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

A second estoppel, a check that the seller's lot joined the Declaration, and the gate remotes.

• Two estoppel certificates, one from Westover 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 this with University Properties itself. No document we hold names a manager for Westover, and we weren't able to confirm who manages the association or issues its estoppel, so we ask the association how it takes requests. Chapter 720's estoppel statute sets its own delivery time and fee limits (Fla. Stat. § 720.30851). TPOA may also take over Westover's maintenance and charge it to the lots as a Subdistrict Assessment (Declaration Art. IV § 1, p. 10), so its estoppel should say whether one applies.
• The assessment. Westover's assessments are levied equally on all lots, payable quarterly unless the Board provides otherwise, and the annual budget takes effect only when a Majority of the members approves it at a meeting (Declaration Art. III §§ 2, 6, pp. 6, 8). The board's rules give the assessment, from the 24 November 2025 annual meeting, as $930 a year, due 31 March, with penalties and interest from 1 May and a $50 late fee after 30 days (Rules and Procedures item 2, not recorded). The disclosure summary in the same sheet still says "$50 PER MONTH" (item 12, p. 5). We weren't able to confirm which figure is current; the estoppel should state the figure in force.
• Unpaid assessments follow the lot. Assessments, "including any fines", with interest at the master's rate, collection costs and attorney's fees, are a continuing lien and the owner's personal obligation (Declaration Art. III § 2, p. 6). "The sale or transfer of any Lot shall not affect the assessment lien" (§ 8, p. 9), and a buyer is jointly and severally liable with the seller for assessments due up to the transfer (Fla. Stat. § 720.3085(2)(b)). Clear any balance at closing.
• No charge on the transfer. The Declaration sets no transfer fee or capital contribution, and the recorded master documents set none either (master page). Neither association approves a sale, and there is no right of first refusal.
• Whether the seller's lot is bound. The Declaration binds the land of the owners who signed it, so find the lot in the consent pages and check it against the lots listed below.
• Gate access. Ask the seller to hand over the remotes; new owners should ask the association for their own codes rather than rely on the prior owner's (gate access sheet revised 11 September 2026, not recorded); we weren't able to confirm with the association that the sheet is current. The common questions give the details.

Yes, for 180 consecutive days or more. The Westover documents set no minimum term, cap or approval of their own. The master declaration prohibits "Rental or listing or electronic advertising" of a home "for a period of less than one hundred eighty (180) consecutive days" in the single-family Villages it names, and Westover is one of them (master Decl. Art. XII § 14, OR 24716/383, p. 2; master page).

The Westover board's own rule-making power is limited to "the gate and entrance way"; a rule stricter than the master's use restrictions needs the approval of at least 52 members (Declaration Art. V § 1, p. 11). For each rental, the board's form asks for the occupants, vehicles and lease term (rental information form, undated, not recorded); we weren't able to confirm the form is current.

We weren't able to confirm whether Westover has adopted a leasing amendment; none is in our set. One 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 we weren't able to confirm anything recorded for Westover after 11 May 2007, so for an investor buyer we search forward before saying what applies.

• Four lots whose consent page does not describe them. The Declaration was made "by the Lot Owners whose signatures are attached hereto" and covers a 51.43-acre metes-and-bounds parcel with no lot list (Declaration pp. 1, 34). The owners signed one-lot "Irrevocable Consent and Joinder" pages, acknowledged from October 2001 to January 2002, and lenders signed 51 joinder or consent pages covering 50 lots (pp. 64–176). Every one of the 61 platted lots has an owners' page, but four pages do not describe their lot correctly:

  • Block 3 Lot 10: its owners' page describes "Lot 9, Block 1" (p. 159);
  • Block 3 Lot 11: the page reads "Lot 111, Block 3" (p. 71);
  • Block 4 Lot 3: the lot number is blank (p. 174);
  • Block 6 Lot 4: the block is blank (p. 100).

