Introductory Context
Since mid-2024, the Omega Villas Board has engaged in an ongoing effort to revise and expand the community’s Rules & Regulations — a process that has continued into 2025 and consumed significant association funds, legal resources, and management time.
While presented as an administrative update, these revisions appear to have been used as a control mechanism — broadening disciplinary powers, restricting owner participation, and reinforcing patterns of retaliation already documented in Exhibits L2 and AA.
This page tracks the evolution of those rule changes, the legal expenditures surrounding them, and the potential statutory and ethical implications for the community.
Background
- In mid-2024, the rogue Board led by Patty Sabates & Blaire Lapides started updating “Rules & Regulations” purporting to govern owner conduct, maintenance access, and penalties.
- Several owners reported that the new rules were introduced without a 14-day notice and without a recorded membership vote, which may conflict with statutory procedures for rulemaking.
- This timing coincided with ongoing enforcement and fine-reduction discussions, raising questions about whether the updates were used to consolidate control rather than to clarify policy.
Areas of Concern (Summarized)
Omega Villas Rules & Regulations Draft #6A – Legal Conflict Index
| # | Section / Heading (in Draft #6A) | Page | Provision Summary | Conflict / Statutory Risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Use & Occupancy – #1 & #2 | p. 1 | All buyers, renters, or occupants over 18 must apply and obtain Board approval; leases minimum 12 months and subject to Board renewal approval. | Board-approval power not in declaration → violates F.S. 718.104 & 718.303; creates Fair Housing risk. |
| 2 | Use & Occupancy – #3 & #4 | p. 1 | No room rentals or “transient tenants.” | Overbroad; must track statutory definition of transient occupancy (F.S. 509.013). Otherwise restricts lawful leasing rights. |
| 3 | Use & Occupancy – #5 | p. 2 | Residents conducting business from home must hold a City of Plantation business license. | Beyond Board authority; no basis in declaration or §718; possible restraint on lawful home-office use. |
| 4 | Common Elements – #2 | p. 4 | “Nothing shall be attached to any fascia or roof… No flags except U.S., Florida, armed-forces, or seasonal/holiday flags may be displayed.” | Conflicts with F.S. 718.113(4) which expressly permits additional flags (POW-MIA, first responder, etc.). Seasonal-only limitation unenforceable. |
| 5 | Common Elements – #4 | p. 5 | Requires written Board approval for any modification or landscaping even within patio; forbids plants beyond fence line. | Potential conflict with F.S. 718.113(5) (material alteration vote requirement); risk of selective enforcement. |
| 6 | Pets – #4 | p. 7 | “Dogs must not be walked on Omega property.” | Likely unreasonable restriction under F.S. 718.1232 (right to use common elements); possible ADA/FHA issue for service animals. |
| 7 | Records Access – #2 & #3 | p. 10 | Limits requests to two per 30 days; requires written (not email) requests; restricts viewing to four hours. | Violates F.S. 718.111(12) (record-inspection rights and electronic requests). Over-restrictive and voidable. |
(All statements are based on publicly circulated drafts and owner reports; final approved text should be confirmed via DBPR-filed copies.)
