Become a member!>> Get Listed on our Directory – Register Today »  Already a Member > Log In

Keep informed with the Property Management Industry. Read informative Articles by Industry professionals,  a great resource for Property Owners, Board Members and Property Management Professionals.

LEGISLATIVE CHANGES Are you up to date in your Condo or HOA?

LEGISLATIVE CHANGES Are you up to date in your Condo or HOA?

2017 LEGISLATIVE CHANGES

The 2017 Legislative Session was fairly active with respect to issues involving Community Associations. The following is a brief outline of some of the significant changes that became effective July 1, 2017.

Estoppel Certificates: Senate Bill 398: Applies to Condominium, Cooperative & Homeowners’ Associations.

Content and cost limits for estoppel certificates were issues attempted to be addressed several times in the past few years, but this year, SB 398 passed and substantially changed the content and procedure for responding to requests for information when a unit or property within the community is transferring, as well as setting up specific costs for the information. An “estoppel certificate” is defined to be a signed document establishing certain specific facts related to a particular transaction. In the past the estoppel certificate typically consisted of a basic statement of account, notifying the buyer/lender whether the account was current and identifying upcoming or ongoing financial obligations. The new law has the following affects: (a) reduces the time period for responding to a request for an estoppel certificate from 15 days to 10 business days, and if not delivered within 10 business days no fee can be charged for the estoppel; (b) the association’s website, if it exists, must contain the name and street address or e-mail address of the person to whom requests for estoppel certificates are to be sent; and, estoppel certificates must be delivered by hand, mail or e-mail on the date the estoppel is issued.

The estoppel must contain specific information, as follows:

Date of Issuance;
Name of the owner of the property to which the estoppel information pertains;
The property designation and address;
Any assigned parking or garage space;
Contact information for the association’s counsel if the account is in collection;
The amount of the fee for preparation of the estoppel; and,
Identify the person/entity requesting the information.

Assessment Information required to be included:

Payments required on a periodic basis for “regular” assessments, including the required frequency of payment;
Date through which payment has been received;
The date due and amount of the next “regular” payment;
Itemized list of any amounts currently due; and,
An itemization of the amounts to become due while the certificate is pending.

Other Information required:

Disclose the existence and amount of any capital contribution fee;
Whether there are any open violations;
Whether the governing documents require the buyer to be approved and if so, whether the buyer has been approved;
Whether the association has a right of first refusal and exercised it;
A list of and contact information for any other associations governing the property;
Contact information for insurance verification; and,
Contain the signature of an officer or authorized association agent (management, etc.).

An estoppel certificate is effective for 30 days (35 if delivered by regular mail). The fee for an estoppel certificate may not exceed $250 unless (a) the estoppel is requested on an expedited basis and is delivered within 3 days, in which case an additional fee of up to $100 is allowed, or (b) delinquent assessments are owed in which case an additional fee of up to $150 is allowed. The statutorily set fees shall be adjusted every 5 years based on the CPI.

Condominium Crime & Penalties: House Bill 1237: Applies to Condominium Associations

While portions of the bill have been criticized for “criminalizing” certain activities, these initiatives were largely in response to what has been considered as the scathing Miami-Dade grand jury report issued earlier in the year. The report found tremendous abuse associated with elections, conflicts of interest and association records. Records were purposely withheld in some cases and modified in others. The bill emphasizes that forgery of ballot envelopes or voting certificates is a crime punishable by law. Destruction of or the refusal to allow inspection or copying of an official record of a condominium association within the time periods required by law in furtherance of any crime is punishable as tampering with physical evidence or as obstruction of justice.

Kickbacks are specifically prohibited and could result in criminal penalties if accepted by condominium association officers, director and/or CAMs.

Condominium election ballot and voting certificate forgery could result in criminal penalties.

Theft of condominium funds, and destruction or refusal to allow access to official records of a condominium in furtherance of a crime are all subject to criminal penalties.

