SFPMA

Menu
Register / Sign Up

Welcome to SFPMA

Reset

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

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

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.

[AdSense-B]

 

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.

 

[button link=”https://beckerlawyers.com/covid-19-pod-survey/?sfpmabecker” size=”large” target=”” icon=”” color=”blue” lightbox=””]Please fill out the COVID-19 POD Servey[/button]

 

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

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.

[AdSense-B]

 

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.

[AdSense-B]

 

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.

 

[AdSense-B]

 

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

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.

 

[AdSense-B]

Tags: ,
IS A COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTS OF ITS VOLUNTEERS? by Becker / Robyn Severs

IS A COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTS OF ITS VOLUNTEERS? by Becker / Robyn Severs

IS A COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTS OF ITS VOLUNTEERS?

by Robyn M. Severs /from Becker

Community associations can be a great place for community involvement. It is always nice to see members get involved and help with operating the association.  However, should the association be concerned about the actions of these volunteers?

An association may be held liable for the acts of its volunteers, depending on the situation. Accordingly, it is important to confirm that the association will be protected if something goes wrong. The association should contact its insurance carrier to ensure that it has insurance for volunteer workers.  If not, then the association should not allow volunteer work without obtaining such insurance coverage.  If there is insurance coverage, you should ensure that the person performing the work meets the definition of a volunteer, per the terms of the insurance policy.  Also, there should be a determination as to what work, damage, and injury is covered per the terms of the policy.  If a volunteer worker exceeds the scope of any covered work, or if the damage/injury is not covered under the terms of the policy, then the association may be exposed to liability.  Obviously, determining the scope of insurance coverage requires a factual and legal review, and the association should seek the guidance of an attorney when determining the scope of insurance coverage.

Additionally, to further assist in limiting any potential exposure to liability, an association should create a list of official duties to be performed by each volunteer and have the volunteer sign a form acknowledging that the association has only authorized the volunteer to perform the duties on the list. Volunteers should not be permitted to engage in potentially hazardous activity or any activity that involves undue physical strain.  In addition, an association should:

  • not allow volunteers to perform any services that require the use of a licensed vendor/contractor or which would require a permit.
  • seek legal guidance on whether a licensed vendor/contractor or permit is required for the work the volunteer will be performing.
  • consider obtaining releases/indemnifications from volunteers performing services for the association.

 

While we understand this may discourage individuals from volunteering, an association has a fiduciary obligation to its members, which could include an obligation to protect the association from potential exposures to liability.  Community involvement is wonderful but protecting the association is paramount.


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

 

[AdSense-C]