Surrey Ridge HOA Recall - Both Legal Recall Methods Executed!

May 1 Certification Meeting - Conflict of Interest Exposed

Watch the full meeting where recalled directors improperly voted to reject the certification of their own recall, violating Florida Statute 720.303(10). They also attempted to use HOA funds to retain legal counsel without board approval:

(If the video embed doesn't work, click here to watch on YouTube)

Membership Meeting Recall DBPR Filings Timeline

These are the official filings submitted to the Florida DBPR regarding the April 25, 2025 Surrey Ridge HOA Recall vote. All documents are publicly accessible and listed in order of filing.

Apr 25, 2025 - Recall Packet Presented to Homeowners May 6, 2025 - Petition to Reject Recall (Filed by Webner) May 9, 2025 - DBPR Order Requiring Answer May 13, 2025 - Order Requiring Response to Answer May 14, 2025 - Respondent's Supplemental Filing May 19, 2025 - HOA Form 6000-6: Qualified Rep (Scott Davis) May 20, 2025 - Petitioner's Response to Answer May 23, 2025 - Order Setting May 28 Hearing May 29, 2025 - Preliminary Final Order (Vacated) May 30, 2025 - Order Vacating Final Order May 30, 2025 - Respondent's Legal Brief Jun 2, 2025 - Respondent's Supplemental Brief Jun 6, 2025 - Petitioner's Brief Jun 6, 2025 - Respondent's Answer Jun 19, 2025 - Video Link Clarification Filing Jun 23, 2025 - Emergency Motion for Relief Jun 25, 2025 - Sarah Webner Response to Emergency Motion Jun 26, 2025 - Respondent's Response to Petitioner Response Jun 27, 2025 - Final Summary Order

All links reflect publicly shared records submitted in accordance with Florida Statutes and DBPR arbitration rules.

April 25, 2025 Recall - Conducted Successfully

• April 11, 2025 - Special Meeting Notice posted and mailed
• April 25, 2025 - Special Meeting and Recall Vote held (81 to 3 in favor of recall)
• May 1, 2025 - Recalled Board improperly voted to reject their own recall in a conflicted vote that put their own interests above their fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interest of the community)
• May 6, 2025 - HOA Attorney files Petition for Recall Arbitration with DBPR on behalf of recalled board members
• May 7, 2025 - Scott Davis (VP & Proxy Holder) files formal legal response to DBPR in opposition to petition
• May 30, 2025 - DBPR issues Order confirming the proxy format was valid and requests a brief from either side as to whether post Kaufman Statutes 720 controls.
• June 27, 2025 - DBPR Final Summary Order rules that proxies were valid however written recall is DBPR preferred method and advises to switch to Written Recall Format
• June 27, 2025 - DBPR Final Summary Order confirms recall was valid and procedurally sound, but required specifically "at a meeting language in 1991 bylaws"

Result: The homeowner-led recall was successful and legally compliant. All proxy validity objections by the recalled directors were rejected by DBPR, however a ruling regarding our pre-1992 Florida Statutes ByLaws created circumstamces that the Arbitrator ruled would best be handled via Written Recall Agreement- which we have done.

DBPR Arbitration

Written Recall Ballot to be served

Despite the majority will of homeowners in support of the April 25 recall by meeting of the membership, the recalled directors voted in favor of themselves over the best interest and will of homeowners and rejected the Apr 25 recall in order to delay their removal.

Outcome: DBPR confirmed that the proxies were valid and showing up to a meeting did not invalidate your vote, crushing most of Attorney Sarah Webner's ridiculous defense claims. Arbitrator still preferred written recall agreement with replacement directors listed and this also serves to streamline the process by not having to have a follow up meeting to select replacement directors at a meeting.

Financial Red Flags - Homeowners unwillingly Footing Recalled Director's Legal Bills

The recalled board are using HOA dues to fund their legal challenge against the homeowner-led recalls, despite overwhelming homeowner opposition. D&O insurance had expired, and no board vote was held to authorize the expenditure to reinstate this policy nor make any other financial decision while under DBPR recall legal limbo.