New conflict provisions are added. Under the new law the following is prohibited:

An association may not hire an attorney who represents the management company of the association.
A board member, manager, or management company may not purchase a unit foreclosed as a result of the association’s lien (or take title by deed in lieu of foreclosure).
The association cannot employ or contract with any service provider that is owned or operated by a board member or with any person who has a financial relationship with a board member or officer, or a relative within the third degree of consanguinity by blood or marriage of a board member or officer. (This does not apply if the board member or officer [or relative as described] owns less than 1 percent of the equity shares.)
An officer or board member of an association’s contract provider of maintenance or management services is likewise precluded from purchases a unit at the association’s lien foreclosure sale (or take title by deed in lieu).

Cancellation – Majority Ownership Contract
If 50 percent or more of the units in the condominium are owned by a party contracting to provide maintenance or management services to an association managing a residential condominium, (or an officer or board member of such), the contract may be cancelled by a majority vote of the non-interested unit owners.

Disclosure and Termination of Contract
Includes new conflict of interest provisions for directors and officers, and their relatives. Any activity that may reasonably be construed to be a conflict of interest must be disclosed.

A rebuttable presumption of a conflict of interest exists if any of the following occurs without prior notice:

A director or officer, or a relative, enters into a contract for goods and services with the association; or,
A director or an officer, or a relative that holds an interest in a corporation, limited liability corporation, partnership, limited liability partnership, or other business entity that conducts business with the association or proposes to enter into a contract or other transaction with the association.

A proposal for any service in which a director or officer, or a relative to the association must be clearly disclosed on all contracts and transactional documents and those actual documents must be attached to the meeting agenda.

If the board votes against the contract or service, the interested party must notify the board in writing that he/they will not continue to pursue the relationship, failing which the interested director must withdraw from office. If the board finds that an officer or a director has violated this provision, they are automatically removed from office.

Any contract, agreement or other relationship that has not been properly disclosed, is voidable and terminates after written notice from the board of directors supported by the consent (petition) of at least 20 percent of the voting interests of the association.
(For purposes of the conflict of interest provisions, the term “relative” means a relative within the third degree of consanguinity by blood or marriage.)

Records Access – Renters are now permitted access to certain records.

Website for Condominiums with 150 or more Units – Condominium associations with more than 150 units will be required to post (upload) copies of a whole host of documents on websites created for this purpose. The website must requires updating throughout each year. Condominium associations without websites or use of websites, web portals or web pages will need to create them or hire third-parties to do so. Among other documents, the website must contain:

The recorded declaration with all amendments;
The recorded bylaws with all amendments;
The articles of incorporation with all amendments and current rules;
All management contracts, leases or other contracts where the association is a party of which unit owners have obligations;
Summaries of bids for materials, equipment or services;
The adopted annual budget and any proposed budget to be considered at the annual meeting;
The year-end financial reports required by statute;
Each director’s self-certification or evidence of participation in a Division approved educational program;
All contracts or transactions between the association and any director, officer, corporation, firm or any other entity in which an association director is financially interested;
Conflict of interest disclosures; and,
Notices and agendas for both membership and board meetings.

Condominium associations that operate fewer than 50 units and homeowners associations of less than 50 parcels must comply with the financial reporting requirements based upon the total revenues of the association (although another bill permits the members to waive financial reporting requirements).

Annual condominium financial reports must be provided within 5 days of request by a unit owner, and specific remedies and enforcement by the Division are provided for failure to meet this requirement.

A condominium association, its officers, directors, employees, and agents may not use a debit card issued in the name of the association or billed directly to the association for payment of any association expense. Doing so can be prosecuted as credit card fraud.

A board member of a condominium association may not serve for more than 4 consecutive two-year terms unless approved by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the total voting interests of the association, or there are not enough eligible candidates to fill the vacancies. (The new law does not contain limitations if directors serve one year terms.)

The recall provisions have been substantially revised – the board will no longer have the obligation or opportunity to vote whether or not to certify the recall. Recalled board members are immediately removed and could challenge the recall by filing a petition for arbitration at their personal expense.