🔍 Supplemental Commentary on Highlighted Provisions
(To follow the rule table in Exhibit R2)
- Maintenance-Fee Enforcement (p. 1)
The language threatening “aggressive pursuit” by the Association’s attorney over any unpaid amount amplifies intimidation rather than clarifying accounting procedure. While lawful collection is expected under F.S. 718.116, this tone underscores the Association’s broader culture of using enforcement rather than transparency to manage owners. - Occupancy and Leasing Controls §§ 1–4 (p. 1–2)
These paragraphs introduce non-refundable application fees for each adult, mandatory Board approval before any sale or lease, and unilateral authority to deny lease renewals. Such requirements exceed the Association’s recorded powers under its declaration and F.S. 718.104. They risk Fair-Housing exposure by conditioning residency on Board discretion without objective criteria. - Home-Business Restriction § 5 (p. 2)
Requiring a City of Plantation business-tax receipt for any “home office” conflicts with state legislation protecting remote or home-based work. No condominium rule can override local or state allowance for professional or digital employment conducted entirely within a residence. - Fascia / Exterior Attachment Ban (p. 3–4)
The highlighted line—“No item can be affixed/attached to the fascia board in order to maintain the warranty”—links directly to the Austro patchwork issue documented in Exhibit Q2. Engineering and photo evidence show filler seams and irregular repairs along fascia boards. By prohibiting any attachment, the Board effectively blocks owners from inspecting or mounting small cameras that could reveal construction defects. This rule therefore functions less as a warranty safeguard and more as a barrier to transparency. - Flag Restriction (p. 4)
Limiting flags to only five categories contradicts F.S. 718.113(4), which expressly authorizes additional flag types (POW-MIA, first-responder, etc.). The rule’s blanket prohibition on “all other flags” is unenforceable and potentially viewpoint-discriminatory. - Garbage-Bag and Bulk-Waste Mandates (pp. 4–5)
Requiring only “blue City-logo bags” and threatening fines for plain or black bags reflects over-regulation at the micro level. While cleanliness standards are reasonable, the Board’s emphasis on punitive enforcement rather than coordination with municipal code enforcement mirrors the same control-based governance pattern seen in other sections. - Vehicle & Parking (pp. 6–7)
The decal, towing, and restriction language appears consistent with basic enforcement authority, but repeated reference to immediate towing “at owner’s expense” without notice could violate due-process expectations under F.S. 718.303(3). - Pets § 4 (p. 7)
The absolute prohibition on walking dogs “on Omega property” is almost certainly unreasonable and inconsistent with F.S. 718.1232, which grants owners the right to use common elements subject to reasonable regulations. It may also infringe on ADA and FHA protections for service or emotional-support animals. - Pool / Recreation Restrictions (pp. 7–8)
Most rules are standard, but the outright alcohol ban and child-age limitation could be selectively enforced to target particular groups. Consistency of enforcement should be monitored. - Records § 1 (pp. 9–10)
The rule limits owners to two requests every 30 days, disallows email requests, and restricts inspection to four hours. All three conditions directly conflict with F.S. 718.111(12), which allows electronic communication and guarantees access within 10 business days. This section demonstrates how the Board codifies obstacles to oversight. - “Invitation” Paragraph (p. 10)
The closing “invitation” to participate at meetings rings hollow when viewed against the procedural barriers above. The juxtaposition highlights the disconnect between the Association’s stated openness and its restrictive rule structure.
Owner Warning & Fiscal Mismanagement Summary
Throughout 2024 and 2025, I repeatedly cautioned the Omega Villas Board—both in writing and on video during public meetings—against using Association funds to rewrite and enforce new “Rules & Regulations” while the community’s Bylaws remain outdated and owner-unfriendly, having been drafted between 1979 and 1985.
Despite those warnings, the Board authorized thousands of dollars in legal review and rule reformatting before taking any steps to modernize the Bylaws to align with current Florida Condominium Statutes (Chapter 718) or to increase owner protections. These Bylaws still lack key provisions addressing modern voting rights, digital notice, transparency, and owner due process—yet the Board prioritized punitive regulations and enforcement mechanisms instead.
This sequence shows deliberate disregard for both fiscal prudence and owner representation.
- ⚠️ Owners were never provided a cost-benefit analysis of the legal expenses.
- ⚠️ Multiple on-record warnings (captured on video) advised the Board that updating the Bylaws first would have prevented conflicts and unenforceable rules now subject to DBPR complaint review.
- ⚠️ The decision to proceed anyway demonstrates poor fiduciary judgment and misuse of legal counsel for purposes that appear more restrictive than corrective.
The Board was repeatedly warned that rewriting the Rules & Regulations before amending the 40-year-old Bylaws would waste legal fees and perpetuate outdated governance. They chose to proceed regardless—cementing another chapter of financial and procedural mismanagement at Omega Villas.
💬 Summary Observation
The revised 2025 Rules & Regulations package, when read alongside engineering and financial exhibits, shows a pattern of governance through restriction rather than maintenance, using policy instruments to limit owner scrutiny of physical and administrative irregularities. Each highlighted clause adds context to the systemic control narrative forming the basis of the broader Watchdog documentation.
🎥 Video Evidence
Video documentation connected to the 2024 – 2025 Rules & Regulations process is being finalized for release.
These recordings capture:
- Board discussions and public warnings about excessive legal spending on rule revisions;
- On-record exchanges referencing outdated Bylaws (1979 – 1985);
- The October 28 2025 meeting where President Patty Sabates claimed that owner filings “cost the Association $40,000 in legal fees,” immediately rebutted on camera.
The footage will be uploaded once editing and timestamp verification are complete and will be archived on the HOA Justice Now YouTube Channel.
Status: Editing in progress Expected uploads: November 2025