with the approval process of the recent Bi-Party Agreement between the ECC and the HOA. The intent of the petition was to force a special meeting of the Eastpointe members (residents) to vote on 7 modifications of the governing documents which addressed the issues of the residents, and to recall the HOA President Ira Berger. The HOA refused to act on the petition as required by law and Eastpointe Governing Documents saying that petition was legally deficient, but did not state why. The Residents legal Counsel reviewed the petition before submitted to the HOA and stated the “petition was submitted in compliance with all applicable statutes, as well as the governing documents of the Eastpointe Community”. This survey explores the views of the Eastpointe community on this and other current issues facing the residents.

Only Eastpointe Residents should take the survey. One response per resident.
1.Please provide your Name and address.
2.What type of member are you in the Community / Country Club?
3.What Eastpointe POA/Village do you live in?
4.The HOA chooses to hold monthly HOA Board Meetings at 4 PM in the small HOA conference room. Many residents have complained that they are unable to attend meetings this early and that they want to attend meetings in person and not by zoom. Before Covid hit, the HOA held all meetings after 6 and at the ECC in one of the meeting rooms. Should HOA meetings be held after 6PM at the ECC to allow residents to personally attend?
5.The purpose of the petition submitted by 200+ Eastpointe property owners to the HOA Board, was to schedule a Special Members Meeting to allow the residents in the community to vote on 7 modifications to our governing documents. The residents have a legal opinion that the petition was submitted following Florida Statutes and our Governing Documents. But the Board , in fact, ignored the residents petition an failed to act on it. Do you support the scheduling of a special Members meeting to allow the residents to Vote on the 7 Modifications to the EP Governing Documents?
6.Fla. Stat. 720.303(10) states that any board director “may be recalled and removed from office with or without cause by a majority of the total voting interests.” The Eastpointe Bylaws, under Article III, state that “[a]ny director may be removed by concurrence of two-thirds of the votes of members present at a special meeting call for that purpose.” Both the first and second petitions submitted by the Eastpointe community followed these statutory directives, and likewise complied with Rule 61B-81.003 of the Florida Administrative Code. Should the HOA Board schedule a special members meeting to allow the residents to vote on the recall of the HOA President ?
7.Fla St. 720.030 states that, " the officers and directors of an association have a fiduciary relationship to the members who are served by the association. “ This fiduciary responsibility requires HOA board Directors to act in good faith to promote the best interests of the entire association. The resident's legal counsel opined in a letter to the HOA submitted on 24 Aug 2024, "The HOA’s denials of two properly submitted petitions violates not only Florida Statute, they violate the governing documents of Eastpointe itself." Many residents feel that the failure to act on the residents petition, and other actions taken, is a breech of fiduciary responsibility and four additional Directors should be recalled.
Should additional Directors be recalled for their actions during the approval of the last Bi-Party agreement and their failure to act on the petition submitted by the residents?
8.Would you like your name added to the new petition to force a special members meeting to vote on the 7 Modifications to the Governing Documents and to recall the President of the HOA and additional named Directors in the new petition?
9.According to the residents Legal Counsel, the process used by the Board to approve the Bi-Party Agreement, was flawed for the following reasons:
* a. Fl Statutes and EP Governing Documents require 14 days advance notice of the HOA meeting as well as what issue will be voted on
* b. Residents are required to vote to approve / reject the Bi-Party Agreement.
* c. The Process used to approve the Bi-Party violated several state laws & our Governing Documents
* d. Board Members had conflicts of interest
* e. Compelling evidence that the conduct of several HOA and ECC Board members and key committee leads breached the contractual and fiduciary duties owed to residents of Eastpointe

The legal opinion further stated that any one of the above stated issues is reason enough that the passage of the Bi-Party Agreement itself is invalid and voidable under Florida law!

Do you support the existing Bi-Party agreement now knowing it was improperly approved by the HOA Board?
10.If the residents legally challenge the HOA Board with a class action in court, the intent will be to:
*Challenge the HOA Board for failure to act
*Void the last 2 Bi-Party Agreements
* File to enjoin current payments and return all excess fees collected after the 8/21 and 4/24 Bi-Party agreements, above the fees established in original Tri-Party agreement (includes excess annual fees, initiation fees, etc.)
*Return of Legal Fees
* Damages
Do you support the Residents class action suit against the HOA Board?
11.If the current Bi-Party agreement is voided by the courts which option do you support?(Required.)
Current Progress,
0 of 11 answered