Huntington at Tampa Palms: HOA rules, fees and closing points

A second estoppel, a look at the private streets, and a word to the buyer about what the declaration asks of an owner.

• Two estoppel certificates, one from Huntington at Tampa Palms Homeowners' Association, Inc. and one from Tampa Palms Owners Association, Inc. (TPOA), whose estoppel is ordered from its financial agent, University Properties, Inc. (TPOA's estoppel information sheet, not recorded; master page); we weren't able to confirm that the sheet is current. Every owner is automatically a member of both (Declaration Art. X § 13, p. 28), and TPOA may take over Huntington's maintenance if the association fails at it and charge the owners a Subdistrict Assessment (Art. IV § 1, p. 9). We weren't able to confirm the manager or who issues Huntington's estoppel: no document we hold names either, so we ask the association. Chapter 720's estoppel statute sets its own delivery time and fee limits (Fla. Stat. § 720.30851).
• The assessment. The declaration sets no transfer fee or capital contribution, and the recorded master documents set no transfer or capital charge either (master page). The board's rules give the Huntington fee as $900 a year, "due on January 1st of each year", with penalties and interest from 1 February (Rules and Procedures, 11 Nov 2024 entry, not recorded); the declaration lets the Board change the installment period (Declaration Art. III § 2, p. 6). We weren't able to confirm the current figure; the estoppel should confirm it.
• Arrears follow the lot. Assessments, "together with eighteen percent interest per annum, costs of collection and reasonable attorney's fees", are a continuing lien and "the personal obligation of the Owner and the Owner's successors and assigns" (Art. III § 2, p. 6), and "The sale or transfer of any Lot shall not affect the assessment lien" (§ 8, p. 8). A buyer is also jointly and severally liable with the seller for assessments due up to the transfer (Fla. Stat. § 720.3085(2)(b)). Every balance should be cleared at closing, including any individual special assessment for damage to "any entry gate mechanism or arm" (§ 5, p. 7).
• The strip between the lot and the curb. The owner maintains the landscaping in the vacated right of way between the lot line and the curb, and may plant only turf there without Board and ordinance approval (Art. I § 23, pp. 4–5; Art. IV § 1, pp. 9–10). The ordinance allows no improvement other than pavement, and no landscaping, anywhere in the vacated right of way without "the prior written consent of all utilities or agencies which have an easement reserved" (Ordinance 2005-56 § 2, OR 14765/1295, p. 5). After its own sewer or water work the City need only restore grade and paving, and "shall have no responsibility to restore any private structures, buildings improvements or landscaping" (§ 1(c), p. 3; § 1(e), p. 4). Ask about any wall, planting or other improvement there.
• The gate. Ask the association to confirm that the gate has its City permit and gives every utility and agency access "at no cost … by way of an access code or key" (Ordinance 2005-56 § 2(b)–(e), pp. 5–6). We weren't able to confirm either, because neither the permit nor the gating plan is in our set.
• What the buyer agrees to. By accepting a deed the owner waives jury trial, agrees to arbitrate claims against the association, and agrees that the association's liability "shall not exceed the greater of, one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) or the amount of any applicable insurance proceeds" (Declaration Art. X § 11, pp. 26–27). The association insures only the common area; after a casualty the owner must rebuild or clear the lot (Art. VI §§ 1–2, pp. 12–14).

No approval of a sale or lease is needed, and there is no right of first refusal, in the Huntington documents or the master's.

Yes, for at least 180 consecutive days. The Huntington documents set no minimum term, approval or cap of their own. The master declaration prohibits "Rental or listing or electronic advertising" of a home for less than 180 consecutive days in the single-family Villages it names, and Huntington is on the list (master Decl. Art. XII § 14, OR 24716/383, p. 2; master page). The same section lets a village association adopt more restrictive rental covenants; no Huntington instrument in our set does.

An owner who leases is deemed to delegate the common-area rights to the occupants (Declaration Art. IX § 1(b), p. 19), and occupants are bound by the declaration and the rules (Art. V § 3, p. 11). A Huntington leasing amendment adopted after 1 July 2021 would generally bind only owners who take title after it or consent to it (Fla. Stat. § 720.306(1)(h)), and no Huntington instrument recorded after 19 May 2009 is on this page, so we weren't able to confirm whether one exists; for an investor buyer we search forward before saying what applies.