  For the first three, a lender's joinder naming the same borrowers describes the lot correctly (pp. 158, 70, 173). For all four, the same owners' 2002 road deed describes the lot (Instr 2002403254, 2002403253, 2002403243 and 2002403246, p. 3 of each), but a road deed is not a joinder. We weren't able to confirm whether a corrective joinder was recorded, so we search for one; whether these lots are bound is a question for underwriting.

• Fourteen lots where the 2002 signers differ. On 14 lots the 2002 road deed was not signed by the same people, or in the same capacity, as the 2001 owners' page: in two the deed is by other people, in one by only one of the two owners who signed, in seven a second grantor is added, and in four the owners signed in a different capacity (Declaration pp. 65–176; road deeds, OR 12124/239–484). The lots are Block 1 Lots 3, 6, 11 and 13; Block 2 Lot 8; Block 3 Lots 4, 5, 8 and 13; Block 4 Lot 4; Block 5 Lots 5 and 9; and Block 6 Lots 4 and 5. For these we pull the vesting deed to see who held title on 12 March 2002. If someone who held title then did not sign, whether that interest is bound is a question for underwriting. Our set has no vesting deeds, so we weren't able to confirm who held title on that date.

• Did the road vacation take effect? City of Tampa Ordinance No. 2002-244, passed 7 November 2002, vacated "all of Londonderry Drive and Derry Way lying generally West of Tampa Palms Boulevard" (Ord. 2002-244 § 1, Instr 2002415837, pp. 1–2). It "shall not become effective until all of the owners of property abutting the rights-of-way … have conveyed their interest in said rights-of-way to" the association (§ 4, pp. 4–5). Quitclaim deeds from the owners of all 61 lots, and from the CDD for its abutting tracts, were recorded on 22 November 2002 (Instr 2002403218 to 2002403288, OR 12124/239–484). But:

  • the deeds were made before the ordinance passed, and each quitclaims an interest "(if any)" in what it calls the "Vacated Street" (p. 1 of each);
  • on Block 1 Lots 3 and 11 and Block 3 Lot 13 the grantors are not the owners who signed the Declaration;
  • no lender joined any lot deed, though lenders joined the Declaration for 50 lots;
  • the CDD's deed is dated 6 November 2002 but acknowledged on 9 October 2002, and leaves the ordinance number blank (Instr 2002403288, pp. 1–2);
  • each lot deed conveys "One-half" of the vacated street abutting the lot, without dimensions, so we weren't able to confirm that the halves together cover the intersections and the mouths at the Boulevard; that is a survey question (p. 3 of each);
  • we weren't able to confirm what the nine instruments recorded in the same minutes as the deeds are; they are not in our set (Instr 2002403238–3241, 2002403262 and 2002403283–3286);
  • we weren't able to confirm that § 4 was met; our set has no City record of it.

  Ordinance No. 2007-87 left § 4 as it was and does not say whether it was met (Ord. 2007-87 §§ 1, 3, Instr 2007219346, pp. 1–2, 5). Whether the vacation took effect, and when, is a question for underwriting.

• The reverter. The vacation is "expressly conditioned on" title "being perpetually vested in" the association, or a successor whose membership is all the owners in Unit 7D, and on "the perpetual, unimpeded use of the rights-of-way" by all owners there. If either is "violated or abridged by any private person, party or entity for any reason whatsoever", the vacation is "automatically … null and void", the streets "revert to their status as public streets", and the Petitioner (the association and all the other owners in Unit 7D) must remove all gates and guardhouses at its own cost (Ord. 2002-244 § 5, p. 5; the Petitioner is defined on p. 1). The ordinance's terms run with title to the land (§ 6, p. 5). Ordinance 2007-87 changed neither section (§ 3, p. 5).