This has triggered concern among residents about potential dues increases, misuse of funds, and a lack of financial oversight during the recall proceedings which continues to this day having legal costs projected to exceed $23,419.00 EST

Scott Davis - Pool Maintenance & Reimbursement Issues

Scott Davis is the only reason the pool has re-opened and remained open. Fighting off intentional sabotage, former directors removing hoses from the pool and intimidating neighbors into disallowing water usage all to politicize and damage homeowners. Scott has taken decisive and necessary steps to preserve HOA assets, protect homeowner amenities, and ensure safety and security of residents - all at his own personal expense. Meanwhile directors Subject to recall, have abused their authority, logging into security cameras, eavesdropping on his conversations, intimidating residents, ejecting homeowners from the common area and pool, taking unauthorized photos and videos of Mr. Davis while working in the common area and attempting to forward them to the Dept of Health, making claims of wrongdoing, which were immediately shut down by the Dept of Health inspectors at every level. Mr. Davis has a excellent relationship and rapport with the Dept of Health, has the same CPO certification that the inspectors have and works closely with them in concert to ensure the safety and well-being of the residents while remaining in compliance and above board.

Outstanding Reimbursements Owed to Scott Davis - July 2025

Total Amount Owed: $280.93 - Itemized pool supply expenses submitted for reimbursement but ignored by recalled directors despite board resolution approval.

All receipts attached to HOA PDF reimbursement report submitted July 8th, 2025. Despite board resolution approval and promises of immediate reimbursement, these expenses continue to be intentionally delayed while recalled directors continue to authorize legal fees and management company payments that get immediately disbursed without issue.

Ongoing Financial Hardships Created by Recalled Directors

The directors subject to recall and the management company have worked together to create financial hardships for the proxy holder and homeowner representative. Time and time again, Mr. Davis has fronted money at his own expense for pool chemicals and maintenance to ensure amenities remain open for homeowners and their children. He has come out of pocket with emergency repairs using a vetted and licensed CFC plumber to repair a water pipe damaged by a bad vendor propped up by recalled directors and a bad management company that has been served multiple curative notices for poor performance. The same management company that gaslit the community, closed the pool without authority or board vote, lied to homeowners about a fake leak in the pool that did not exist to try to cover up for a illegal chlorine levels that violated Dept of Health standards. When I tried to tell the community about what was happening? They retaliated and tried to destroy me. On March 10, 2025 and an open notice board meeting Janelle Marazon skipped over most of the agenda items so she could spend most of our time trying to enact in illegal censorship policy preventing Mr. Davis from contacting 911, 811, the Dept of Health or any other governing agency prior to getting approval from her and the board so she could control all narratives like she has attempted to do since 2021, eight months before we had legal authority to operate as an association. Once she got recalled directors to vote on this censorship policy in order to manufacture due cause and create the recipe to manufacture cause for removal of a director, within a week the entire board was served with certified letters, formally objecting to this illegal policy of censorship that would prevent me from whistleblowing and preventing injury to homeowners and their children. Not another word has ever been spoken about this illegal policy since those certified letters were served, but since then they have attempted to remove me from the board on April 14 a retaliatory and illegal act and failed because homeownmers were finally paying attention to the wrongdoings.

Broken Promises of Reimbursement

Despite repeated promises of reimbursement from recalled Director Janelle Marazon at open noticed board meetings, including the June 16, 2025 meeting where she promised and assured all homeowners that if Mr. Davis came out of pocket to continue supporting the pool, she would immediately reimburse him - no such reimbursement has been issued since this meeting as it was all for show. They wanted the appearance that they were not withholding funds and creating financial harm to another director because it was not a good look while under DBPR review. So they did the bare minimum, slow paid nearly 90 day old out of pocket expenses only to ignore the current reimbursement requests, the opposite of what was promised on recorded June 16th board meeting minutes.

On June 27, 2025, Scott Davis submitted a reimbursement request for pool chemicals and everything that was previously approved at the June 16 open meeting, with board resolution votes confirming the motion passed. Despite this formal agreement, no reimbursement has been provided per the board's own resolution while Oliver Morgan has paid himself, sent funds to Sarah Webner for nearly $6,000.00 and shafted the director who works for free and finances the association operations out of his own pockets without reimbursement.

Darwin Johnson's False Statement

At the written recall rejection meeting, Darwin Johnson read a prepared statement that had been written for him, claiming that "the board had not withheld reimbursement payments to director Davis." This statement is 100% false and provably so.

Mr. Davis has the receipts and documentation proving that reimbursements have been withheld despite board resolutions and promises to swiftly take care of them. The reason Scott Davis has not and can not be sued for his statements is because everything he has stated can be proven TRUE with documentation that most homeowners have already seen. Nobody is falling for their hail mary gaslighting because nobody is buying the little boy cried wolf act anymore. Mr. Davis has worked in common areas for months streaming 4k gopro footage to prevent false allegations by bad directors and managment company that they have attempted time and time again to no avail. The TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE.

