Become a Member: JOIN SFPMA TODAY   LogIn / Register: LOGIN/REGISTER

SFPMA Industry Articles | news, legal updates, events & education! 

Find Blog Articles for Florida’s Condo, HOA and the Management Industry. 

Community Update: February Wrap Up – Florida Condo & HOA Law Blog

Community Update: February Wrap Up – Florida Condo & HOA Law Blog

  • Posted: Mar 01, 2021
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Community Update: February Wrap Up – Florida Condo & HOA Law Blog

Spring is just around the corner and sprucing up is often top of mind. Whether that means improving yards, documents, or relationships, this edition of Becker’s Community Update offers practical guidance on how to move forward. Check out the hot topics below, and don’t forget to connect with us on Facebook to get real time updates on these issues and more!

by Becker / Florida Condo & HOA Law Blog

While Mother Nature may be hard to harness, community associations are often tasked with doing just that to protect both residents and property. In Responsibility for Tree Branches and Roots Elizabeth Lanham-Patrie explores how the law decides who needs to tackle this chore.

In the second part of our two part series Amending Governing Documents, Jay Roberts outlines best practices for getting proposed changes approved by membership.

Maritrini Soto Garcia discusses presidential power in Does a Community Association Board President Have Executive Action Authority or Unilateral Powers?, and reminds everyone that the work of a community association is, ultimately, a group effort.

Assessments are not the most popular feature of a community association, but they are a vital resource in maintaining the amenities and ambiance to which the community has grown accustomed. In THIS CASE: Abbey Park Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Bowen, Rob Caves reviews how the Florida court decided the seminal case regarding an owner’s right to withhold payment of an assessment.

 

If you have new members on your board or a new manager for your community and want them to be part of our Community Update, have them subscribe here:

 

 

Amending Governing Documents Part II – How?

By: Jay Roberts, Esq.

In Part I of this two-part series, we discussed the importance of amending governing documents. Part II discusses tips on how a board of directors can put itself in the best position to have the proposed amendments approved by the membership.

START EARLY:

Work with the association’s counsel to craft the language appropriate for the amendments well before you plan to present it to the membership formally.

Click here to read more!

Does a Community Association Board President Have Executive Action Authority or Unilateral Powers?

By: Maritrini Soto Garcia, Esq.

Community associations are not administered by a single director or officer of the board, instead, the affairs of such associations are administered by its board. The articles of incorporation and/or bylaws of an association most often specify the required minimum number of board members. In the condominium context, the Florida Condominium Act provides that in the absence of such specification, the board of administration must be composed of five members (or three members in condominiums with five or fewer units).

Click here to read more!

Abbey Park Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Bowen,

508 So.2d 554 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)

By: Rob Caves, Esq.

Assessments paid by owners are the lifeblood of any community association and efforts to collect assessments are the most consequential and common legal proceedings any association engages in. Typically, there are few valid defenses an owner can raise to challenge the collection of properly adopted assessments. One common defense that is attempted is that the association is failing to properly maintain the common elements of a condominium or the common areas of a homeowners’ association.

The seminal case on the issue of whether owners can withhold the payment of assessments due to the association’s failure to properly maintain the common elements is Abbey Park Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Bowen, 508 So.2d 554 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). In the case, the appellate court held that the failure to maintain the common elements is not an affirmative defense to the association’s action to foreclose on the unit for the failure to pay assessments. Accordingly, a claim by an owner that the association is improperly maintaining the condominium property would not be a valid defense to the association’s action to collect unpaid assessments or enforce the association’s assessment lien against a unit.

However, there are subsequent cases that hold that while such claims are not affirmative defenses to a foreclosure action by an association, they could constitute counterclaims and entitle the owner to a “set-off” if they were to prove that the association failed to properly maintain the condominium property and such failure resulted in damage to the unit owner or their property. See Qualcom Corp. v. Global Commerce Center Association, Inc., 59 So. 3d 347 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (holding that the owner was able to argue at trial that its damages from a roof leak, if proven, could be a “set-off” against the outstanding assessments). However, the facts which would entitle an owner to a set-off would be very specific and would not apply to an owner’s general allegation that the common elements, or common areas, were not being maintained, as was alleged in Abbey Park.

Accordingly, pursuant to the legal principles outlined in the Abbey Park case, the fact that an owner alleges that the association is not properly maintaining the common property, or operating the association, would not be a defense against the association’s action to collect properly levied assessments.

