“When Is the Wrong Recall Form Still Good Enough?” – FCAP Managers Report
Recall disputes are among the more procedurally sensitive matters that arise in Florida community association governance. They involve enflamed owner sentiment and require boards to make prompt decisions that are often challenged. In an effort to standardize a contentious process, many Associations strictly adhere their recall election procedure to the requirements of Florida Statute. Many strong, owner-led recall efforts do not fail for lack of substantive basis, but for procedural defects. To that end, an Association’s well-intentioned refusal to deviate from statutory requirements often results in more legal problems than solutions. One recurring issue is which technical irregularities can render a recall ballot/ agreement facially invalid and which sufficiently comply with the applicable requirements.
The short answer is that technical irregularities do not automatically result in facial invalidity. Under the applicable administrative rule and the arbitration decisions addressing facial validity, the better view is that the recall ballot/ agreement must be reviewed for substantial compliance and for defects apparent from the four corners of the document itself.
The Rule
Florida Statutes Section 718.112 provides that any member of the board may be recalled and removed from office with or without cause by the vote or written agreement approved by a majority of all the voting interests. Sections 718.112(l)(1),(2) state if the recall is approved by a majority of all voting interests by a vote at a meeting, the recall will be effective as provided in this paragraph. Such member or members shall be recalled “effective immediately upon conclusion of the board meeting, provided that the recall is facially valid.” The initial decision as to whether a recall petition is valid lies with the Board. However, a Unit Owner representative may challenge the Board’s finding of facial invalidity in a court of law.
Florida Administrative Code Rules 61B-23.0027 and 23.0028 set forth the form requirements for condominium recall agreements by recall meeting or written agreement. Among other things, the notice of recall and/or written agreement must 1) identify the board members sought to be recalled, 2) provide a way for the voting interest to indicate whether each board member should be recalled or retained, 3) include the necessary voter identifying information, 4) provide a signature line, and 5) designate a representative for purposes of the recall process.
Importantly, the Rules do not demand technical perfection. Both rules provide that “substantial compliance” with the form requirements discussed above are required for an effective recall. The Code recognizes that recall agreements are often prepared and circulated by owners rather than lawyers, and that the validity of the effort should turn on whether the essential statutory and rule-based functions have been satisfied. Nevertheless, this caveat does not dissuade Associations from denying recall efforts based on facial invalidity.
The Four Corners Limitation
The Code does not provide an Association, or its managers, any guidance on how to delineate between substantial compliance and facial invalidity. Accordingly, Associations must consider recent Florida arbitration decisions to determine whether it can deem a recall action facially invalid. Recent arbitration guidance reinforces the idea that the review of recall elections and written recall agreement is a narrow one.
In David Hoines, Petitioner, v. Three Horizons, East Condominium Association, Inc., Respondent., 2025 WL 4357316, one Florida arbitrator explained that the inquiry is limited to the facial validity of the ballots filed. In other words, an arbitrator may reject an individual ballot only for obvious defects within the document itself. An arbitrator may not consider the Association’s subjective reasons for rejecting a document.
That limitation can be outcome-determinative. If an association’s objection depends on facts outside the recall vote or agreement, those facts may not provide a proper basis to reject the ballot as facially invalid. If an Association intends to reject a recall vote or written agreement, it must be prepared to let the defect speak for itself – it may not rely on additional context to justify its objection.
Florida arbitrators have routinely upheld facial invalidity in a narrow line of cases such as where 1) the votes on the recall ballots were premarked; (2) the recall ballot did not provide an opportunity for the voter to cast a vote individually to recall or retain each board member targeted for recall; (3) the ballot did not contain a signature.
Case Study: Battle of the Forms
The decision in Birol Giulia Ozyesiplinar, Petitioner, v. the Lorena Owners Condominium Association, Inc., Respondent., 2018 WL 8753143 is particularly instructive. There, the association argued that the recall ballots were facially invalid because the form used was similar to the homeowners’ association recall ballot form available from the Department of Business and Professional Regulation’s website, as opposed to the provided form for condominium associations. The arbitrator rejected that argument. The decision noted that the substantial differences between the homeowners’ association and condominium association recall forms were largely the statutory references in the introductory language. The association did not provide authority showing that those differing references rendered the ballots facially invalid.
More importantly, the ballots still performed the essential functions of a recall agreement. They allowed the owners to vote to recall or retain each individual board member, identify replacement candidates where applicable, and identify the voter. Because those core functions were present, the arbitrator declined to invalidate the recall solely because the owners used a technically incorrect form.
Practical Takeaways for Managers and Boards
Arbitration decisions regarding recall ballots and agreements have offered community association professionals a clear warning: declare facial invalidity at your own peril. The analysis should focus on the administrative requirements and the document’s contents. Regarding facial validity, an Association should consider the following basics: (1) Does the ballot identify the directors sought to be recalled? (2) Does it allow the voter to recall or retain each director? (3) Does it identify the voter and unit or parcel? (4) Is it signed and dated? (5) Does it provide for replacement candidates when required?
Boards should also be careful when rejecting recall ballots based on information outside the document itself. A board may believe there are compelling reasons to question how the recall was organized or why a particular form was used, but those facts may fall outside the narrow facial-validity review. If the association’s objection requires looking beyond the four corners of the ballot, it may be vulnerable to challenge.
Bottom Line
Where a recall ballot contains the essential information necessary to determine the owner’s vote, identify the voter, and satisfy the administrative requirements of the recall process, mere technical errors will not render the recall invalid. For managers and boards, the safest course is to consult counsel promptly, review the recall documents carefully, and distinguish between defects apparent on the face of the ballot and objections that require evidence outside the document.
Alejandro A. Munoz is an attorney in Becker’s Condo, Co-Op & HOA practice, based in the firm’s Miami office. He represents condominium, cooperative, and homeowners’ associations, working closely with boards and managers to provide practical, business-minded guidance on governance, compliance, operations, and dispute resolution.
To read the original FCAP article, please click here.
