Flag flier gets reprieve on foreclosure sale of Jupiter home

[thedrifter]

Flag flier gets reprieve on foreclosure sale of Jupiter home

By Peter Franceschina
sun-sentinel.com
Posted September 25 2003, 2:52 PM EDT

WEST PALM BEACH -- Jupiter flag flier George Andres won a reprieve Thursday when a judge put the Oct. 9th foreclosure sale of his house on hold so that Andres can ask an appeals court whether he should lose his home.

In one of the least acrimonious hearings in the four-year legal battle, Chief Circuit Judge Edward Fine put his own Sept. 10th order allowing for the foreclosure on hold, saying Andres' right to go to a higher court would be "hollow" if the home were sold out from under him while that appeal was pending.

he reprieve was expected, and Andres said he was relieved.

"I think it's absolutely fantastic," he said. "It was a worry."

Andres has been locked in a fight with his homeowners association over the flagpole in his front yard. The Indian Creek Phase 3B Homeowners Association allows homeowners to fly flags from brackets attached to their homes, but its rules prohibit Andres' flagpole.

The association won a court case against Andres prohibiting the flagpole, and then filed a lien against his home for about $21,000 for legal fees and costs. In two rulings, Fine has determined that the association has a right to file a lien against Andres' property and foreclose on that lien to collect its expenses in the courtroom battle.

Andres and his Boca Raton attorney, Barry Silver, contend that Florida's homestead law protects the home from being sold to collect legal fees. Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist, who sent a top deputy to Palm Beach County to argue on Andres' behalf, supports them.

Crist's office plans to file a brief with the 4th District Court of Appeal in West Palm Beach making the same argument. Silver said he has about two months to file the appeal, and then the homeowner's association has another month to file a reply. Silver said he would ask for oral arguments in front of a panel of the appeals court judges.

Peter Franceschina can be reached at pfranceschina@sun-sentinel.com or 561-832-2894.


Copyright © 2003, South Florida Sun-Sentinel


http://www.sun-sentinel.com/media/photo/2003-09/9554404.jpg

George Andres, the flag man, who's in dispute with his homeowner's association over his flagpole, has received support from veterans around the state. This photo was taken in May.
(Jupiter Courier/Jeff Alexander, file)

Sep. 25, 2003

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-jupiterflag,0,6129903.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines

Sempers,

Roger
:marine:

[JChristin]

I don't know about the laws of the State of Florida, but in Oregon, whenever you purchase property one should review the CC&R"s (Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions) - if they exist, prior to closing a sale of real property.

Then, if someone violates the "CC &R's" it must be reported by someone prior to any action being taken. If something goes unnoticed or is noted but not reported there is no action taken. After a reasonable amount of time (decided by the courts) the real estate developers CC&R's usually "fade" out in time, as the character of a neighborhood changes.

I'd like to know who is the party who reported this "violation." Perhaps a flag should be sent to them, along with a copy of the Ten Commanments.

semper fi,
jchristin

[greybeard]

All well and good JC, but it isn't applicable in this case. This is still one of the most mis-reported cases around. Here's how it really is.
1. George Andres bought his home, & erected a flagpole & flew his flag for several years. He was even a member of the Indian Creek Homeowners Assoc governing board. There were no resrictiions regarding flags at this time.

2. A new governing board gets elected, passes the flag pole/flag restriction.

3. Andres is notified he is in violation of the restriction, & the fight starts. George fights it, it goes to the Fla supreme court, where Jeb Bush's own attorney general plead George's case. The attorney general and George won.

4. The Fla legislature passes a law saying anyone may fly a US flag anyway they wish, as long as it conforms to the US code, which is the governing entity on the matter. The legislature even makes it retroactive to protect George Andres.

5. Here's what the current fuss is about. Just before the Gov of Fla signs the bill into effect, the Indian Creek Homeowners assoc files suit to recoup it's legal expenses from the original stupid flag flap caused by a stupid HOA.
It is these legal fees that could cause George to lose his home. He can fly his flag without problem. The Fla Attny Gen has again promised to plead the case to the supreme court on George's behalf and Sean Hannity (Hannity & Combs) has promised $5000 in cash and has promised to mount a drive to raise the rest needed for the legal fees, if the supreme court decides against George.

[firstsgtmike]

Question.

I remember seeing Irish flags being flown in St. Patrick's Day parades. I remember celebrations where the Polish flag was flown. Also the Italian flag. AND I have attended ceremonies where the Confederate flag was flown.

NOW, make your case about an individual claiming his right to free speech IN A MANNER that was voted upon and the majority of his neighbors rejected.

The HOA, after a vote of its members, passed a restriction as to how flags, pennants, and advertisements were permitted to be displayed within the community.

Within those restrictions, I have the right to fly ANY national flag, the skull and crossbones, the Confederate Flag, the numbers 666, or any message I choose to publicize, from "Read Your Bible" to "God Sucks", or "Eat At Joe's Diner".

NOW, neighbor, cast your vote to support MY right to free speech.

[JChristin]

Greybeard,

From your outline of the case, it would appear that the Home Owners Association lost it case against the homeowner. If that is correct, then it is typcial that the losing party pays their own legal fees. Often, the party that wins the case is awarded costs. So, in effect - the Home Owners Association should be paying the legal costs incurred by the homeowner rather than the other way around. Following my logic?

So, what part of this case am I missing here? Who won what and at what cost?

semper fi,
jchristin