Associations must furnish the Division of Florida Condominiums, Timeshares and Mobile Homes with the names of all financial institutions with which it maintains and accounts on an annual basis.

The right of a condominium association to suspend voting rights of an owner for non-payment of a monetary obligation to the association is limited to a monetary obligation of more than $1,000, and proof of such non-payment must be provided to the unit owner at least 30 days before such suspension takes effect.

Arbitrator qualifications have been strengthened as well as an intent to speed up the arbitration process.

The foregoing is general in nature, not intended to be an exhaustive and complete rendition of all of the legislative changes for 2017, nor should it be considered legal advice. If you have any specific questions regarding any of the items set forth herein, as well as any other legislative change, please contact this office.

 

Tags: ,
APPELLATE COURT LIMITS ASSOCIATION ABILITY TO STOP OWNER POSTING OF NEGATIVE OPINIONS ON SOCIAL MEDIA

APPELLATE COURT LIMITS ASSOCIATION ABILITY TO STOP OWNER POSTING OF NEGATIVE OPINIONS ON SOCIAL MEDIA

APPELLATE COURT LIMITS ASSOCIATION ABILITY TO STOP OWNER POSTING OF NEGATIVE OPINIONS ON SOCIAL MEDIA

Many community associations throughout Florida have experienced an owner who opposes the board and is vocally negative toward the efforts of the association representatives. With the development of social media and the internet, many have also experienced these disgruntled owners posting their opinions on the internet through blogs, website and the like. Quite often these owners are not expressing accurate information regarding the association and boards look for help from their attorneys to stop what they consider to be abusive and harassing conduct. The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal has recently issued a ruling that identifies some limits that court action can take in dealing with such disputes and leaving questions regarding other actions that can be taken unanswered.

 

Read more on Legal Issues: 

REMBAUM’S ASSOCIATION ROUNDUP

 http://www.kbrlegal.com/rembaums-association-roundup/

 

In Fox. V. Hampton at Metro West Condominium Association, Inc., Case No. 5D16-1822 (July 21, 2017), the Appellate Court was presented the situation in which the Condominium Association had initially brought a legal action against the unit owner to obtain an injunction to stop the owner from what they claimed to be conduct that was harassing, intimidating and otherwise threatening to other owners, and for his on-going publishing of negative claims about the Association and/or the Board on the internet. No trial was held as the parties entered into a settlement agreement that was ultimately incorporated into a final judgment under which Fox agreed to stop certain actions. Soon thereafter, however, the conduct began again and the Association filed a motion for contempt and enforcement of the agreement, claiming that Fox had willfully and intentionally violated the terms of the agreement.

After holding a hearing, the trial court did find Fox in civil contempt for the violations of the agreement and, in addition to enforcing the provisions of the settlement agreement, also ordered Fox to stop posting, circulating, and publishing any pictures or personal information about current or future residents, board members, management, employees or personnel of the management company, vendors of the Association, or any other management company used by the Association, on any website, blog or social media. Fox was also ordered to take down what he had already posted on any of his websites or blogs. The trial court also prohibited Fox from starting any new blogs, website or social media website related to the Association. Fox was also told by the trial court that he could not respond to an inquiry about living at the Community online, but rather could only respond with a telephone call to the inquirer. Fox appealed the added requirements of the trial court that went beyond the original agreement and judgment, claiming that they violate his right to speak freely, and the appellate court agreed as to the added limitations.

In reaching it’s conclusion, the Appellate Court applied the Freedom of Speech provisions of the US and Florida Constitutions, noting that the “penalties” and additional limitations imposed by the trial court beyond the terms of the settlement agreement constituted what is termed “prior restraint” (or censorship) by the government, which is not allowed. This action by the trial court effectively was sufficient “State Action” to trigger the Constitutional protections for the unit owner.

