Law suits against association members by individuals, business entities or governmental entities that arise out of a parcel owner's appearance and presentation before a governmental entity on matters relating to their homeowners association have been described as Strategic Law Suits Against Public Participation or more commonly, "SLAPP Suits."

Sections 720.304(4) was added to Florida Statutes effective October 1, 2004 and reflect the legislature's stated intent to protect the right of parcel owners to exercise their righst to instruct their representatives and petition for redress of grievances before the various governmental entities of the State of Florida as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 5, Article I of the State Constitution.

The statute indicates that the legislature has concluded that SLAPP suits are inconsistent with the right of parcel owners to participate in the State's institutions of government and the legislature declared that prohibiting such law suits by governmental entities, business entities and individuals against parcel owners who address matters concerning their homeowners association will preserve fundamental State policy, preserve the constitutional rights of parcel owners and assure the continuation of representative government in the State.

Specifically, the statute prohibits homeowners associations from expending association funds in prosecuting SLAPP suit against a parcel owner. The law prohibits a governmental entity, business organization or individual from filing a law suit against a parcel owner without merit and solely because the parcel owner has exercised the right to instruct his or her representatives or the right to petition for redress of grievances before various governmental of the State.

The statute provides that if it is determined that a SLAPP suit has been filed, the court may award the parcel owner actual damages arising from the violation of the statute and the court may award three times the amount of damages in addition to attorney's fees and costs.

Interestingly, the statute only construes a suit to be a SLAPP suit where the action was taken against the property owner because he was exercising his right to address grievances before various governmental entities of the state. The statue does not construe a suit to be a SLAPP suit where an action is taken against a property owner because he is attempting to exercise his rights under the governing documents of the association. Since this author is not aware that there has been a rash of law suits filed by homeowners associations against lot owners who are attempting to have their issues heard before governmental agencies, it is not likely that we will hear much about SLAPP suits under this new statute. Perhaps the legislature was concerned that those who convinced the legislature to accept some of the latest condominium and homeowners associations laws would be subjected to frivolous law suits.