The evidence is clear:

The recalled directors have systematically withheld reimbursements, created censorship policies and harassed Mr. Davis while forcing him to personally fund essential pool maintenance to keep amenities open for the community, meanwhile reimbursing themselves instantly, funding attorneys with homeowner money and even paying vendors that have not shown up to work in 28 days straight!. Mr. Davis is willing to endure the hardships because he knows there are good replacement directors ready to come on board and do what is best for the community.

July 1, 2025 - Recall Certification Meeting Commandeered by Attorney Sarah Webner

HOA Vice President Scott Davis dismantles every objection raised by the recalled directors and their attorney, showing violations of Florida Statute 720.303(10) and Rule 61B-81.002.

(If the video embed doesn't work, click here to watch on YouTube)

Written Recall DBPR Filing Timeline

These are the official filings submitted to the Florida DBPR regarding the June 26, 2025 Surrey Ridge HOA Written Recall. All documents are publicly accessible and listed in order of filing.

Jun 26, 2025 - Written Recall Packet Served to HOA Secretary Jul 7, 2025 - Petition to Reject Written Recall (Filed by Webner) Jul 11, 2025 - DBPR Order Requiring Answer to Petition Jul 15, 2025 - HOA Form 6000-6 Qualified Representative Jul 15, 2025 - Respondent's Answer to Petition Jul 24, 2025 - Respondent's Motion for Summary Final Order

All links reflect publicly shared records submitted in accordance with Florida Statutes and DBPR arbitration rules.

Arbitrator Order Validates VP Scott Davis's Legal Analysis

July 11, 2025 - DBPR Order: Arbitrator Addresses All Petition Arguments

Arbitrator's Ruling Confirms Legal Accuracy of VP Davis's Objections

The arbitrator's order directly addresses each of the three main arguments from the petition to reject the recall:

Legal Analysis Confirmed:

• VP Davis's legal objections were substantively accurate
• All three petition arguments were legally insufficient
• The arbitrator's analysis aligns with VP Davis's position
• Professional legal knowledge demonstrated throughout the process by Davis

Read the Complete Arbitrator Order

VP's Legal Analysis Validated by Senior DBPR Arbitrator

July 10, 2025 - Documentation of Filing Notification Practices

UNEQUAL TREATMENT OF ASSOCIATION, VP AND HOMEOWNER REPRESENTATIVE

On July 10, 2025, Vice President Scott Davis submitted a formal request for confirmation regarding whether a petition was filed with DBPR concerning the written recall, and requested a PDF copy of any such filing. This request was made following claims by counsel regarding an alleged filing, noting a departure from previously established communication practices.

Documented Communication Pattern Variance:

• May 1 Membership Recall: Counsel provided PDF copy of DBPR petition to VP and homeowner representative on May 6, 2025
• June 27 Written Recall: No notification provided to VP and homeowner representative regarding DBPR filing
• Previous Filings: All DBPR submissions in the membership recall matter were consistently shared via PDF with VP & Homeowner Representative

Factual Observations: The documented communication pattern shows a variance in notification practices between the membership recall proceedings and the written recall proceedings. During the membership recall case, all DBPR filings were consistently provided to VP & Homeowner Representative. This established practice was not followed for the written recall filing.

Association Rights: As Vice President and designated homeowner representative, Scott Davis formally requested a PDF copy of the DBPR filing, citing prior practice and transparency obligations. Under Florida Statutes ??720.303(4), 720.303(5), and 720.303(10), records created at Association expense must be accessible to directors and members. The request emphasized that any deviation from this established pattern?where DBPR filings were routinely shared?would be documented for the homeowner record.

July 01, 2025 - Written Recall Certification Meeting Commandeered improperly by non-neutral party in unethical manner by Attorney Sarah Webner

TOOK OVER THE DIRECTOR MEETING

Meeting Setup and Lack of Communication:
On July 1st, 2025, a written recall agreement certification meeting was scheduled to occur at 6:00pm. Despite pre-emptive emails from VP to Board of Directors and Attorney Sarah Webner, no communication or response was received by Sarah Webner or the board per usual.

Sarah Webner Takes Control:
Neutral party association secretary Carlos Garcia was prepared to chair the meeting as a neutral party and director of the board, however upon arriving on the zoom call, board directors not subject to recall found all of their microphones muted by Sarah Webner as she commandeered the board of directors meeting while not being a neutral party and neither being a director of the board.

Inappropriate "SURPRISE!" Response:
When I objected to her chairing the meeting and one sided representation, asked why she did not respond to directors subject to recall emails, she said "SURPRISE!" as if to intimidate and posture how she was "in control" of our meeting and had no interest in responding to directors not subject to recall.