 

 

CALLING ALL BOARD MEMBERS AND COMMUNITY MANAGERS

As a service to the community and industry, we are pleased to offer some of our most popular classes online! While our in-person classes remain suspended until further notice due to COVID-19, we are thrilled to bring you the following classes to participate in from the comfort of your own home.

HOA/Condo Board Member Certification

VIEW ALL CLASSES

 

Tags: , , ,
A newly filed bill by Senator Jason Pizzo, SB 1490, could create a significant change in terms of an association’s ability to invest the community’s operating and reserve funds in depositories other than a traditional bank or savings and loan.

A newly filed bill by Senator Jason Pizzo, SB 1490, could create a significant change in terms of an association’s ability to invest the community’s operating and reserve funds in depositories other than a traditional bank or savings and loan.

  • Posted: Feb 26, 2021
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on A newly filed bill by Senator Jason Pizzo, SB 1490, could create a significant change in terms of an association’s ability to invest the community’s operating and reserve funds in depositories other than a traditional bank or savings and loan.

A newly filed bill by Senator Jason Pizzo, SB 1490, could create a significant change in terms of an association’s ability to invest the community’s operating and reserve funds in depositories other than a traditional bank or savings and loan. 

 

For years there have been significant legal constraints on a condominium association’s ability to use reserve funds. In addition to the statutory requirement to obtain membership approval for non-designated reserve usage, the prevailing school of thought was that association funds could not be invested since investments can and do fail.

A newly filed bill by Senator Jason Pizzo, SB 1490, could create a significant change in terms of an association’s ability to invest the community’s operating and reserve funds in depositories other than a traditional bank or savings and loan.

The bill provides as follows:

“Unless otherwise prohibited in the declaration, and in accordance with s. 718.112(2)(f), an association, including a multicondominium association, may invest any funds in one or any combination of investment products described in this subsection.”

If this bill passes and an association invests funds in any type of investment product other than a depository account, the association must meet all of the following requirements:

  1. The board shall annually develop and adopt a written investment policy statement and select an investment adviser who is registered under s. 517.12, F.S. and who is not related by affinity or consanguinity to any board member or unit owner. Any investment fees and commissions may be paid from the invested reserve funds or operating funds.
  2. The investment adviser selected by the board shall invest any funds not deposited into a depository account in compliance with the prudent investor rule in s. 518.11, F.S. It is important to note that the statutory prudent investor rule is a test of conduct and not resulting performance. Under this statute, no specific investment or course of action is, taken alone, considered prudent or imprudent. Instead, the investment adviser is deemed to be acting as a fiduciary and he or she may invest in every kind of property and type of investment, subject to that statute. The fiduciary’s investment decisions are evaluated on the basis of whether he or she exercised reasonable business judgment regarding the anticipated effect on the investment portfolio as a whole under the facts and circumstances prevailing at the time of the decision or action. Although the proposed statute requires that funds invested be subject to insurance under the Securities Investor Protection Corporation, it is important to note that this insurance is only there if the brokerage firm fails, not if the investment turns out to be ill-advised and loses the association’s money.
  3. The investment adviser shall act as a fiduciary to the association in compliance with the standards set forth in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 at 29 U.S.C. s. 1104(a)(1)(A)-(C).
  4. At least once each calendar year, the association shall provide the investment adviser with the association’s investment policy statement, the most recent reserve study report or a good faith estimate disclosing the annual amount of reserve funds which would be necessary for the association to fully fund reserves for each reserve item, and the financial reports.
  5. The investment adviser shall annually review these documents and provide the association with a portfolio allocation model that is suitably structured to match projected reserve fund and liability liquidity requirements. There must be at least thirty-six (36) months of projected reserves in cash or cash equivalents available to the association at all times.
  6. Portfolios managed by the investment adviser may contain any type of investment necessary to meet the objectives in the investment policy statement; however, portfolios may not contain stocks, securities, or other obligations that the State Board of Administration is prohibited from investing in under ss. 215.471, 215.4725, and 215.473, F.S. or that state agencies are prohibited from investing in under s. 215.472.

Lastly, the bill would exempt registered investment advisors from having their bids subjected to the competitive bidding requirements found in Section 718.3026, F.S.  The companion bill to SB 1490 is HB 1005 (Killebrew/Fine).

As more associations change their old habits and begin to fund reserves, the allure of more aggressive investment vehicles for these funds, which can be substantial amounts, is undeniable. However, the risk is also undeniable. As such, if this bill becomes law and the investment of reserves becomes available, boards are strongly encouraged to take an extremely cautious, measured approach with reserves.

