Become our 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. 

“FIDUCIARY DUTY: What it Means to Your Community Association” by KBR Legal

“FIDUCIARY DUTY: What it Means to Your Community Association” by KBR Legal

We have all read about Board Members Stealing or misusing association funds, but what happens when that duty is breached?

REMBAUM’S ASSOCIATION ROUNDUP | The Community Association Legal News You Can Use

 

What duty does a community association board member owe to their association?

What happens if that duty is breached? During the legislative session, legislation was proposed that would have made directors criminally liable for failure to timely respond to official record requests, among other provisions. The legislation in House Bill 919 was proposed by Representative Porras in response to the alleged $3.4 million dollar embezzlement scheme that took place at the Hammocks Community Association, located in Miami-Dade County. Parts of this proposed bill were well-intentioned; however, several provisions were commonly viewed as too broad and expansive.

Case:  November 15, 2022, the Miami-Dade State Attorney’s Office announced charges related to the Hammocks’ criminal case, including racketeering, organized scheme to defraud, money laundering, grand theft, and fabricating physical evidence against five board members. These board members have been accused of the following:

i) running a scheme in which they used HOA checks and HOA credit cards from 55 bank accounts to pay for “no-show” work by shell companies or vendors, who would funnel money back to the directors for their personal use;

ii) withholding official records from members; and,

iii) failure to hold valid elections, among other bad acts.

If found guilty these board members overtly breached their fiduciary duty to their association.

During the 2023 legislative session, House Bill 919 initially contained significant criminal penalties to punish board members who failed to provide official records when they otherwise should have, criminal penalties for kickbacks, and criminal penalties for improper election interference, among other provisions. Such laws, while well intended, went overboard as evidenced by the creation of criminal penalties for failure to provide official records, as such severe criminal penalties for operational matters would likely only deter good people from running for the board. Recognizing this potential issue, parts of HB 919 were tempered a bit prior to it becoming law. That said, in the opinion of this author, new laws with new criminal penalties are not the answer. Bad people do bad things, and no amount of laws will likely significantly change that. So, what is the answer?

One answer is to shore up the educational and certification requirements for board members. At present, there are two ways to be certified as a board member. One method is to take a State-approved class, which provides an overview of the voluminous information board members need to know in order to perform their duties. The other method is to sign a piece of paper that the board member has read the governing documents, will abide by them, and will faithfully discharge their duties. This second method should be eliminated as there is no method to confirm compliance, and this method does not have any educational component. In addition, continuing education requirements should be required for any board member serving consecutive years.

During a board certification class, time should be spent discussing the term “fiduciary duty.” While the term is repeatedly used in Chapters 718 and 720 of the Florida Statutes, it is not expressly defined in these statutes. Section 718.111, Florida Statutes, makes reference to Section 617.0830, Florida Statutes, which provides for general standards for directors of not-for-profit corporations, such as community associations.

Section 617.0830, Florida Statutes, provides the following:

      1. A director shall discharge his or her duties as a director, including his or her duties as a member of a committee i) in good faith; ii) with the care an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would exercise under similar circumstances; and iii) in a manner he or she reasonably believes to be in the best interests of the corporation.
      2. In discharging his or her duties, a director may rely on information, opinions, reports, or statements, including financial statements and other financial data, if prepared or presented by: i) One or more officers or employees of the corporation whom the director reasonably believes to be reliable and competent in the matters presented; ii) legal counsel, public accountants, or other persons as to matters the director reasonably believes are within the persons’ professional or expert competence; or iii) a committee of the board of directors of which he or she is not a member if the director reasonably believes the committee merits confidence.
      3. A director is not acting in good faith if he or she has knowledge concerning the matter in question that makes reliance otherwise permitted by subsection (2) unwarranted.
      4. A director is not liable for any action taken as a director, or any failure to take any action, if he or she performed the duties of his or her office in compliance with this section.