• The streets are private only on the ordinance's conditions. Ordinance 2005-56 vacated the platted rights of way of Wesley Drive and Langhorne Court in both units and released the City's and the public's rights, "reserving, however," nine permanent, non-exclusive easements over "the entire length and width" of the right of way: TECO electric, Verizon, City sanitary sewer, Bright House cable, City water, governmental services access, City solid waste, TECO/Peoples Gas and City stormwater drainage (Ordinance 2005-56 § 1, OR 14765/1295, Instr 2005098251, pp. 2–5; Exhibit "A", p. 9). Title must be "perpetually vested in the HOA" (§ 3(a), p. 6). The vacation took effect only on 19 May 2009, when the Certificate of Compliance was recorded (§ 5, p. 7, restated by Ordinance 2008-121, Instr 2008289950, p. 2; Instr 2009162939, p. 1). If the owners' access easement "is violated or abridged by any private person, party or entity for any reason whatsoever", the streets "shall revert to their status as public streets" and the Petitioner must remove "all gates and guardhouses" at its own cost (§ 3(b), p. 6). The reverter happens only when a court "finding, adjudication or declaratory order" of violation, or a repeal by City Council, is recorded (§ 7, p. 7), so our search looks for both. The association must also indemnify the City's Department of Solid Waste for damage its service does to the streets (§ 1(g), p. 4).

• Was the vacation completed in time? A question for underwriting. Ordinance 2007-61 gives the Petitioner "four (4) years from the date of this Ordinance" to comply, with a one-time one-year extension on written request made before the four years end (Ordinance 2007-61, Instr 2007219345, pp. 1–2; Declaration Exh. D, p. 104). Those words replaced § 3(d) of Ordinance 2005-56, passed 24 February 2005; Ordinance 2007-61 itself was passed 8 March 2007. Counted from 2005, the four years ended 24 February 2009; counted from 2007, on 8 March 2011. Three road deeds were signed after 24 February 2009 — Unit 1 Block 2 Lot 1's on 28 February, the CDD's on 10 March and Unit 1 Block 1 Lot 3's on 29 March (Instr 2009105982, 2009105981 and 2009105987, p. 1) — and the certificate was recorded on 19 May 2009. No extension is in our set, and we weren't able to confirm whether one was requested or granted; the certificate, which certifies compliance "to the best of my knowledge", does not say when compliance was reached (Instr 2009162939, p. 2). The City's petition file, C2004-26, should show any extension.

• Title to the streets: 44 deeds, with two half-street gaps. Ordinance 2008-121 requires every title holder of the abutting property to convey to the association (Instr 2008289950, p. 2). On 2 April 2009, right after the declaration, 44 quitclaim deeds to the association were recorded: one from the owners of each of the 42 lots, for the half of the vacated street abutting the lot; one from the City of Tampa, for the half beside its Lift Station 7E; and one from the Tampa Palms Community Development District, for the half beside its tracts and "All of Median Tract I" (Instr 2009105980–2009106023, OR 19180/198–330, pp. 1, 3 of each). Each conveys the grantor's interest "(if any)" for $10, for use as a private road by all owners in Units 1 and 2. On the plats every parcel abutting the two streets is named in a deed (PB 69/42, sheets 3–6; PB 71/28, sheets 5, 6, 8). But Unit 1 Block 1 Lots 9 and 16 front both streets, and each lot's deed names only one: Lot 9's conveys only the Wesley Drive half, and Lot 16's only the Langhorne Court half (PB 69/42, sheet 3; Instr 2009106023 and 2009106022, p. 3). No deed describes the half of Langhorne Court beside Lot 9 or the half of Wesley Drive in front of Lot 16. We weren't able to confirm who held those halves on 2 April 2009; that needs a title search.