While investment of your association’s operating and reserve funds might result in a substantially better return than a savings account, you might also see significant losses. The investment of association funds must be done with careful consideration of the demographic in your community, the age of your buildings and facilities, the required liquidity of your funds and, most importantly, the sensitivities and risk tolerance of your membership all taken into account. If your members fuss about your board’s landscaping decisions imagine the potential fallout if you make the wrong investment decisions!

 

Very truly yours,

Donna DiMaggio Berger, Founder & Executive Director
Community Association Leadership Lobby
Tags: , , ,
Keeping Politics Out of Your Community Association by Becker

Keeping Politics Out of Your Community Association by Becker

  • Posted: Feb 22, 2021
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Keeping Politics Out of Your Community Association by Becker

Keeping Politics Out of Your Community Association

by Becker / Donna DiMaggio Berger | 09.15.2020

 

Not surprisingly, the chatter about whether or not political signs should be permitted in private residential communities has increased as we draw closer to the elections in November.

Let’s first discuss whether or not an owner in a Florida HOA has the “right” to install signs. The short answer is “no” with one exception. FL homeowners’ associations can prohibit all types of signs other than one security sign located ten or fewer feet from the entrance to the home. All other signs including “For Sale” signs, signs installed by vendors doing work at a home, seasonal and congratulatory greetings and political signage may be prohibited IF the board determines that doing so is in the best interests of the community. Naturally, if the members disagree with their board’s decisions they may decide not to re-elect that board in the future.

Some owner signs enhance a community’s charm including seasonal greetings, and in the time of Covid, the congratulatory yard signs letting neighbors know of a child’s accomplishments when a traditional party could not take place. However, other signs cause concern. Many boards dislike the posting of “For Sale” signs as an abundance of those signs may send the wrong signal to both residents and potential purchasers.

And, it goes without saying that political signs these days are capable of igniting deep fractions inside residential communities. One school of thought is that some people’s sensitivities should not dictate others’ ability to promote their political candidate of choice.

The other school of thought associated with political signs is that they do not belong inside a private residential community where they can do more harm than good. The advocates for keeping politics out of communities believe that one’s political ideology is more productively expressed through monetary donations, volunteering for a campaign and/or waging war on social media sites to one’s heart’s content.

Some owners maintain that their constitutional rights are being trampled if their association denies them the right to install a political sign or political flag. In fact, you need a state actor to be the entity violating one’s First Amendment rights in order to mount a sound constitutional argument. In Florida, condos and HOAs have not been found to be state actors so prohibiting political signs and political flags is possible either through a recorded covenant or a board rule if the board has rule-making authority under the governing documents. In the case of Quail Creek Prop. Owners Association, Inc. v. Hunter, 538 So. 2d 1288, 1289 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1989), the Second District Court of Appeal found that an association’s sign restriction was not unconstitutional as “neither the recording of the protective covenant in the public records, nor the possible enforcement of the covenant in the courts of the state, constitutes sufficient “state action” to render the parties’ purely private contracts relating to the ownership of real property unconstitutional.”

Some boards choose to regulate the number and size of political signs and political flags as well as how long they can remain in place. However, when it comes to wording on those signs and what may or may not be considered offensive that requires a more in-depth analysis which some boards understandably wish to avoid. After much debate, many communities simply decide that political signs are best left outside their communities.

The place you call home should be a respite from the world and respites often don’t involve contentious political signage next door.

 

Tags: ,
An Introduction to HB 969: Florida’s Proposed Data Privacy Law by Becker

An Introduction to HB 969: Florida’s Proposed Data Privacy Law by Becker

  • Posted: Feb 18, 2021
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on An Introduction to HB 969: Florida’s Proposed Data Privacy Law by Becker

An Introduction to HB 969: Florida’s Proposed Data Privacy Law

Jack S. Kallus | Becker Lawyers
Client Advisory

 

Yesterday, House Bill 969 titled Consumer Data Privacy was introduced as a potential new law to protect the personal data of Florida consumers. Governor Ron DeSantis’ stated goal for the bill is to “safeguard the privacy and security of consumer data.”

The bill is intended to give consumers more control over the personal information that businesses routinely collect and may even sell to third parties. Many of the basic rights under the new bill mirror that of the California Consumer Privacy Act passed in 2018 (CCPA). Like the CCPA, HB 969 attempts to secure new privacy rights for Florida consumers. If you are a Florida resident, you may ask businesses to disclose what personal information they have about you and what they do with that information as well as the right to request a business delete and to not sell your personal information. Consumers will also have the right to be notified, before or at the point businesses collect personal information, about the types of personal information being collected and what the business may do with that information. Generally, businesses will not be able to discriminate against you for exercising your rights under HB 969.