Still, though, there is no express definition of the term “fiduciary duty.” The purpose of studying fiduciary relationships is to identify the areas where it exists and gain an insight into the duties of a fiduciary. After all, every board member is a fiduciary for their community association. Common definitions of the term “fiduciary” include:

      • A fiduciary relationship is a relation between two parties wherein one party (fiduciary) has the duty to act in the best interest of the other party (beneficiary or principal).
      • A fiduciary is a person who holds a legal or ethical relationship of trust with one or more other parties. Typically, a fiduciary prudently takes care of money or other assets for another person.
      • A fiduciary duty is a relationship in which one party places special trust, confidence, and reliance in and is influenced by another who has a fiduciary duty to act for the benefit of the party.
      • Most importantly, and germane to this discussion, a fiduciary is a person or organization that acts on behalf of another person or persons, putting their clients’ interests ahead of their own, with a duty to preserve good faith and trust.

In other words, a good community association board member puts the interest of their association above their own personal interests. Thus, while we may not be able to stop bad people from doing bad things, through continuing education we can help good people do better.

To recap, there are three things that can be readily accomplished that would make a positive difference for Florida’s community associations.

      1. Remove the ability of a board member to be “certified” by signature alone.
      2. Require continuing education for board members serving continuous years.
      3. Amend Florida Statutes, Chapters 718 and 720, to include express definitions of fiduciary duty so that it is made patently clear that every board member must put their community association above and ahead of their own personal interests.

 

 

Tags: ,
Not all Expenditures Can Be Collected from Delinquent Owners as Part of the Collection/Foreclosure Process – Why Not?

Not all Expenditures Can Be Collected from Delinquent Owners as Part of the Collection/Foreclosure Process – Why Not?

Not all Expenditures Can Be Collected from Delinquent Owners as Part of the Collection/Foreclosure Process – Why Not?

It is clear that Florida’s community association collection/foreclosure legislation allows associations to foreclose an owner’s home for nonpayment of assessments. However, not all of the monies expended by an association fit into the definition of an assessment. For example, let’s say that an association has a right to correct a deficiency on an owner’s lot, but the declaration of covenants at issue does not support converting the money spent into an assessment. In that event, the monies expended by the association would have to be recovered as part of a breach of contract action rather than as part of an assessment/foreclosure action. Sometimes, however, the declaration will provide that the monies expended can be treated as an assessment. If that is the case, then before those expenditures can be included as a part of the collection/foreclosure process, the board would need to convert the expenditure into an assessment against the noncomplying owner. (As to how that is done, you can discuss it with your community association’s attorney.) Florida’s collection/foreclosure legislation also provides for recovery of certain costs incidental to the collection/foreclosure process, but recovery of such cost must be rooted in a statute or by contract (i.e., the declaration of covenants).

Let’s look at the fee charged by a management company for sending the notice of late assessment letter, often referred as a NOLA letter, as required by Florida Statute, and determine whether it is a recoverable cost in an association’s collection/foreclosure action and whether including the NOLA fee as a part of the association’s collection/foreclosure proceedings violates the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the Act).

The Act was passed into law because of abundant evidence of the use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices. It does not matter whether a debt collector used their best efforts to comply with the Act. Only strict compliance matters when it comes to the enforceability of the Act against a debt collector. Clearly, the association is not considered a “debt collector” pursuant to the Act and, for the most part, neither are management companies, with this caveat: the pendulum may swing in the future to the notion that management companies are, in fact, debt collectors. It seems that at least for the time being they are shielded from the Act. However, what is patently clear is that an attorney who provides collection/foreclosure services to assist their association clients with delinquent assessments is certainly considered a “debt collector.” Therefore, the attorney must be vigilant when reviewing the delinquent owner’s account ledger to ensure that the items set out in the ledger can lawfully be included in the association’s collection/foreclosure action. A recent case reminds us of this fact.

On February 4, 2025, in Glover v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, Case no. 23-12578 & 12579 (11th Cir. Fla. 2025), the 11th Circuit of the Federal Court of Appeals found that Ocwen as a debt collector violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act when it charged consumers an optional fee when making expedited mortgage payments because the loan servicer charged an amount that was not expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law. The takeaway from this case is that a debt collector can only collect debts that are authorized by law or by contract with the debtor.

