Ruggieri Law Firm Response Breakdown:
What We Asked vs. What We Got Back

Why This Matters

A homeowners in Lake Griffin Estates has repeatedly raised concerns about due process, enforcement procedures, and compliance with Florida Statute Chapter 720. After sending certified correspondence to the HOA and its management company, those questions were forwarded to the Association’s attorney, Ruggieri Law Firm, who responded on behalf of the Board.

This post explains:

• What we, a homeowner, formally asked

• What the attorney actually responded with

• Where that response fails to address Florida law

• Why this matters for every homeowner in the community

This is not about refusing compliance. It is about lawful governance.

---

What The Homeowner Asked

The certified correspondence to the HOA and management company requested clarity on the following points:

1. Due Process Under Florida Statute 720

   • Whether enforcement actions follow the notice and hearing requirements of §720.305

   • Whether homeowners are afforded a meaningful opportunity to be heard before penalties or enforcement actions occur

2. Authority to Incur and Shift Legal Fees

   • Under what authority legal fees are incurred

   • Whether those fees are categorized as assessments or enforcement costs

   • Whether such costs can be imposed without due process under §720.3085

3. Board Accountability

   • Whether the Board of Directors is directly addressing governance questions

   • Or whether all homeowner inquiries are being routed through counsel to avoid accountability

4. Ongoing Rights to Ask Questions

   • Whether homeowners retain the right to seek clarification and records under §720.303

   • Whether repeated questions can lawfully be dismissed or ignored

These are governance questions explicitly contemplated by Florida law.

---

What the Attorney’s Response Said

In summary, the attorney’s letter made the following assertions:

• Homeowners should “adhere to the Association’s demands” to avoid escalation

• No assessment has currently been imposed for attorney fees

• Homeowner questions reflect a “misinterpretation” of Florida law

• The HOA continues to incur legal fees responding to these inquiries

• The letter would serve as the “final correspondence” on the matter

At no point did the response cite:

• A specific statute authorizing the HOA’s position

• A procedural explanation of how due process is being satisfied

• A correction to the alleged deficiencies raised under Chapter 720

---

Where Ruggieri Law Firm Falls Short

1. Compliance Is Not a Substitute for Due Process

Florida Statute §720.305 requires notice and an opportunity for a hearing before enforcement penalties are imposed. Advising homeowners to simply comply with demands sidesteps this requirement and reverses the statute’s intent.

Due process comes first. Compliance cannot be demanded in place of it.

---

2. “No Assessment Imposed” Avoids the Real Issue

The issue raised was not limited to whether an assessment has already been imposed. It concerns:

• The authority to incur legal fees

• The categorization of those fees

• Whether such costs are being threatened or shifted without lawful process

Florida Statute §720.3085 governs when and how costs may be imposed. Saying “not yet” does not resolve whether the process itself is lawful.

---

3. Labeling Questions as “Misinterpretation” Is Not a Legal Finding

Calling homeowner concerns a “misinterpretation” does not negate statutory rights. Florida law does not limit:

• The number of questions a homeowner may ask

• The right to seek clarification on enforcement and governance

Only a court or regulatory authority can make legal determinations. An attorney’s characterization is not dispositive.

---

4. Declaring “Final Correspondence” Has No Legal Effect

Neither Chapter 720 nor the Association’s governing documents allow an HOA or its attorney to unilaterally terminate a homeowner’s statutory rights.

Homeowner rights under §720.303 and §720.305 are ongoing, not discretionary.

---

5. Using Counsel as a Shield Undermines Board Accountability

The Board of Directors owes fiduciary duties to the membership. While legal counsel may advise, it cannot replace:

• Board accountability

• Transparent governance

• Direct responsibility for enforcement decisions

Routing all inquiries through counsel does not absolve the Board of its statutory obligations.

---

Why This Affects Every Homeowner

If governance questions can be dismissed as “misinterpretations”
If due process can be replaced with “adhere to demands”
If legal costs can be incurred without transparency

Then every homeowner is at risk, regardless of compliance history.

This is not about one lot or one letter. It is about whether Florida law is being followed.

 

We will be submitting a DBPR Complaint.

 

View our letter we sent:
https://lakegriffinvoices.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/HOA-Attorney-Questions.pdf

View the response from the attorneys at Ruggieri Law Firm:

https://lakegriffinvoices.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Attorey-Repsonse-1.pdf
https://lakegriffinvoices.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Attorey-Repsonse-2.pdf

Ruggieri Law Firm:
https://www.ruggierilawfirm.com/