While the Appellate Court notes that freedom of speech does not extend to obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, true threats and speech integral to criminal conduct, the conduct of Fox in this case did not reach any of these levels. The Court indicated that it is more legally appropriate to address the conduct of an owner posting or publishing allegedly false statements and/or other actionable statements after the fact rather than before it occurs. Consequently, the Appellate Court decided that the trial court made an error when it prohibited Fox from making any future statements whatsoever pertaining to the Community or the Association without conducting a proper constitutional inquiry first and reversed that part of the trial court decision. However, the Appellate Court did not reverse any aspect of the trial court’s enforcement of the original settlement agreement and final judgment. Only by it adding the “punishment” terms did the Appellate Court conclude that this particular trial court went too far.

This particular case is unusual in that Constitutional protections are being applied to a situation that traditionally has been considered one of private contract. Constitutional concerns apply to actions of the State or government and generally do not apply to private agreements or individuals. Time will tell whether this is a trend that may be starting among the courts or simply an anomaly decision limited to the facts of just this case. This is particularly so in light of the Appellate Court upholding the restraints on the speech of Fox that was set forth in the original settlement agreement and judgment, which also was enforced by the trial court, bringing State action into the situation as well. As with any case of this nature, much will depend upon the particular facts involved as to whether court action may be considered and/or worth pursuing.

 

Tags: , ,
A few tips and reminders with everyone, as associations plan their annual meetings

A few tips and reminders with everyone, as associations plan their annual meetings

  • Posted: Jul 12, 2017
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on A few tips and reminders with everyone, as associations plan their annual meetings

As associations plan their annual meetings, we thought we would share a few tips and reminders with everyone.

Annual Meetings

RePublished with permission from Our Members:  http://royalemanagement.com/home/

Royale Management Services, Inc.
2319 N. Andrews Avenue, Fort Lauderdale FL 33311
Phone: (954) 563-1269 | (800) 382-1040 | Fax: (954) 563-2153 | Email: CAM@rmsaccounting.com

 

The annual meeting is a member meeting, hence every member can participate. Participation is by properly made motions, seconds, taking part in discussion of motions and through voting.

The first order of business is to appoint the chairperson to run the meeting.  The chairperson can be anyone that the members agree should chair the meeting.  In many associations the board president chairs the meeting; however this requires approval of the members. Some associations ask their manager or attorney to chair the meeting which is acceptable as long as this is approved by the membership.  In large associations having a professional chair the meeting can help to keep it on track and see that the required business gets done properly.

A motion can be made by any member of the association as to who shall chair the meeting.  This motion must be seconded and then voted on by the members present. If the motion is approved by a majority of the member’s present, the chairperson is elected for the meeting.

The Second order of business is to determine whether a quorum of the members is present in person or by proxy.  The quorum requirement is spelled out in the association documents or by state statute.  Without a quorum no business can take place at the meeting.  However, ballots must still be collected.

Continue reading

Tags: , ,
A Guide to Being Politically Smart for Board Members

A Guide to Being Politically Smart for Board Members

  • Posted: Jul 12, 2017
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on A Guide to Being Politically Smart for Board Members

A Guide to Being Politically Smart for Board Members

RePublished with permission from Our Members:  http://royalemanagement.com/home/

Royale Management Services, Inc.
2319 N. Andrews Avenue, Fort Lauderdale FL 33311
Phone: (954) 563-1269 | (800) 382-1040 | Fax: (954) 563-2153 | Email: CAM@rmsaccounting.com

 

Tags: , ,
Rembaum’s Association Roundup: Florida’s Newest Non-Native Invasion – Overnight Rentals

Rembaum’s Association Roundup: Florida’s Newest Non-Native Invasion – Overnight Rentals

  • Posted: May 30, 2017
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Rembaum’s Association Roundup: Florida’s Newest Non-Native Invasion – Overnight Rentals

With little doubt, purchasing a home is one of the most significant investments you can make. In order to help protect that investment, many purchasers choose to buy homes within community associations that include homeowners’, cooperative and condominium associations. Behavior within community associations is governed by a declaration of condominium or declaration of restrictions, along with the bylaws, articles of incorporation and, importantly, and more often than not, the rules and regulations generated by the board of directors. Those of us living within community associations, for the most part, did not sign up to live in a community with transient overnight housing. Yet, if left to the vices of VRBO and AirBnB that is exactly what can happen in your community. Do you know what to look for? Do you know how to prevent this from occurring? What if it is occurring in your neighborhood? What can your community association do about it?