• Road title, taxes and the City agreement. The streets are to be owned and maintained by the association alone, not the lot owners, for access by all residents, their invitees and guests, and the easement holders (Ord. 2002-244 §§ 4–5, pp. 4–5; Agreement ¶ 1, Instr 2002422125, p. 2). The agreement warns that access "could be negatively affected, hindered or terminated" if the association fails to pay property taxes on the streets or the holder of a mortgage on a lot forecloses an interest in any portion of them (recitals, p. 1). "On behalf of both the HOA and all of its members" the association releases the City from liability resulting from the vacation, including "the loss of access rights because of the issuance of a tax deed, foreclosure by a mortgagee, or any other reason whatsoever", and indemnifies it, including against claims by its members and the lot owners (¶¶ 3–4, p. 2). The agreement describes no lot, is not signed by the owners, and does not say that it runs with the land, so whether the release binds individual owners is a question for underwriting. We weren't able to confirm that the road land is in the association's name with the taxes paid, so we ask the association to confirm it.

• The gate. The ordinance allows "private security gates" only if they are built and maintained under a permit from the City's Transportation Division, the gating plan is approved in advance by the easement holders, and those holders get "access through any gates … by way of an access code or key" (Ord. 2002-244 § 2, p. 4). Since 2007 the ordinance has also reserved a permanent stormwater easement over the whole of both streets for the City's Stormwater Department (Ord. 2007-87 § 1(i), p. 4), so on the face of § 2 it is now one of the holders whose consent, gating-plan review and gate access the ordinance requires. We weren't able to confirm a gate permit or an approved gating plan; neither is in our set. We weren't able to confirm whether the association's gate arrangements give the Stormwater Department access, so we ask the association.

• Easements over the streets. The ordinance reserved permanent, non-exclusive easements over their full width for the utilities, the City's sewer and water, postal and emergency services, and solid-waste collection, the last with an indemnity from the Petitioner to the City (Ord. 2002-244 § 1(a)–(h), pp. 2–4). Under the 2007 stormwater easement no new structures "(other than pavement or curbing)" or landscaping "(other than grass or small shrubbery)" may go on the streets without the Stormwater Director's written approval, and "sweeping services will not be provided" (Ord. 2007-87 § 1(i), p. 4).

• The CDD's easement, and who handles stormwater. The association gave the Tampa Palms CDD "a perpetual nonexclusive easement in, on, under, over and across the roadway and roadway rights-of-way" of both streets, for ingress and egress and for "open space, landscaping, hardscaping, drainage and stormwater facilities" and the CDD's other property in Unit 7D (Easement, Instr 2002403289, OR 12124/485, pp. 1, 3). It was signed on 27 October 2002, before the ordinance passed; it sets no term, maintenance duty or gate condition, and it adds to the easements the ordinance reserved. The 2002 ordinance made the CDD "solely responsible for the ownership and maintenance of all stormwater facilities" in Unit 7D (Ord. 2002-244 § 3, p. 4). Ordinance 2007-87 struck that section "in its entirety" and says only that the City has "certain maintenance responsibilities" over the stormwater system in the vacated streets, leaving the CDD's pond maintenance expressly unaffected (Ord. 2007-87 p. 1; § 1(i), p. 4; § 2, p. 5). It gives the City an easement, not a duty, so we weren't able to confirm from the recorded documents who maintains the drainage lines in the streets.

• The plat's approval. City Resolution 88-580 approved the Unit 7D plat on conditions: performance security of $1,259,037.19, fees, that the subdivider "shall record the subdivision restrictions in a form substantially the same as those on file with the City's Legal Department", and that it file the articles and by-laws "for the Property-owners Association" (Res. 88-580, OR 5368/1898, pp. 1–2). We weren't able to confirm that 1988 subdivision restrictions for Unit 7D were recorded; none is in our set, and Westover's own declaration came in 2002.

• The 2,200 square-foot minimum, and preservation. The single-family use and the minimum house size come from the Unit 7D Supplement, not the Declaration (Unit 7D Supplement Art. II, OR 5374/1629, p. 1). That supplement was recorded in April 1988, and none of the master's preservation notices lists it (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). We weren't able to confirm any preservation notice for Westover; none is in our set. Whether the supplement's restrictions survive on a lot turns on its chain of title and is a question for underwriting.