It was only several years ago that the Florida legislature enacted into law the requirement that an association assessment debtor must be provided the NOLA correspondence from the association providing the debtor a final opportunity to pay their delinquent assessment debt prior to turning the matter over to the association’s legal counsel to commence collection/foreclosure proceedings where fees and costs accrue against the debtor. See S. 718.121 and S. 720.3085, Fla. Stat.

Management companies are typically tasked with preparing and sending the NOLA letter on behalf of the associations they manage before turning the file over for collections to the association’s attorney. In this regard, a management company that is charging such a fee but has not amended its contract with the association to provide for charging the fee for the notice of late assessment would be wise to consider amending its contract with the association they represent to provide for this charge. Doing so would ensure that the management company, even though it may not be considered a “debt collector,” would have a solid basis for charging the fee because it would be based on a contractual obligation charged to the association. This is important because the NOLA, as mandated by Florida Statutes, does not at all provide for the recovery of a fee in regard to sending such a letter. So, while management companies may not be considered a “debt collector” today, this could change in any new case at any time. Why take the chance?

Now, let’s analyze whether the attorney who is collecting the past due assessment debts for the association can include the management company’s NOLA fee paid by the association to the management company in the collection/foreclosure action against a delinquent owner. Keep in mind, as we go through the analysis, that the “debt collector” (in this case, the attorney) can only collect debts authorized by contract or by law, and also remember that the relevant laws governing the NOLA letter do not provide for a specific cost recovery for the management company sending of the notice of late assessment letter. Thus, at a minimum, there should at least be a contractual obligation that the association pay the management company for sending the NOLA letter. But that may not always be the case even though it is the better practice.

Part and parcel with the collection/foreclosure process is the recording of an association assessment lien. To be valid, such a claim of lien must state the description of the parcel, the name of the record owner, the name and address of the association, the assessment amount due, and the due date. The claim of lien secures all unpaid assessments that are due and that may accrue subsequent to the recording of the claim of lien and before entry of a certificate of title, as well as interest, late charges, and reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees incurred by the association incident to the collection process.

So, while the relevant statutes do not provide for the association to be able to recover a fee for the sending of the NOLA letter, it certainly should be considered a “reasonable cost incurred by the association incident to the collection process,” most especially when the fee charged for sending the NOLA letter is a contractual obligation between the association and the management company.

There even exists an argument that, even if the management contract between the association and the management company does not provide that the association is responsible to pay the management company for the preparation and sending of the notice of late assessment, it is still considered a “reasonable cost”; but when you plug in the holding of the aforementioned case, the collection of the cost associated with the NOLA letter by the debt collector (i.e., the attorney representing the association), the better practice is to ensure that the contract between the management company and the association contains a provision that the association is responsible to pay the management company a reasonable fee for each such notice of late assessment letter sent.

Perhaps now you have a better understanding of why, at times, the association’s collection/foreclosure attorney cannot include a particular line item on the delinquent owner’s account ledger in the collection/foreclosure action. If you have any questions regarding the collection/foreclosure process, most especially which charges can and cannot be included, please be sure to discuss them with your association’s attorney.

 

Tags: , , ,
FIDUCIARY DUTY: What it Means to Your Community Association. by REMBAUM’S ASSOCIATION ROUNDUP

FIDUCIARY DUTY: What it Means to Your Community Association. by REMBAUM’S ASSOCIATION ROUNDUP

  • Posted: May 11, 2025
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on FIDUCIARY DUTY: What it Means to Your Community Association. by REMBAUM’S ASSOCIATION ROUNDUP

What duty does a community association board member owe to their association? What happens if that duty is breached? During the legislative session, legislation was proposed that would have made directors criminally liable for failure to timely respond to official record requests, among other provisions.

The legislation in House Bill 919 was proposed by Representative Porras in response to the alleged $3.4 million dollar embezzlement scheme that took place at the Hammocks Community Association, located in Miami-Dade County. Parts of this proposed bill were well-intentioned; however, several provisions were commonly viewed as too broad and expansive.