For a variety of reasons, none which are the subject of today’s column, local governments may have difficulty in promulgating local ordinances prohibiting overnight housing offered by VRBO and AirBnB. Therefore, it is left up to your community association’s board of directors to ensure proper measures are in place to prevent homes in your community from becoming the newest unnamed hotel/motel.

Continue reading

Tags: , ,
You don’t get to take a holiday break from condo rules.

You don’t get to take a holiday break from condo rules.

  • Posted: Dec 18, 2016
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on You don’t get to take a holiday break from condo rules.

If you’re one of the 62 million Americans living in condo and homeowners associations (HOAs), you don’t get to take a holiday break from condo rules. Humbug, you say? Well…

“A hallmark of a shared ownership community is that you give up some of your rights for the good of the community. If there are restrictions involving holiday decorations, including lights and signage, you’re generally bound by them

Continue reading

Tags: ,
ACCORD AND SATISFACTION CASE STUDY BACKGROUND

ACCORD AND SATISFACTION CASE STUDY BACKGROUND

  • Posted: Feb 21, 2016
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on ACCORD AND SATISFACTION CASE STUDY BACKGROUND

ACCORD AND SATISFACTION CASE STUDY BACKGROUND The underlying dispute followed an association’s foreclosure of its assessment lien against a condominium unit. The St. Croix Lane Trust (the “New Owner”) was the third party purchaser of the unit at the Association foreclosure sale. After a certificate of title was issued to the New Owner, the Association demanded that the New Owner pay years of delinquent assessments and related interest, late fees and costs of collection of over $38,000 not paid by the prior, foreclosed, owner – a consistent practice in association collections in Florida. In response, the New Owner’s counsel tendered a check to the Association’s counsel for a small portion of the amount due, $840.00, together with correspondence that provided that “this check is tendered in full and final satisfaction of all claims made against the [New Owner] and the property for the amounts demanded… negotiation of the enclosed check shall be deemed an acceptance of the offer of settlement made herein, and shall be in full and final satisfaction of all claims against the [New Owner] and the property…” The Appellate Court considered this tender to be an “offer of settlement.” In response, the Association’s counsel advised that he had instructed his staff to apply the payment as a partial payment upon receipt (despite the restrictive endorsement). In advising the New Owner of the Association’s intent, the Association’s counsel relied upon the ruling of the Third District Court of Appeal of Florida in Ocean Two Condominium Association, Inc. v. Kliger. In that case the Third District Court of Appeals cited to Section 716.116(3) of the Florida Condominium Act which provides that payments tendered by unit owners shall be applied as specified in the statute notwithstanding any restrictive endorsement, designation or instruction placed on or accompanying a payment. As advised by the Association’s counsel, the Association deposited the $840.00 check, and threatened to sue the New Owner for the remainder the Association claimed due. The New Owner filed suit first, including claims for declaratory relief and lost rental income asserting that seeking lease approval would be futile. The trial court entered a summary judgment finding that the Association’s acceptance of the partial payment did not create an accord and satisfaction. The New Owner appealed this ruling to the Appellate Court….