• What else the road deeds do not show. These are open too, for underwriting:

  • The halves are undimensioned, so we weren't able to confirm that together they cover the whole right of way, a survey question at the junction of the two streets, the road round Median Tract I, and the east end of Wesley Drive, which runs past the last lots to land the Unit 1 plat marks "UNPLATTED" (PB 69/42, sheet 6). The CDD's deed conveys the half beside four tracts of the Tampa Palms Boulevard West Area 2-7th Extension plat (PB 69/41) there; we weren't able to confirm what else lies beside the street, because that plat has not yet been read for it.
  • 36 of the lot deeds were signed in 2005–2006 and all were recorded on 2 April 2009. Our set has no vesting deeds, so we weren't able to confirm that each grantor still held title when the deed was recorded.
  • The deeds were made and recorded before the vacation took effect, and no lender joined any of them; we weren't able to confirm whether a lot mortgage reaches the road strip.
  • The City's deed cites a Resolution No. 2009-20 that is not in our set, so we weren't able to confirm what it says; the deed was prepared without a title search or survey (Instr 2009105980, pp. 1–2). The CDD's was signed by its District Manager on a form printed for the Chairman, with no board approval cited (Instr 2009105981, p. 2); we weren't able to confirm that the CDD's board approved it. Unit 1 Block 1 Lot 3 was conveyed in part by a dissolved Georgia non-profit corporation (Instr 2009105987, p. 1).
  • Median Tract I, which the CDD conveyed whole, is not in the declaration's land description (Declaration Exh. A, p. 73).

  The attorney's title opinion the restated ordinance required is not in our set either, so we weren't able to confirm what it certified. We weren't able to confirm that the road parcels and Median Tract I are in the association's name with taxes paid; ask the association to confirm it.

• Unit 1 and the ordinance's "Subdivision". Ordinance 2005-56 defines the association's membership, and the owners its access easement must serve, by "Tampa Palms Area 2, 7E Unit 2" (PB 71/28) alone (§ 3(a)–(b), p. 6), though it vacates streets in Unit 1 as well and 30 of the 42 lots are in Unit 1 (p. 9; Declaration Exh. A, p. 73). The declaration's easement runs to "all Owners of the Lots in the Community" (Art. IX § 3(a), p. 21), and every road deed's covenant to all owners in Units 1 and 2 (p. 1 of each). A point for underwriting.

• The joinders. The declaration is dated 12 December 2005, the owners' joinders run from 10 December 2005 to 29 March 2009, and it was recorded on 2 April 2009 (Declaration pp. 1, 30–72). Whether an owner who bought between a joinder and the recording is bound by the predecessor's joinder is a question for underwriting. At least one joinder's venue and notarial seal do not match the same owners' road deed of the same day, taken before the same notary (Declaration p. 70; Instr 2009106020, p. 2). The declaration was recorded seven weeks before the vacation took effect, yet treats the vacated right of way as Common Area and grants easements over it (Art. I § 5, pp. 2–3; Art. IX § 3, pp. 21–22).

• The lien relates back to 2009 once a notice is recorded. "Upon recording of a Notice of Lien, there shall exist a perfected lien … which shall relate back to the recording of this Declaration", ahead of all liens but taxes, a good-faith first mortgage of record and the master's lien (Declaration Art. III § 8, p. 8). A first-mortgage foreclosure sale extinguishes the lien for amounts due before it, and the declaration has no one-year or 1% formula (same). The estoppel, not the lien search, shows what is owed.

• Conflicts with the master. The declaration says "the more restrictive document shall control" (Art. X § 13, p. 28), but also that the master's documents "shall be superior" in a conflict, while letting the association enforce "provisions or rules which are stricter than those of the Master Association" (§ 16, p. 29). Read it with the master page.

• Board rules and fines. The declaration requires member approval of rules and regulations (Art. V § 1, p. 11), but the 2024 rule sheets say they were adopted at board meetings (Rules and Procedures, 16 Sep 2024 entry, not recorded); we weren't able to confirm whether the members approved them, so ask the association. The by-laws refer to "fines as provided in the Declaration" (By-Laws Art. III § 15(c), Declaration Exh. C, p. 86), but the declaration sets no fine amount or procedure (Art. X §§ 1–2, pp. 22–23). A fine of less than $1,000 may not become a lien (Fla. Stat. § 720.305(2)).

• Preservation. No notice preserving the Huntington declaration is in our set, and we weren't able to confirm that one has been recorded; the board's 2024 rule only commits it to review MRTA filings each year (MRTA rule, 16 Sep 2024, not recorded). The master's preservation notices list neither the 1989 supplemental declaration nor its 1992 amendment (master page). Covenants that predate a lot's root of title — a title transaction at least 30 years old — are extinguished unless an exception applies (Fla. Stat. § 712.04); an association preserves them by recording a notice (§ 712.05). Whether the supplement's single-family rule and 2,600-square-foot minimum are preserved is a question for underwriting.