As stated above, the consumer will be provided the right to request that businesses disclose what personal information they have collected, used, shared, or sold about the consumer, and why they collected, used, shared, or sold that information. Businesses must provide a consumer with this information for the twelve-month period preceding the request and must provide the information free of charge.

If passed, HB 969 would require businesses to inform consumers about certain information being collected at the time of collection. Businesses would be required to inform consumers about:(i) categories of personal information collected; (ii) specific pieces of personal information collected; (iii) sources from which the business collected personal information; (iv) purposes for which the business uses the personal information; (v) categories of third parties with whom the business shares the personal information; and (vi) categories of information that the business sells or discloses to third parties.

If the business sells consumers’ personal information, then the information at collection must include a “Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information” link. The information of consumer rights must also contain a link to the business’s privacy policy, where consumers can get a description of the business’s privacy practices and of their privacy rights.

 

A Florida consumer may also request that businesses stop selling their personal information (“opt-out”). With some exceptions, businesses cannot sell your personal information after they receive an opt-out request unless later provide authorization allowing them to do so again. Businesses must respect the consumer’s decision to opt-out for at least twelve months before requesting that the consumer authorize the sale of the consumer’s personal information. Businesses can offer consumers financial incentives in exchange for collecting, keeping, or selling personal information. However, businesses cannot use financial incentive practices that are unjust, unreasonable, coercive, or usurious in nature.

After discovering what personal information is collected, used, shared or sold a consumer may request that a business delete the personal information collected and to tell their service providers to do the same. However, there are many exceptions that allow businesses to keep personal information. Businesses must respond to a request to delete within 45 calendar days and can only extend that deadline once by another 30 days (75 days total) if they notify the consumer.

Consumers may be worried about retaliation for exercising rights under HB 969. However, the bill prohibits businesses from denying goods or services, charging a different price, or providing a different level or quality of goods or services just because a consumer exercised rights under the proposed law. Businesses also cannot make the consumer waive these rights, and any such contract provision is unenforceable.

What happens if a business violates HB 969? What rights are given to the consumer? Much like the CCPA, HB 969 only provides a private cause of action against a business if there is a data breach, and even then, only under limited circumstances. A consumer can sue a business if their nonencrypted and nonredacted personal information was stolen in a data breach as a result of the business’s failure to maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect it. If this happens, the consumer can sue for the amount of monetary damages actually suffered from the breach or up to $750 per incident. An important aspect of the proposed law is that it does not provide for prevailing party legal fees.

For all other violations of HB 969, only the Department of Legal Affairs (“Department”) can file an action. If the Department has reason to believe that any business is in violation and that proceedings would be in the public interest, the Department may bring an action against such business and may seek a civil penalty of not more than $2,500 for each unintentional violation or $7,500 for each intentional violation. Such fines may be tripled if the violation involves a consumer who is sixteen years of age or younger. A business may be found to be in violation if it fails to cure any alleged violation within 30 days after being notified in writing by the Department of the alleged noncompliance.

The bill also contains other provisions outlining who is protected under the bill, what is considered personal information, data retention and biometric information rules and procedures for businesses to follow. We will publish additional articles exploring these provisions and expand on the information addressed in this article. In addition, we will explore the importance of Florida enacting a well-balanced privacy law which does not act as an anchor for businesses and appropriately protects the rights of Florida consumers.

 

Tags: , ,
The COVID-19 Vaccine & Your Community: How do you feel about your community becoming a point of distribution (POD)? by Becker

The COVID-19 Vaccine & Your Community: How do you feel about your community becoming a point of distribution (POD)? by Becker

  • Posted: Jan 28, 2021
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on The COVID-19 Vaccine & Your Community: How do you feel about your community becoming a point of distribution (POD)? by Becker

The COVID-19 Vaccine & Your Community: How do you feel about your community becoming a point of distribution (POD)?

by Becker Lawyers

Community leaders and residents have been tested by an unprecedented pandemic that created upheaval and strain worldwide.

Some communities suffered multiple infections and deaths, others struggled to strike the right balance between COVID-19 safety protocols and personal freedoms but all recognized that this public health crisis presented a novel challenge for both veteran board members and newcomers alike. With COVID-19 vaccines becoming available, many communities are considering whether or not to register to become a point of distribution (POD).