On November 15, 2022, the Miami-Dade State Attorney’s Office announced charges related to the Hammocks’ criminal case, including racketeering, organized scheme to defraud, money laundering, grand theft, and fabricating physical evidence against five board members. These board members have been accused of the following:

i) running a scheme in which they used HOA checks and HOA credit cards from 55 bank accounts to pay for “no-show” work by shell companies or vendors, who would funnel money back to the directors for their personal use;

ii) withholding official records from members; and,

iii) failure to hold valid elections, among other bad acts.

If found guilty these board members overtly breached their fiduciary duty to their association.

During the 2023 legislative session, House Bill 919 initially contained significant criminal penalties to punish board members who failed to provide official records when they otherwise should have, criminal penalties for kickbacks, and criminal penalties for improper election interference, among other provisions. Such laws, while well intended, went overboard as evidenced by the creation of criminal penalties for failure to provide official records, as such severe criminal penalties for operational matters would likely only deter good people from running for the board. Recognizing this potential issue, parts of HB 919 were tempered a bit prior to it becoming law. That said, in the opinion of this author, new laws with new criminal penalties are not the answer. Bad people do bad things, and no amount of laws will likely significantly change that. So, what is the answer?

One answer is to shore up the educational and certification requirements for board members. At present, there are two ways to be certified as a board member. One method is to take a State-approved class, which provides an overview of the voluminous information board members need to know in order to perform their duties. The other method is to sign a piece of paper that the board member has read the governing documents, will abide by them, and will faithfully discharge their duties. This second method should be eliminated as there is no method to confirm compliance, and this method does not have any educational component. In addition, continuing education requirements should be required for any board member serving consecutive years.

During a board certification class, time should be spent discussing the term “fiduciary duty.” While the term is repeatedly used in Chapters 718 and 720 of the Florida Statutes, it is not expressly defined in these statutes. Section 718.111, Florida Statutes, makes reference to Section 617.0830, Florida Statutes, which provides for general standards for directors of not-for-profit corporations, such as community associations.

Section 617.0830, Florida Statutes, provides the following:

      1. A director shall discharge his or her duties as a director, including his or her duties as a member of a committee i) in good faith; ii) with the care an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would exercise under similar circumstances; and iii) in a manner he or she reasonably believes to be in the best interests of the corporation.
      2. In discharging his or her duties, a director may rely on information, opinions, reports, or statements, including financial statements and other financial data, if prepared or presented by: i) One or more officers or employees of the corporation whom the director reasonably believes to be reliable and competent in the matters presented; ii) legal counsel, public accountants, or other persons as to matters the director reasonably believes are within the persons’ professional or expert competence; or iii) a committee of the board of directors of which he or she is not a member if the director reasonably believes the committee merits confidence.
      3. A director is not acting in good faith if he or she has knowledge concerning the matter in question that makes reliance otherwise permitted by subsection (2) unwarranted.
      4. A director is not liable for any action taken as a director, or any failure to take any action, if he or she performed the duties of his or her office in compliance with this section.

Still, though, there is no express definition of the term “fiduciary duty.” The purpose of studying fiduciary relationships is to identify the areas where it exists and gain an insight into the duties of a fiduciary. After all, every board member is a fiduciary for their community association. Common definitions of the term “fiduciary” include:

      • A fiduciary relationship is a relation between two parties wherein one party (fiduciary) has the duty to act in the best interest of the other party (beneficiary or principal).
      • A fiduciary is a person who holds a legal or ethical relationship of trust with one or more other parties. Typically, a fiduciary prudently takes care of money or other assets for another person.
      • A fiduciary duty is a relationship in which one party places special trust, confidence, and reliance in and is influenced by another who has a fiduciary duty to act for the benefit of the party.
      • Most importantly, and germane to this discussion, a fiduciary is a person or organization that acts on behalf of another person or persons, putting their clients’ interests ahead of their own, with a duty to preserve good faith and trust.

In other words, a good community association board member puts the interest of their association above their own personal interests. Thus, while we may not be able to stop bad people from doing bad things, through continuing education we can help good people do better.