• Amending the Declaration takes 52 members. It needs "the affirmative vote of at least fifty-two (52) of the Members", which is 85% of the 61 lots, plus the master board's written approval if master rights are affected and the City of Tampa's consent for street and utility maintenance (Declaration Art. II § 1, p. 5; Art. X § 4, pp. 28–29). The Unit 7D Supplement is amended separately, by the owners of a majority of the units with the Declarant, so long as the Declarant owns property under the master declaration (Unit 7D Supplement Art. IV, p. 2). We weren't able to confirm any amendment of either; none is in our set, so we search forward.

• Loose ends. The by-laws' certificate leaves the board-meeting date blank, so we weren't able to confirm when that meeting was held (Declaration p. 62). The articles call the association a "Neighborhood Association" where the Declaration says "Subdistrict" (Articles art. 2(a)(ii), Declaration p. 37; Declaration Art. IV § 1, p. 10). The stamp gives no page count, so we weren't able to confirm from the document itself that the instrument ends at OR 11480/1329 (p. 176); we check the clerk's index. Ordinance 2007-87's Exhibit "A" was not recorded with it, and we weren't able to confirm what it shows (Ord. 2007-87 p. 1).

• What we weren't able to confirm or obtain. None of these is in our set: any amendment of the Declaration, the articles, the by-laws or the Unit 7D Supplement; any preservation notice; vesting deeds for the 14 lots above; any City record that Ord. 2002-244 § 4 was satisfied; City Resolution No. 2002-1360, which authorized the agreement; and the City's gate permit.

• The back of many lots is a conservation easement. The plat grants "the City of Tampa (Parks Department)" a conservation easement over areas along the outer boundary, across the rear of many lots in Blocks 1, 3, 4 and 5, with wetland jurisdictional lines through those lots. Inside it, buildings, roads, signs and "other structures on or above the ground", fill or dumping, excavation, and "Removal or destruction of trees, shrubs, or other vegetation" are "expressly prohibited", except as agencies later authorize (PB 65/22, sheets 1, 3–7). Check the lot on its plat sheet, and the survey, before a buyer plans a pool, fence or clearing at the back.
• Other plat easements. Every lot has a 5-foot easement across its street frontage for "utilities, cablevision and drainage facilities", and a 20-foot public drainage easement runs between Block 2 Lots 5 and 6 (PB 65/22, sheets 1, 7). The lake, median and landscape tracts went to the CDD, none to the association or the lot owners (sheet 1).
• Walls on landscape tracts. Where a wall stands on a landscape tract, the owner of the lot next to it maintains the strip between the lot and the wall "as if such portion of the landscape tract were part of his or her Unit", without gaining title to it (Unit 7D Supplement Art. III, p. 2). The landscape tracts adjoin Block 2 Lot 1, Block 1 Lot 16 and Block 3 Lot 13 (PB 65/22, sheets 3, 5); the plat does not show whether a wall stands on them, and we weren't able to confirm it.
• The owner insures the home. Each owner must carry all-risk casualty insurance for full replacement cost and liability insurance; the association insures none of the lots (Declaration Art. VI § 2, p. 15).
• The use restrictions are the master's. Westover's own Article V covers only gate and entrance rules, signs on the gate or entrance, unlawful use, soliciting, buried utility lines and sight lines at intersections (Declaration Art. V §§ 1–7, pp. 11–12). For use restrictions the more restrictive of the two declarations controls (Art. X § 13, p. 32). Pets, vehicles, architecture and the rest are on the master page.
• Board rules. Architectural changes go to the master's Residential Modifications Committee, with a copy of the approval to the Westover board, and "There is no overnight street parking and driveway parking must not block the sidewalk" (Rules and Procedures items 4, 6, not recorded). We weren't able to confirm these rules are current.
• Fines and the master vote. The association may fine up to "$100.00 per violation", after 14 days' notice and a hearing before a committee of at least three members who are not officers, directors or employees (By-Laws Art. III G, Declaration p. 56). Westover's President casts the votes of all Westover lots in the master association (By-Laws Art. IV D, Declaration p. 59).