Please note that becoming a POD is subject to certain requirements and not every community will be eligible or able to meet the terms of the required agreements with vaccine providers.

Please take our 2-minute survey. For those communities who indicate a willingness to serve as a POD, and are a Becker client, your Becker attorney will assist your board in registering as a POD.

 

Please fill out the COVID-19 POD Servey

 

Tags: ,
Florida Condominium Act, extensively regulates amendments to condominium documents. by Becker

Florida Condominium Act, extensively regulates amendments to condominium documents. by Becker

  • Posted: Dec 31, 2020
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Florida Condominium Act, extensively regulates amendments to condominium documents. by Becker

Florida Condominium Act, extensively regulates amendments to condominium documents.

Joseph E. Adams / Becker
BlogPublication | Florida Condo & HOA Law Blog

 

Q: After the unit owners in a condominium association vote to approve an amendment, is there a time limit or deadline by which the amendment must be recorded with the county? (M.A. via e-mail)

A: Chapter 718 of the Florida Statutes, known as the Florida Condominium Act, extensively regulates amendments to condominium documents. However, the Act does not contain a specific deadline for when properly adopted amendments to the condominium documents must be recorded.

Section 718.110(3) of the Act states that amendments to the declaration are effective when properly recorded in the public records of the county where the declaration is recorded. Similarly, Section 718.112(1)(b) of the Act states that amendments to the articles of incorporation or bylaws are not valid unless recorded in the public records of the county where the declaration of condominium is recorded. Further, Chapter 617, the Florida Not For Profit Corporation Act, provides that amendments to the articles of incorporation must be filed in the office of the Department of State.

In my opinion, the recording of such amendments is a ministerial act that the board would be required to undertake within a reasonable time of the approval of the amendment. While there is room debate what is reasonable, I would say absent unusual circumstances (such as an intervening legal challenge or some after-discovered error), 30 days from approval would be a reasonable time frame.

However, there is also no specific prohibition in the statute preventing an association from recording an amendment long after the owner vote. I occasionally see situations where an association failed to record an amendment due to changes in the board or management or other circumstances, and records an amendment a year or longer after its approval. This is obviously not an ideal situation since you might have new owners who did not get a chance to vote on the amendment and who could claim that they bought there unit based on what was in the public records.

 

Q: Can you explain what a “material alteration” is? We have a constant argument in our condominium association, usually driven by one particular owner, over what the board can and cannot do. (J.F., via e-mail)

A: This is one of the most common areas of disputes in condominiums. As you probably know, Section 718.113(2) of the Florida Condominium Act provides that there can be no material alterations or substantial additions to the common elements except as authorized by the declaration of condominium. If the declaration is silent, then 75 percent of all voting interests must approve the alteration or addition (there is usually one voting interest per unit).

The standard still used by the courts today comes from a decision from a Florida appeals court rendered almost 50 years ago. In ruling that a unit owner’s closing in a screened lanai with windows was a material alteration, the court stated that the term means “to palpably or perceptively vary or change the form, shape, elements or specifications of a building from its original design, or current condition, in such a manner as to appreciably affect or influence its function, use or appearance.” Using this test, appellate courts have ruled that changing the exterior color scheme of condominium buildings is a material alteration, as is changing mansard roof shingles made of cedar to tile type shingles.

As with most rules, there are exceptions, one being the so-called “necessary maintenance exception,” which originates from a series of appellate court cases from the Second District Court of Appeals (which includes southwest Florida). These cases basically say that certain changes can be made without and owner vote when necessary to comply with law or when necessary for the proper maintenance and preservation of the condominium property.

 

Joe Adams is an attorney with Becker & Poliakoff, P.A., Fort Myers.

Send questions to Joe Adams by e-mail to jadams@beckerlawyers.com.

Past editions may be viewed at floridacondohoalawblog.com.

 

Tags: , ,
An Association’s Response to Owners Requiring Additional Care by Becker

An Association’s Response to Owners Requiring Additional Care by Becker

  • Posted: Dec 14, 2020
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on An Association’s Response to Owners Requiring Additional Care by Becker

An Association’s Response to Owners Requiring Additional Care

Robyn M. Severs | 12.11.2020
Florida Condo & HOA Law Blog

 

Some older individuals choose to live out their final years in their personal residences, alone, rather than in nursing homes or assisted-living facilities. Additionally, there are times that other individuals may experience certain mental health issues that make them unable to adequately care for themselves. Associations are often at a loss with how to assist these individuals. Plus, associations are not healthcare or mental health providers, so they are not equipped to address such matters. Instead, associations will need to request help from family, friends, or governmental entities.