To recap, there are three things that can be readily accomplished that would make a positive difference for Florida’s community associations.

      1. Remove the ability of a board member to be “certified” by signature alone.
      2. Require continuing education for board members serving continuous years.
      3. Amend Florida Statutes, Chapters 718 and 720, to include express definitions of fiduciary duty so that it is made patently clear that every board member must put their community association above and ahead of their own personal interests.

 

 

Tags: , ,
THE RETURN OF THE CORPORATE TRANSPARENCY ACT INJUNCTION

THE RETURN OF THE CORPORATE TRANSPARENCY ACT INJUNCTION

THE RETURN OF THE CORPORATE TRANSPARENCY ACT INJUNCTION

by Rembaum’s Association Roundup

Recently we reported to you that a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated (reversed) the Texas District Court’s previously enacted injunction that had the effect of making the Corporate Transparency Act’s registration requirements applicable once again.

Guess What? On December 30th, 2024 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit again reinstated the nationwide injunction. FinCen’s website provides that, “in light of a recent federal court order, reporting companies are not currently required to file beneficial ownership information with FinCEN and are not subject to liability if they fail to do so while the order remains in force. However, reporting companies may continue to voluntarily submit beneficial ownership information reports.

The FinCen website provides a procedural history that further explains the current situation as follows:

On Tuesday, December 3, 2024, in the case of Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., et al. v. Garland, et al., No. 4:24-cv-00478 (E.D. Tex.), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, issued an order granting a nationwide preliminary injunction. The Department of Justice, on behalf of the Department of the Treasury (Treasury), filed a Notice of Appeal on December 5, 2024 and separately sought of stay of the injunction pending that appeal.

On December 23, 2024, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted a stay of the district court’s preliminary injunction entered in Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., pending the outcome of Treasury’s ongoing appeal of the district court’s order. Treasury immediately issued an alert notifying the public of this ruling and recognizing that reporting companies may have needed additional time to comply with beneficial ownership reporting requirements, Treasury extended reporting deadlines. However, on December 26, 2024, a different panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an order vacating the Court’s December 23, 2024 order granting a stay of the preliminary injunction. On December 31, 2024, the Department of Justice, on behalf of Treasury, sought a stay of the injunction pending the ongoing appeal from the Supreme Court of the United States.

In the meantime, as of December 26, 2024, the injunction issued by the District Court in Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. is once again in effect. FinCEN is complying with—and will continue to comply with—the District Court’s order for as long as it remains in effect. As a result, reporting companies are not currently required to file beneficial ownership information with FinCEN. Reporting companies may continue to voluntarily submit beneficial ownership information reports.

As new information is obtained we will share it with you, our readers. For those who are interested, our prior Association RoundUp articles regarding the Corporate Transparency Act debacle follow below.

THE CORPORATE TRANSPARENCY ACT STRIKES BACK

In the never ending saga regarding the applicability of the Corporate Transparency Act, there is yet another twist in that the judge in the Texas litigation, which we wrote about to you on December 14 and who issued the nationwide injunction, reversed course on December 23, when he lifted the court’s previously enacted injunction making the Corporate Transparency Act’s registration requirements applicable once again. However, FinCen, in light of the short notice, has extended the deadline in which to register to January 13, 2025 absent other deadline extensions.

As reported in our prior article, a recent update from the United States Department of Treasury, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCen) provides an extension of time to comply with the requirements of the Corporate Transparency Act for the initial reporting deadlines, but there are strict requirements regarding the applicability of the extension as discussed below.

FinCen, on October 29, 2024, extended the initial reporting deadlines to June 30, 2025, for associations in counties affected by Hurricane Milton where:

(1) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) assistance is available for individual or public assistance; and

(2)IRS tax filing deadlines have been extended.

Associations in the following counties appear to be subject to the extension:

Alachua, Baker, Bradford, Brevard, Broward, Charlotte, Citrus, Clay, Collier, Columbia, DeSoto, Dixie, Duval, Flagler, Gilchrist, Glades, Hamilton, Hardee, Hendry, Hernando, Highlands, Hillsborough, Indian River, Lafayette, Lake, Lee, Levy, Madison, Manatee, Marion, Martin, Miami-Dade, Monroe, Nassau, Okeechobee, Orange, Osceola, Palm Beach, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, Putman, Sarasota, Seminole, St. Johns, St. Lucie, Sumter, Suwannee, Taylor, Union, and Volusia.

