Blog
Removing directors between elections is frequently considered to be the corporate version of impeachment or recall. Especially in community associations, just as in “real” politics recall or removal is frequently threatened, but rarely undertaken, and when initiated, does not have traction without the votes. Perhaps that is why threats of removal are not always taken seriously.
However, for community associations the receipt of a recall petition must be taken seriously because receipt frequently causes a community association to seize up with many questions from members petitioning and directors who are targeted. Is removal instantaneous? Can the petition be challenged? What happens after the petition is received?
There are few appellate court decisions addressing the recall of a director in a Florida community association context. As a result, Florida community lawyers can look to how the courts have addressed recall of public officials when the lawyers prepare to advise their Florida community association clients.
When looking to Florida court decisions, one trend that may be reassuring or may be problematic, depending on one’s perspective, warns petitioners of the necessity to follow instructions, not to make it up as they go. Strict compliance with statutory requirements is now de rigueur!
Recently, a Florida appellate court held that a trial court erred by allowing a city recall petition to move forward when the paperwork had errors, errors that you might not think worth considering. The facts in Czyszczon v. City of Treasure Island, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D 1742 (Fla. 2nd DCA, August 26, 2026) indicate that in March 2025, Czyszczon was elected to a two-year term on the Treasure Island City Commission. Not much later, in December of that year, a petition for recall was filed against Czyszczon alleging that he committed misfeasance by misusing a City issued cell phone to send unsolicited text messages to a constituent.
What could be wrong? The petition, signed by Susan Lovelady, stated: “I am a qualified elector of the City of Treasure Island, Florida, and I hereby join in the petition to recall Commissioner Arthur Czyszczon for the grounds stated above.” One problem is that the petition did not follow the statutory recall process when the petition failed to identify the recall committee chair. To illustrate how exacting are requirements, a cover letter to the petition contained the information, stating that Lovelady was the chair.
Czyszczon challenged the petition, filing a lawsuit seeking the court to declare his rights, and for a determination that the recall proceedings did not comply with Florida Law. The trial court concluded that the plaintiffs had substantially complied with the removal law and denied the motions for injunctive and declaratory relief.
The Florida appellate court reversed the decision of the trial court and directed the trial court to rule for Czyszczon, and to enter a temporary injunction. The court pointed out that Florida Law provides that a specific person shall be designated in the petition as chair of the committee and that person shall act for the committee. The court explained that the plain language of the statute demands strict compliance with the terms of the statute. Thus, substantial compliance with the statute was not sufficient.
Why was substantial compliance not sufficient? The court explained that if the recall petition is not correct, even in the small details, the public official will be forced to face an illegal recall election and could be deprived of his right to hold office, the residents of Treasure Island will be forced to bear the expense of an illegal recall election, and the voters who initially elected him could have their lawful votes effectively invalidated,” the court stated. “For the same reasons, considerations of public interest support issuance of an injunction.”
The same rationale the appellate court applied would appear to perfectly fit the Florida community association recall process. There are statutory instructions for a Florida community association recall effort that should be followed. For example, to help ensure compliance when a petition is received, confirm that the format and all information is correct, everything. This extends to confirming that those signing a petition are actual owners and with authority to vote.
Surprising to many, delivery of a director recall petition does not immediately remove the subject director from office in a Florida community association. A director usually has an option to just resign in writing upon receiving a recall petition, but that is not required.
Upon receipt of a petition, the subject director of a petition normally can remain in office until statutory time limits run. Even then, if timely challenged in State administered arbitration the subject director of a petition can usually remain in office until the challenge is completed. Note also there is a blackout period for 60 days before or after an annual meeting to elect a director to the seat being challenged where State of Florida arbitrators will not address a removal petition challenge.
It is recognized that the Florida Division of Condominiums’ administrative rules mention “substantial compliance,” but those mentions apply to compliance with Division rules. The rules do not appear to override statutory requirements. In any event, when strict compliance can be easily accomplished with planning, best to plan to be in strict compliance, rather than being out of luck!
Whichever perspective one takes when planning, responding or observing a director removal petition effort, just as in many other Florida community association matters it is necessary to understand the statutes and the rules that apply, and your Governing Documents.