• A citation slip that leaves the operative text alone. The declaration cites the Unit 1 plat as "Plat Book 69 at Page 42-1" in Art. I § 20 (p. 4) but "Page 42" in Exhibit A (p. 73).

• Not in our set, so we weren't able to obtain or confirm them: any amendment of the declaration, any preservation notice, the title opinion given to the City, City Resolution No. 2009-20, any CDD approval of its deed, vesting deeds for the lots, any extension of the compliance period, the City gate permit and gating plan, and the City-signed counterparts of the 1992 subdivision agreements.

• Every lot has a 2,600-square-foot minimum. The developer's 1989 supplemental declaration submitted Tampa Palms Area 2 – 7E Units 1 and 2, 77.52 acres, to the master declaration and provides: "The Property shall be used for single family dwelling units … Each of the Units shall contain a minimum of 2,600 square feet of interior living space" (Supplemental Declaration Art. II, OR 5730/237, p. 1). Both Huntington plats lie wholly within that land (p. 3; PB 69/42, sheet 1; PB 71/28, sheet 1), so it is the instrument that binds a Huntington lot to the master (master page). The Huntington declaration sets no size of its own.
• Why the 1,600-square-foot "Pulte Property" rule does not apply. In 1992 SWF South Limited Partnership, as Declarant, cut the minimum to 1,600 square feet on the "Pulte Property" only, leaving the rest of the land unchanged (OR 6479/331, §§ 1–2, p. 1; re-made with a corrected description by OR 6516/842, § 1, p. 2, and Exh. B, p. 5). The amendments describe the Pulte Property by metes and bounds, naming no lot. The same description is the land SWF South deeded to Pulte Home Corporation, recorded right after each amendment (OR 6479/336, p. 4; corrective deed OR 6516/847, p. 4). Plotted from its own courses against the plats, it lies wholly within Unit 2 and is the Pulte subdivision on Ebensburg Drive and Armstrong Place: where it meets Huntington, its boundary follows the lines of Pulte's Block 6 Lot 21, north of Huntington's Block 4 Lot 1, and the west lines of Landscape Tracts D and E, beside Block 3 Lot 2 and Block 1 Lot 18 (PB 71/28, sheets 5, 8). None of the 42 Huntington lots is inside it. That rests on our plot of the recorded bearings and distances, each description closing within 0.03 feet, not on a surveyor's plot; we weren't able to confirm it with a survey, and a surveyor can confirm it.
• Walls beside landscape tracts. An owner whose lot adjoins a landscape tract on which a wall has been built maintains the strip between the lot line and the wall "as if such portion of the landscape tract were part of his or her Unit", without acquiring title to it (Supplemental Declaration Art. III, OR 5730/237, p. 2). Four Huntington lots in Unit 2 adjoin the CDD's Landscape Tracts A, B, D and E: Block 2 Lot 18, Block 4 Lot 1, Block 3 Lot 2 and Block 1 Lot 18 (PB 71/28, sheets 1, 5, 6, 8). We weren't able to confirm whether a wall stands on any of them.
• Most use rules are the master's. Huntington's own restrictions cover rules, signs on the common area, occupants, lawful use, soliciting, buried utilities and sight lines (Declaration Art. V §§ 1–7, p. 11); leasing, pets, vehicles and architecture are governed by the master documents (master page). There is no right to park on the common area or the streets unless the declaration, the master declaration or the rules allow it (Art. IX § 3(a), p. 21). Every owner has a perpetual easement over the paved streets that "shall not be terminated, limited, or infringed upon for nonpayment of any assessment" (Art. IX § 3, pp. 21–22).
• Voting and amendments. The association's President casts the votes of all Huntington lots in TPOA (By-Laws Art. IV § 4, Declaration Exh. C, p. 90). The declaration runs "perpetually to the extent permitted by law" (Art. X § 3, p. 23) and is amended by two-thirds of the members, with the master board's written approval where the master's rights are affected and the City's consent to reduce the association's street duties (Art. X § 4(b)–(c), p. 24).