Pattern of Inappropriate Behavior:
This was absolutely inappropriate and likely worthy of a Florida bar complaint. This one-sided defense attorney of directors subject to recall has had a history during these proceedings of commandeering our board meetings (May 1st 2025), drafting minutes that did not come from the actual board director responsible for writing them, the secretary of the association, whose fiduciary duty and bylaws clearly outline is his responsibility.

Fabricated Meeting Minutes:
Repeatedly, Sarah Webner has been caught fabricating her own version of board meeting minutes so she can submit them to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation written in a way that favors directors subject to recall.

Attempting to Influence Directors:
During this meeting, she also tried to lead non-recalled director, Carlos Garcia to abstain from voting, in which he refused to do. Sarah Webner has a history of leading board directors into answers and decisions much like what occurred as this meeting started.

Predetermined Outcome:
Just like the May 1st meeting of the membership recall certification meeting that was to certify the original April 1 homeowner led recall, she also took over and led this Board of Directors meeting with a predetermined outcome of rejection instead of asking the directors whether they intended to certify or reject.

Darwin Johnson as Proxy Puppet:
Sarah Webner claimed she did not email or return any emails to any non-recalled directors however somehow Darwin Johnson received enough attention from Sarah Webner (at the expense of homeowners dues) to have prepared a legal statement to read aloud like a proxy puppet, which he fumbled through clumsily not understanding fully what he was even reading (because he didn't write it), and finally Sarah Webner had to take over and continued to read the rest of the statement that appeared to be written by her Law Office.

Biased and Non-Neutral Actions:
She did not respond to any email or request for information about who is chairing the meeting from any director not subject to recall such as HOA secretary, Carlos Garcia or vice president Scott Davis. This tells you the absolute disgusting, one-sided biased, and non-neutral nature of her actions that are not in the best interest of the community or the association and definitely not in the best interest of respecting the MAJORITY will of the homeowners who have voted twice now to remove these same directors.

Financial Conflict of Interest:
Based on the meeting led by conflicted Attorney Sarah Webner, she took four votes from four conflicted directors to attempt to pass a motion that she had a conflicted interest in as the motion passed or failed, directly affected her gross income in billing hours. Following this motion, Oliver Morgan of Morgan property solutions swiftly and quietly electronically transferred nearly $6000.00 more to Sarah Webner out of the cash operating account of the association, an act that he was given a directive not to do via a certified mail alongside an additional curative notice.

Frivolous Reason for Rejection:
The reason cited for rejection of the written recall ballot is because four homeowners did not select replacement directors, which is not required by law and a frivolous and irresponsible reason for rejection. The ballot itself states voters may vote for replacement directors, not "shall vote" meaning in legal terms they do not have to vote.

Financial Motivation:
Webner likely knows for a fact that these ballots are all legal yet has a financial interest in sending another petition to the state as she's racked up nearly $12,000.00-$16,000.00 already directed solely by the four directors voted to be removed by homeowners votes and intent.

Let that sink in.

June 26, 2025 - Written Recall Served on HOA Secretary Carlos Garcia

FIVE-DAY CLOCK INITIATED

On June 26, 2025, a written recall agreement was formally served on HOA Secretary Carlos Garcia, starting the mandatory five-day clock for the board to schedule a recall certification meeting.

Key Requirements

• Service Date: June 26, 2025
• Served On: HOA Secretary Carlos Garcia
• Method: Written recall agreement as required by Florida Statute
• Deadline: Board must schedule recall certification meeting within 5 days

What This Means

Important: This written recall agreement ensures the recall process moves forward according to Florida law, regardless of whether or not Kaufman Language is contained in our ByLaws that automatically adopt new laws as they are passed by the Legislature.

Next Steps

The board had five (5) days from June 26, 2025 to:

• Schedule a recall certification meeting
• Provide proper notice to all homeowners
• Conduct the meeting in accordance with Florida Statute FS 720.303(10)

Failure to comply within the five-day period would have resulted in automatic certification of the recall.

July 1st Certification Meeting

Since the stolen Certification Meeting was taken over by Sarah Webner on July 1st, the meeting, however improperly conducted by a conflicted party who stole the chair from Secretary Carlos Garcia (not subject to recall) they technnically had a meeting within the 5 business day threshold

Now they have until July 9th to file their frivolous Petition using YOUR MONEY, and have NO LEGAL GROUNDS upon which to reject the recall

A Giant Middle Finger to the Surrey Ridge Homeowners

It's clear that the recalled directors do not respect the DEMOCRATIC PROCESS and will do anything to ignore the will of the majority homeowners, their plan appears to be to work with Sarah Webner to bleed out the AVAILABLE CASH in bank so that replacement directors will be left with little funds to work with, however we have been in touch with independent legal counsel and have plans to clawback funds and hold directors personally liable.