Of course, to be absolutely certain, please check with your association’s attorney.

_________________________________________

The December 23, 2024 email communication received from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network as reported on above follows:

Updates to Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Deadlines – Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Requirements Now in Effect, with Deadline Extensions

In light of a December 23, 2024, federal Court of Appeals decision, reporting companies, except as indicated below, are once again required to file beneficial ownership information with FinCEN. However, because the Department of the Treasury recognizes that reporting companies may need additional time to comply given the period when the preliminary injunction had been in effect, we have extended the reporting deadline as follows:

  • Reporting companies that were created or registered prior to January 1, 2024 have until January 13, 2025 to file their initial beneficial ownership information reports with FinCEN. (These companies would otherwise have been required to report by January 1, 2025)
  • Reporting companies created or registered in the United States on or after September 4, 2024 that had a filing deadline between December 3, 2024 and December 23, 2024 have until January 13, 2025 to file their initial beneficial ownership information reports with FinCEN.
  • Reporting companies created or registered in the United States on or after December 3, 2024 and on or before December 23, 2024 have an additional 21 days from their original filing deadline to file their initial beneficial ownership information reports with FinCEN.
  • Reporting companies that qualify for disaster relief may have extended deadlines that fall beyond January 13, 2025. These companies should abide by whichever deadline falls later.
  • Reporting companies that are created or registered in the United States on or after January 1, 2025 have 30 days to file their initial beneficial ownership information reports with FinCEN after receiving actual or public notice that their creation or registration is effective.
  • As indicated in the alert titled “Notice Regarding National Small Business United v. Yellen, No. 5:22-cv-01448 (N.D. Ala.)”, Plaintiffs in National Small Business United v. Yellen, No. 5:22-cv-01448 (N.D. Ala.)—namely, Isaac Winkles, reporting companies for which Isaac Winkles is the beneficial owner or applicant, the National Small Business Association, and members of the National Small Business Association (as of March 1, 2024)—are not currently required to report their beneficial ownership information to FinCEN at this time.

On Tuesday, December 3, 2024, in the case of Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., et al. v. Garland, et al., No. 4:24-cv-00478 (E.D. Tex.), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, issued an order granting a nationwide preliminary injunction. On December 23, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted a stay of the district court’s preliminary injunction enjoining the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) entered in the case of Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. v. Garland, pending the outcome of the Department of the Treasury’s ongoing appeal of the district court’s order. Texas Top Cop Shop is only one of several cases that have challenged the CTA pending before courts around the country. Several district courts have denied requests to enjoin the CTA, ruling in favor of the Department of the Treasury. The government continues to believe—consistent with the conclusions of the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern District of Virginia and the District of Oregon—that the CTA is constitutional. For that reason, the Department of Justice, on behalf of the Department of the Treasury, filed a Notice of Appeal on December 5, 2024 and separately sought of stay of the injunction pending that appeal with the district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The Kaye Bender Rembaum Team Remains Available To You and Your Community Association

Visit KBRLegal.com for awesome free resources, including news with Legal Morsels and Rembaum’s Association Roundup, and our Event Calendar, including upcoming free classes.

 
MANDATORY CONDOMINIUM & COOPERATIVE BUILDING INSPECTIONS & NON-WAIVABLE RESERVE REQUIREMENTS SENATE BILL 4-D

MANDATORY CONDOMINIUM & COOPERATIVE BUILDING INSPECTIONS & NON-WAIVABLE RESERVE REQUIREMENTS SENATE BILL 4-D

  • Posted: Dec 18, 2024
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on MANDATORY CONDOMINIUM & COOPERATIVE BUILDING INSPECTIONS & NON-WAIVABLE RESERVE REQUIREMENTS SENATE BILL 4-D

MANDATORY CONDOMINIUM & COOPERATIVE BUILDING INSPECTIONS & NON-WAIVABLE RESERVE REQUIREMENTS

We are reposting this, for all the buildings That have not had inspections…..

