Reverse Recall: Challenging the Board's Certification
.jpg)
While the recall process is widely known, many community leaders are unaware of a process authorized by the Division of Florida Condominiums, Time Shares and Mobile Homes referred to as a "reverse recall".
A recall attempt may fail if the Board of Directors does not handle the recall effectively. In many instances there is a member of the Board that is not well liked or otherwise is adversarial to the remaining members. While any individual may start a recall effort, the Board cannot legally “bend the rules” and certify a recall that should not be certified due to lack of proper votes or the use of an improper form of written agreement. Moreover, failing to call or hold a meeting does not, under all circumstances, automatically entitle the unit owners to certification of the recall attempt.
What does a recalled board member do when the Board certifies a recall that he or she knows should not have been certified? What does a recalled Board member do when it is discovered that he or she was recalled without being given the opportunity to address the board at a meeting called for the purpose of determining whether or not to certify the attempt? The recalled Board member may file a Petition for Arbitration with the Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes. Those Petitions are known as “reverse recalls”.
As described in Ringler v. Tower Forty One Association, Inc., Arb. Case No. 2005-04-1867, a reverse recall is a proceeding in which “the board member whose recall was certified initiates the proceeding, joined by any other unit owners who wish to be included as petitioners, arguing that the recall effort was certified in error and naming the association as a party”. The party filing for arbitration may challenge the board’s actions or in actions relating to the recall process and may challenge the recall procedure itself, such as the form of written agreement or vote at a meeting. In Ringler, the board received the written agreements for recall and failed to call a meeting. Mr. Ringler was notified that the recall was effective before he even knew that the board was served. The property manager accepted service of the written agreements and delivered them to another board member. That board member purportedly failed to notify anyone else (although that allegation was disputed).
Since service on the Association’s manager is effective service, the recall against Mr. Ringler was ultimately certified, but in Scariati v. The Villages of Emerald Lakes One Condominium Association, Inc., Arb. Case No. 2005-02-1485, the arbitrator reversed the recall as it was discovered that there weren’t enough written agreements signed by owners to effectuate a valid recall. In Scariati, the petitioner alleged she was not permitted to examine the recall written agreements before or even at the board meeting to determine whether or not to certify the effort. Once she had that opportunity, she discovered the improprieties. The recall was not certified, even though the board voted to certify, as a result of the board’s improper behavior and the fact that the recall was void ab initio.
There is a substantial difference between recall arbitrations and “reverse” recall arbitrations. There is no mechanism for recovery of prevailing party attorneys’ fees in the arbitration of a recall. However, since a “reverse” recall is a Petition filed by a unit owner (or owners), attorney’s fees are awardable to the prevailing party. Thus, it is important not to ignore procedural requirements in connection with a recall attempt as machinations on the part of the board may expose the Association to liability for the opposing side’s fees and costs.