Depending on the severity and facts of a particular situation, the association should attempt to contact known relatives to determine if there is someone available to assist, as it is best that the association allow the family to intervene. Associations should consider having owners complete a form that would list relatives, friends, emergency contacts, to assist in such situations. However, there are many cases where the resident does not want their family to help, where the family is unwilling or unable to help, or where the association does not know of any relative or friend of the owner. In those instances, the association may need to see if there is any governmental assistance.

The association can contact Code Enforcement if the property is in so disrepair that it is a code violation. Some counties also have Elder Helplines that could be contacted. The Florida Department of Elder Affairs has an Elder Helpline at 1-800-963-5337.

 

For issues regarding self-neglect, the Adult Protective Services, Division of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCF) Abuse Hotline can be called at (800-962-2873). They should send out an investigator to investigate and perform assessments pursuant to Chapter 415 of the Florida Statutes, which allows the state to intervene in the instance that “senior neglect” is suspected. “Neglect” is defined in Section 415.102(16), Florida Statutes as follows:

  • “Neglect” means the failure or omission on the part of the caregiver or vulnerable adult to provide the care, supervision, and services necessary to maintain the physical and mental health of the vulnerable adult, including, but not limited to, food, clothing, medicine, shelter, supervision, and medical services, which a prudent person would consider essential for the well-being of a vulnerable adult. The term “neglect” also means the failure of a caregiver or vulnerable adult to make a reasonable effort to protect a vulnerable adult from abuse, neglect, or exploitation by others. “Neglect” is repeated conduct or a single incident of carelessness which produces or could reasonably be expected to result in serious physical or psychological injury or a substantial risk of death.

Finally, local law enforcement should be contacted if the association is concerned for an owner’s safety. They can perform a “welfare check” to check on the safety or well-being of a person. Such a check could lead to involuntary commitment pursuant to the Florida Mental Health Act, also known as the Baker Act. This is occasionally a viable option when a person’s inability to care for themselves presents a danger to themselves or others.

 

If the resident refuses to accept the assistance offered by family or applicable agencies and, instead, continues to cause problems for other residents, or create hazardous conditions, the association could theoretically attempt to enforce the relevant provisions of the association’s governing documents, usually through a nuisance provision.

As you might imagine, the travails of the elderly or those with mental health issues are rarely optimal cases to take before a judge or an arbitrator. However, at least in some cases, it may be worth taking the initial steps necessary to proceed with legal action including a “cease and desist” or “opportunity to cure” letter. The association could also use the legal action as a way to get a legal guardian appointed for the owner. Perhaps the association could seek a determination from a court as to whether the association could cure the violations themselves. While this may not be an attractive option for the association, it may be the only available option.

Unfortunately, dealing with residents that need help is a difficult situation for associations with no clear answer as to how to resolve the problem. Hopefully, the above options will be able to provide some guidance and assistance.

 

Robyn M. Severs represents community association clients throughout Florida’s northeast region. She has significant experience representing and assisting condominium and homeowners associations in a wide variety of legal areas, including document review, document drafting, turnover of association control, reserve funding, and maintenance issues. Robyn also handles community association bankruptcy cases and appellate cases that include some notable decisions. Earlier in her career, she served as an Assistant Public Defender for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, and as a Senior Attorney for the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, where she prosecuted cases before the Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Real Estate Commission and Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board. Ms. Severs is also one of only 190 attorneys statewide who is a Board Certified Specialist in Condominium and Planned Development Law.

Robyn M. Severs

Shareholder / Orlando
tel:904.423.5372
RSEVERS@beckerlawyers.com

 

Tags: , ,
Washington, D.C. Update: Bipartisan Emergency COVID Relief Act of 2020

Washington, D.C. Update: Bipartisan Emergency COVID Relief Act of 2020

  • Posted: Dec 10, 2020
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Washington, D.C. Update: Bipartisan Emergency COVID Relief Act of 2020

Washington, D.C. Update: Bipartisan Emergency COVID Relief Act of 2020

by  Omar Franco of Becker

Tuesday evening, the House passed HR 8900, an appropriations Continuing Resolution (“CR”) that extends current government funding levels through the end of Friday, December 18th. Its intent is to avoid disruption of relief efforts while Congress continues to work toward an agreement on a longer-term omnibus appropriations bill to fund the federal government for the FY2021. Further complicating negotiations is the renewed push on the Hill to pass additional COVID relief legislation. Any legislation to provide pandemic relief or economic stimulus before the end of the year will most likely need to pass as part of a broader appropriations package, intertwining the fate of both legislative efforts. The Senate is expected to pass the CR with enough time to allow President Trump time to sign it into law before midnight on Friday evening.