This content is for Business Membership, Service Membership and Property Management Company Membership members only.
Log In Register
Tags: , ,
LEGISLATURE: Less is Not Always Best Significant Changes to the Commercial Condominium Regime

LEGISLATURE: Less is Not Always Best Significant Changes to the Commercial Condominium Regime

  • Posted: Feb 21, 2016
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on LEGISLATURE: Less is Not Always Best Significant Changes to the Commercial Condominium Regime

LEGISLATURE: Less is Not Always Best Significant Changes to the Commercial Condominium Regime Recently, several new laws went into effect that only affect commercial condominiums. While only a few of these changes make sense, most do not and illustrate the significant misunderstanding of the need to protect all condominium unit owners without regard to whether the condominium is residential or commercial. Remember, before you get too excited, this article only addresses changes to COMMERCIAL, and NOT residential condominium associations. Why our Florida legislators have determined that unit owners of commercial condominiums are not entitled to the same protections as owners of residential condominiums shall forever remain a mystery. If you own a unit in a commercial condominium, you need to be aware of these important changes. There is no longer any protection for an owner of a minority of units in a commercial condominium, WHATSOEVER! In other words, there is no equality – whoever owns the most units or the most square footage is “King of the Condo”, FOREVER AND EVER AND EVER AND EVER AND EVER!!!…

This content is for Business Membership, Service Membership and Property Management Company Membership members only.
Log In Register
Tags: , ,
Miami’s Pit Bull Ordinance is Preempted by FHA

Miami’s Pit Bull Ordinance is Preempted by FHA

  • Posted: Feb 21, 2016
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Miami’s Pit Bull Ordinance is Preempted by FHA

Miami’s Pit Bull Ordinance is Preempted by FHA By: Alessandra Stivelman, Esq.   The Federal and Florida Fair Housing Acts (the “FHA”) do not provide sufficient guidance as to what information a community association can request to verify a resident’s need for an emotional support animal (“ESA”). Since many associations have had negative experiences with residents attempting to take advantage of the lack of clarity in the law, some associations are now adamant about demanding absolute proof of a resident’s need for an accommodation and, in doing so, may go beyond the scope of a reasonable inquiry. In the last few years, while case law has provided some clarification, there still remains uncertainty as to an association’s obligations when reviewing reasonable accommodation requests.   Until recently, the law did not address whether an association could approve a pit-bull breed as an ESA in Miami-Dade County. This question recently arose in the case of Warren v. Del Vista Towers Condominium Assn., Inc, pending in the United States Court for the Southern District of Florida. The case involves an individual who allegedly suffers from Severe Recurrent Major Depressive Disorder and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Upon submitting a request to the Association along with a letter from his treating psychiatrist requesting a reasonable accommodation to maintain a dog within his Unit, Mr. Warren alleges that he was intimidated by the Association’s property manager and received a letter from the Association’s attorney advising that the Association had contacted his treating psychiatrist directly demanding more information.   Along with other counts against the property manager and the management company, Mr. Warren filed a complaint contending that the Association failed to reasonably accommodate his request for maintaining an ESA in the Condominium and requested unnecessary, invasive details about his medical history. Mr. Warren’s attorney had timely replied to the request for information from the Association reiterating that the original letter from his treating psychiatrist verified his diagnosis and his disability related need for an ESA. Mr. Warren’s attorney also explained how his dog assists him with coping with his disability by providing unconditional affection, comfort and emotional support.   Alessandra Stivelman of Eisinger Brown Lewis Frankel & Chaiet in Hollywood focuses her practice on community association and real estate law….

This content is for Business Membership, Service Membership and Property Management Company Membership members only.
Log In Register
Tags: ,
This year’s legislative session looks to be moderately busy…

This year’s legislative session looks to be moderately busy…

  • Posted: Feb 21, 2016
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on This year’s legislative session looks to be moderately busy…