Now they have until July 9th to file their frivolous Petition using YOUR MONEY, and have NO LEGAL GROUNDS upon which to reject the recall as all ballots are legal, and there was no duplicative event. This was a distinct and seperate recall method and procedure with different directors listed.

I. Legal Remedies for the New Board

(Acting on Behalf of the Association):

The new board, acting in its fiduciary capacity for the association, can pursue the following:

Breach of Fiduciary Duty Lawsuit:

Basis: Former directors have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the association and its members, with the care of an ordinarily prudent person. Spending a significant portion of the annual budget (50%) to retain their positions, especially when those positions were subject to a recall vote, is a clear breach of this duty. This would likely be considered self-dealing and not in the best interest of the association.

Goal: To recover the misused funds from the former directors personally. The association would sue the individual former directors.

Evidence: The new board would need to gather evidence of the expenditures, the purpose of those expenditures (e.g., legal fees to fight the recall, PR campaigns, etc.), and demonstrate how these actions were not for the benefit of the association but rather for the personal benefit of the directors.

Misappropriation/Conversion of Funds Lawsuit:

Basis: If the funds were used for purposes explicitly outside the scope of the association's legitimate expenses or for personal gain, it could constitute misappropriation or conversion.

Goal: To recover the specific funds that were improperly used.

Unjust Enrichment Claim:

Basis: If the former directors personally benefited from the expenditure of association funds (e.g., paying their personal legal fees to fight the recall), they could be deemed to have been unjustly enriched at the expense of the association.

Goal: To force the former directors to return the value of the benefit they received.

DBPR Complaint:

Basis: The Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR) has oversight over HOAs. Misuse of funds and breach of fiduciary duty are grounds for a complaint to the DBPR.

Goal: The DBPR can investigate, issue cease and desist orders, impose fines, and even refer cases for criminal prosecution in severe instances of financial misconduct. While the DBPR doesn't directly "claw back" funds, their findings can strengthen civil cases.

Seeking Injunctive Relief (if ongoing):

If there's any indication that the former directors are still attempting to access or divert funds, the new board could seek an immediate injunction from a court to prevent further misuse.

II. Can Homeowners Sue the Former Directors Personally?

Yes, individual homeowners can also sue the former directors, typically through a derivative action or a direct action for breach of fiduciary duty.

Derivative Action:

Basis: In a derivative action, a homeowner sues on behalf of the association because the board (in this case, the new board) has failed or refused to take action to protect the association's interests. However, since you stated a "new board that's replacing recalled directors," the new board should be willing to take action. If for some reason they don't, homeowners could pursue a derivative action.

Process: Homeowners would typically need to make a formal demand on the new board to take action first. If the board refuses or fails to act, the homeowners can then file a lawsuit on behalf of the association.

Goal: To recover the funds for the association.

Direct Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty (Less Common but Possible):

Basis: Homeowners can directly sue directors for breach of fiduciary duty if the breach caused direct harm to the individual homeowner, distinct from the harm to the association as a whole. In this scenario, where 50% of the annual budget was spent, the harm is primarily to the association, which then indirectly harms all homeowners through increased assessments or reduced services.

Goal: To recover damages for the direct harm suffered by the individual homeowner.

Class Action Lawsuit (Potentially):

If the harm is widespread and common to many homeowners, a class action lawsuit could be considered, where one or more homeowners sue on behalf of a larger group of similarly situated homeowners.

III. Key Considerations and Steps for the New Board:

Immediate Action: The new board should immediately engage qualified legal counsel specializing in HOA law.

Forensic Audit: Conduct a thorough forensic audit of the association's finances to document all expenditures made by the former board, especially those related to fighting the recall. This audit will be crucial evidence.

Demand Letter: The association's attorney should send a formal demand letter to the former directors, demanding the return of the misused funds.

Litigation: If the demand is not met, the new board, with legal counsel, should initiate a lawsuit against the former directors.

Insurance: Investigate whether the association's Directors & Officers (D&O) liability insurance policy covers such actions. However, D&O policies often have exclusions for intentional misconduct, self-dealing, or criminal acts.

Criminal Charges: In egregious cases of financial misconduct, the new board could also consider reporting the matter to law enforcement for potential criminal investigation and charges (e.g., grand theft, fraud).

In summary: The new board has strong legal grounds to pursue the former directors personally for the misuse of association funds. Homeowners can also sue, particularly through derivative actions. The key is to act swiftly, gather comprehensive evidence, and engage experienced legal counsel.