The bipartisan “908 coalition” continued efforts to reach agreement on the remaining sticking points of coronavirus legislation (state and local aid and liability reform) will garner most of the media attention as the legislative year ends, but the expected final passage of the CR is significant as well. In addition to giving Congress an additional week to find consensus on an omnibus bill, COVID legislation, or both by avoiding a shutdown, the CR included a few potentially notable health extenders as the pandemic is expected to worsen in the coming weeks. Medicare, Medicaid, FDA, and public health extenders included in this CR would:

  • Extend the Medicare work geographic index floor
  • Extend the delays of Medicaid disproportionate share hospital (DSH) reductions
  • Extend funding for low-income assistance programs including State health insurance programs like CHIP, aging and disability resource centers, and community health centers
  • Extend funding for the National Health Service Corps and teaching health centers that operate graduate medical education programs

To read the relief bill’s outline, please click here to read the Bill. Becker’s Federal Lobbying Team will continue to monitor these developments as they evolve and will share with you as soon as information becomes available.

 

Omar Franco is the Managing Director of Becker’s Washington, D.C., office. He currently represents a wide variety of clients including Fortune 500 companies, small businesses, higher education institutions, trade associations, non-profit organizations, and municipal governments

Omar Franco
Managing Director
Washington, D.C.
202.621.7122
202.731.3401
OFRANCO@beckerlawyers.com

Tags: ,
Is It a Limited Common Element? By: Michael Dermody, Esq. of BECKER

Is It a Limited Common Element? By: Michael Dermody, Esq. of BECKER

  • Posted: Dec 02, 2020
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Is It a Limited Common Element? By: Michael Dermody, Esq. of BECKER

Is It a Limited Common Element?

By: Michael Dermody, Esq.  of Becker

Most condominium unit owners may think that limited common elements are those areas outside the condominium unit that are part of the common elements, but which are used only by a specific unit owner.  However, the Florida Condominium Act defines “limited common elements” as “those common elements which are reserved for the use of a certain unit to the exclusion of all other units, as specified in the declaration.” (FS 718.103(19), emphasis added). Thus, the determination of whether a common element (i.e., any area not included within the unit boundaries) is a “limited common element” depends solely upon the designation set forth in the property’s declaration. Brown v Rice, 716 So.2d 807 (5th DCA 1998).

 

This requirement that limited common elements (“LCE”) must be “specified in the declaration” can be crucial when it comes to assigning maintenance responsibility.  While maintenance of common elements (of which LCE are a subset) is statutorily the responsibility of the association, the Condominium Act provides that “the declaration may provide that certain limited common elements shall be maintained by those entitled to use the limited common elements…”  FS 718.113(1).  However, the fact that unit owners are assigned the maintenance obligation in the declaration for areas outside of their unit under their exclusive control may not mean much if the area is not designated as a limited common element in the declaration of condominium; in such case the declaration may be assigning maintenance responsibility for something that does not technically exist.  Without such specific designation the area would remain a part of the common elements, and the maintenance responsibility of the association.

 

When patios and balconies are associated with units, they are usually plainly marked as limited common elements in the unit diagrams and are thus “specified.”   But there are less obvious things external to a unit, but used exclusively by the unit owner, that may escape specification in the declaration such as external air conditioning units, air conditioner connecting lines, air conditioner condensate drain lines, or plumbing lines that serve only one unit. If the intent is to assign the unit owner the maintenance responsibility for such things, they must be specified as limited common elements in the declaration.  Conversely, the mere fact that the LCE are specified in the declaration does not automatically make the LCE the maintenance responsibility of the unit owner. LCE are, after all, a part of the common elements, and by default are an association maintenance obligation.  To properly assign the maintenance obligation to the unit owner, the declaration must both specify the item or area in question as a limited common element and designate the maintenance obligation to the unit owner.

 

If your association has portions of the common elements that serve only one unit owner, or group of units, which are not specified in the declaration as limited common elements, the Condominium Act was amended a few years ago to allow the association to reclassify these portions of the common elements as limited common elements, by amending the declaration (and amending the maintenance obligations, if necessary).  If these obligations are not clear in your condominium declaration, consult with your attorney to determine whether amendments to reclassify portions of the condominium property from common elements to limited common elements would be beneficial to your community.