This year’s legislative session looks to be moderately busy with many proposed community association bills.   This year’s legislative session begins on March 4, 2014 and ends on May 31, 2014. If you think all of the “bills” are drafted during the 60 day legislative session, think again. January 24, 2014 was the deadline for submitting requests for drafts of general bills, including requests for companion bills, and February 28, 2014 at 5:00 P.M. was the deadline for approving final drafts of general bills, including companion bills. After the conclusion of the legislative session, the Governor can veto the bill, do nothing (which allows the bill to become law on its effective date), or sign the bill into law (in which case the bill may spring into law, or will later become law on its effective date, as set out in the bill). If the bill was vetoed by the Governor, then a two-thirds vote in both the Florida Senate and House is required to override it. This year’s legislative session looks to be moderately busy with many proposed community association bills.   Senate Bill 798 (SB 798) includes many changes to existing law. Leasing amendments to a condominium declaration would not apply to those who vote against the amendment, but, obviously, would apply to those who vote in favor of it, and in contrast to today’s legislation, would be applicable to those who do not cast a vote at all. A condominium association would be granted the authority to enter the unit to inspect abandoned units and make certain repairs and even to turn on power to the unit to run the a/c to prevent mold. Provisions are included for the appointment of a receiver to collect rent.   Oddly, SB 798 provides that “a [condominium board] member may use e-mail as a means of communication but may not cast a vote on an association matter via e-mail.” Likely, this provision was created with the best of intent, but hopefully will be deleted or tweaked to make better sense. At present, board members cannot vote by e-mail, but sometimes in a true post-casualty emergency, e-mail may be the viable means of communication for some board members. It is also patently obvious that everyone, even board members, may use e-mail to communicate. The question is whether such communication by the board majority constitutes a board meeting. Of course, SB 798 does not grapple with that important and very relevant issue. It’s early in the session, so let us all hope this provision gets eliminated, or edited, to be of greater value. On the brighter side, SB 798 also allows board members to vote via video conferencing rather than just on a speakerphone, as presently exists.   Clarification is added to foreclosure legislation affecting condominium, cooperative and homeowner associations to provide that a subsequent owner is jointly and severally liable with the previous owner for not only unpaid assessments, but also interest, late fees, reasonable costs and attorney fees incurred by the association incident to the collection process. Further clarification is provided to make clear that, in the event the association owned the unit, the subsequent owner may still have liability for the period prior to the association’s ownership.   Outgoing board members are required to relinquish all association records within 5 days. If not, civil penalties may be incurred. The deadline for financial reporting is increased form 60 days from the conclusion of the fiscal year, to 90 days along with an additional 30 days to provide the report to the owners.   Cooperatives and homeowner associations are granted new emergency powers and many of the bill’s legislative amendments to Chapter 718, Florida Statutes, the “Condominium Act”, would also apply to Chapter 719, Florida Statutes, the “Cooperative Act.”   House Bill 425 (HB 425) makes numerous clarifications to the Condominium Act to clarify many of its provisions apply to residential condominiums only. Obviously, the sponsor of HB 425 is asserting that the scheme for protections and safeguards of unit owners in residential condominiums is not necessary for unit owners of both commercial and condo-hotel ventures. Rather than carve out the parts of the Condominium Act that do not apply, the state would be far better served by a new chapter of laws to govern non-residential condominiums.   House Bill 7037 (HB 7037) addresses community association managers and would, in essence, allow managers to do many activities which are, by today’s standards, considered the practice of law. The type of activities that would not constitute the “unlicensed practice of law” would include, to name a few, calculating the number of votes to adopt an amendment (sometimes, a very complicated task requiring legal interpretation), negotiating contracts regardless of the type of contract, preparing pre-arbitration demands and preparing liens. Ultimately, given the overly broad provision of HB 7037, it could be interpreted to mean the manager is lawfully able to perform all tasks to ensure compliance with the community’s governing documents. Reprinted with Permission from Jeffrey A. Rembaum Kaye Bender Rembaum – ATTORNEYS AT LAW – 1200 Park Central Boulevard South, Pompano Beach, Florida 33064 Tel: 954.928.0680 Fax: 954.772.0319 Toll Free: 800.974.0680 9121 North Military Trail, Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 Tel: 561.241.4462 Fax: 561.223.3957 Toll Free: 800.974.0680  …

This content is for Business Membership, Service Membership and Property Management Company Membership members only.
Log In Register
Tags: , ,
Page 1 of 212