SENATE BILL 4-D

With home insurers leaving Florida in droves, and following pressure from members of both political parties in the legislature to actually do something about it, in May 2022, the governor called a special legislative session to address the problem. A very real concern to the insurers is the effect of both time and inclement weather on Florida’s aging high-rise buildings. Until now, and for the most part, Florida law largely ignored these concerns. Enter Senate Bill 4-D (SB 4-D) which already became effective upon being signed into law by Governor DeSantis on May 26, 2022. This new piece of legislation addresses condominium and cooperative building inspections and reserve requirements (while this article primarily addresses these new laws in the context of condominium association application, they are equally applicable to cooperative associations).

By way of background, during the regular legislative session, there were several bills introduced in the Florida House of Representatives (House) and in the Florida Senate (Senate) addressing building safety issues, but none of them were passed into law due to the inability to match the language of the bills in both the House and the Senate which is a requirement for legislation to pass and go to the governor for consideration. As such, it was a little surprising to many observers that the legislature was able to approve SB 4-D in essentially a 48-hour window during the special session in May. The language used in SB 4-D was initially drafted into a proposed bill in November 2021. At that time, and during the most recent legislative session, input was provided by many industry professional groups including engineers, reserve study providers, and association attorneys. Many of these industry professionals indicated that there were challenges with some of the language and concepts being proposed in SB 4-D during session.

Notwithstanding these challenges, and in an effort to ensure some form of life safety legislation was passed this year, SB 4-D was unanimously approved in both the House and Senate and signed by the governor. A plain reading of this well intended, but in some instances not completely thought-out, legislation evidences these challenges. Some will say it is a good start that will need significant tweaking, which is expected during the 2023 Legislative Session. Others praise it, and yet others say it is an overreach of governmental authority, such as an inability to waive or reduce certain categories of reserves. You be the judge. We begin by examining the mandatory inspection and reserve requirements of SB 4-D.

I. MILESTONE INSPECTIONS: MANDATORY STRUCTURAL INSPECTIONS FOR CONDOMINIUM AND COOPERATIVE BUILDINGS. (§553.899, Fla. Stat.)

You will not find these new milestone inspection requirements in Chapters 718 or 719 of the Florida Statutes, but rather in Chapter 553, Florida Statutes, as cited above.

MILESTONE INSPECTIONS:

The term “milestone inspection” means a structural inspection of a building, including an inspection of load-bearing walls and the primary structural members and primary structural systems as those terms are defined in section 627.706, Florida Statutes, by a licensed architect or engineer authorized to practice in this state for the purposes of attesting to the life safety and adequacy of the structural components of the building and, to the extent reasonably possible, determining the general structural condition of the building as it affects the safety of such building, including a determination of any necessary maintenance, repair, or replacement of any structural component of the building. The purpose of such inspection is not to determine if the condition of an existing building is in compliance with the Florida Building Code or the fire safety code.

SUBSTANTIAL STRUCTURAL DETERIORATION:

The term “substantial structural deterioration” means substantial structural distress that negatively affects a building’s general structural condition and integrity. The term does not include surface imperfections such as cracks, distortion, sagging, deflections, misalignment, signs of leakage, or peeling of finishes unless the licensed engineer or architect performing the phase one or phase two inspection determines that such surface imperfections are a sign of substantial structural deterioration.

MILESTONE INSPECTIONS FOR BUILDINGS THREE STORIES OR MORE IN HEIGHT:

A condominium association under chapter 718 and a cooperative association under chapter 719 must have a milestone inspection performed for each building that is three stories or more in height by December 31 of the year in which the building reaches 30 years of age, based on the date the certificate of occupancy for the building was issued, and every 10 years thereafter.

WITHIN THREE MILES OF COASTLINE:

If the building is three or more stories in height and is located within three miles of a coastline, the condominium association or cooperative association must have a milestone inspection performed by December 31 of the year in which the building reaches 25 years of age, based on the date the certificate of occupancy for the building was issued, and every 10 years thereafter.