 


Michael O. Dermody
Senior Attorney
tel:772.286.2990
MDERMODY@beckerlawyers.com

 

Michael Dermody concentrates his legal practice in commercial litigation, with a focus in appellate writing. He was admitted to the Florida Bar in May, 2007, and has been a member of the New Jersey Bar since 1996. Prior to coming to Florida, Michael was the principal of his own solo practice in Frenchtown, New Jersey. In 2005, he submitted an amicus curae brief in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court medical marijuana case, Ascroft v. Raich. Since 2007 he has focused on community association law with a concentration in community association litigation.

 

Tags: , ,
Can Political Flags Be Flown? Q&A by DAVID G. MULLER / Becker

Can Political Flags Be Flown? Q&A by DAVID G. MULLER / Becker

  • Posted: Oct 22, 2020
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Can Political Flags Be Flown? Q&A by DAVID G. MULLER / Becker

Can Political Flags Be Flown? Q&A

by DAVID G. MULLER / Becker

Q: I went on a walk in my community and saw at least 8 homes flying either Trump or Biden flags.  Is it legal to fly a political flag on a home located in a homeowners association? I.B.

A: Sections 720.304(2)(a) and 720.3075(3) of the Florida Homeowners Association Act specifically permit the flying of the US flag and other types of governmental flags, including flags of the various military branches.  These statutes do not address other types of flags, such as political flags.

The governing documents for some communities prohibit owners from flying non-exempt flags, such as political flags or flags with sports team logos.  There is an open and rather complicated legal issue as to whether it is an infringement of a homeowner’s First Amendment free speech rights to restrict political speech.

The First Amendment only applies by its terms to Congress, and, by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, to the states and their local governments. In legal jargon, “state action” is required before constitutional rights come into play.  There are several Florida cases which have held that a community association is not a state actor.

Your association’s attorney should be able to determine if these political flags are indeed regulated by the governing documents, and if so, guide you through the constitutional law analysis that is part of deciding your options.

 

Q: Your February 2020 column addresses the cap on transfer fees for condominium associations.  Is there a similar cap for homeowners associations? D.P.

A: No.  My February 2020 column referenced Section 718.112(2)(i) of the Florida Condominium Act, which states that no charge shall be made by a condominium association in connection with the sale, mortgage, lease, sublease, or other transfer of a unit unless the association is required to approve such transfer and unless a fee for such approval is provided for in the declaration, articles, or bylaws. Any such fee (in the condominium association context) may be preset but may not exceed $100 per applicant other than husband/wife or parent/dependent child, who are considered one applicant.  There is no similar provision found in Chapter 720 of the Florida Statutes, the Florida Homeowners Association Act.

 

Q: I am considering purchasing a home in a community with a homeowners association, but I have been told that there is a “capital contribution” fee of $1,500 charged to all purchasers.  Is such a fee legal? T.F.

A: Sometimes referred to as a “flip tax”, these charges are not uncommon in the homeowner association context. There is neither authority for nor prohibition on this type of fee in the law applicable to homeowners’ associations (the condominium law does address this issue).  If the authority to charge the capital contribution fee is contained in the appropriate governing documents, the prevailing view in the legal community is that such charges are legally valid.

 

 

Tags: , , ,
CALL’s COVID-19 Survey Results by CALL/Becker

CALL’s COVID-19 Survey Results by CALL/Becker

  • Posted: Sep 21, 2020
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on CALL’s COVID-19 Survey Results by CALL/Becker

CALL’s COVID-19 Survey Results

by CALL / Becker

During the Summer of 2020, CALL’s COVID-19 Survey was open for Floridians to share their experiences during the height of the pandemic.

More than 1,000 association directors, managers and residents took the time to share what steps helped them keep their communities safe as well as the challenges they encountered along the way.

While each of us tried to keep our heads above these uncharted waters when COVID-19 changed our daily lives overnight, none of us were truly alone. Volunteer boards throughout Florida, who encounter operational challenges under ordinary circumstances, soon found themselves having to make impactful decisions about amenity closures, guest restriction and safety protocols.

We hope the results of our COVID-19 survey give your board some food for thought as you manage your safety protocols during the remainder of our statewide State of Emergency which is currently not scheduled to expire until November 3.

For full COVID-19 survey results, please click here.

 

Tags: ,