The condominium association or cooperative association must arrange for the milestone inspection to be performed and is responsible for ensuring compliance.

The condominium association or cooperative association is responsible for all costs associated with the inspection.

IF THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WAS ISSUED BEFORE JULY 1, 1992:

If a milestone inspection is required under this statute and the building’s certificate of occupancy was issued on or before July 1, 1992, the building’s initial milestone inspection must be performed before December 31, 2024. If the date of issuance for the certificate of occupancy is not available, the date of issuance of the building’s certificate of occupancy shall be the date of occupancy evidenced in any record of the local building official.

Upon determining that a building must have a milestone inspection, the local enforcement agency must provide written notice of such required inspection to the condominium association or cooperative association by certified mail, return receipt requested.

Within 180 days after receiving the written notice the condominium association or cooperative association must complete phase one of the milestone inspection. For purposes of this section, completion of phase one of the milestone inspection means the licensed engineer or architect who performed the phase one inspection submitted the inspection report by e-mail, United States Postal Service, or commercial delivery service to the local enforcement agency.

A MILESTONE INSPECTION CONSISTS OF TWO PHASES:

    (a) PHASE 1: For phase one of the milestone inspection, a licensed architect or engineer authorized to practice in this state must perform a visual examination of habitable and non-habitable areas of a building, including the major structural components of a building, and provide a qualitative assessment of the structural conditions of the building. If the architect or engineer finds no signs of substantial structural deterioration to any building components under visual examination, phase two of the inspection (discussed below) is not required. An architect or engineer who completes a phase one milestone inspection shall prepare and submit an inspection report.

    (b) PHASE 2: A phase two of the milestone inspection must be performed if any substantial structural deterioration is identified during phase one. A phase two inspection may involve destructive or nondestructive testing at the inspector’s direction. The inspection may be as extensive or as limited as necessary to fully assess areas of structural distress in order to confirm that the building is structurally sound and safe for its intended use and to recommend a program for fully assessing and repairing distressed and damaged portions of the building. When determining testing locations, the inspector must give preference to locations that are the least disruptive and most easily repairable while still being representative of the structure. An inspector who completes a phase two milestone inspection must prepare and submit an inspection report.

POST-MILESTONE INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS:

Upon completion of a phase one or phase two milestone inspection, the architect or engineer who performed the inspection must submit a sealed copy of the inspection report with a separate summary of, at minimum, the material findings and recommendations in the inspection report to the condominium association or cooperative association, and to the building official of the local government which has jurisdiction. The inspection report must, at a minimum, meet all of the following criteria:

    (a) Bear the seal and signature, or the electronic signature, of the licensed engineer or architect who performed the inspection.

    (b) Indicate the manner and type of inspection forming the basis for the inspection report.

    (c) Identify any substantial structural deterioration within a reasonable professional probability based on the scope of the inspection, describe the extent of such deterioration, and identify any recommended repairs for such deterioration.

    (d) State whether unsafe or dangerous conditions, as those terms are defined in the Florida Building Code, were observed.

    (e) Recommend any remedial or preventive repair for any items that are damaged but are not substantial structural deterioration.

(f) Identify and describe any items requiring further inspection.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENFORCEMENT:

A local enforcement agency may prescribe time lines and penalties with respect to compliance with the milestone inspection requirements.

A board of county commissioners may adopt an ordinance requiring that a condominium or cooperative association schedule or commence repairs for substantial structural deterioration within a specified time frame after the local enforcement agency receives a phase two inspection report; however, such repairs must be commenced within 365 days after receiving such report. If an association fails to submit proof to the local enforcement agency that repairs have been scheduled or have commenced for substantial structural deterioration identified in a phase two inspection report within the required time frame, the local enforcement agency must review and determine if the building is unsafe for human occupancy.

BOARD’S DUTY AFTER OBTAINING THE MILESTONE REPORT:

Upon completion of a phase one or phase two milestone inspection and receipt of the inspector-prepared summary of the inspection report from the architect or engineer who performed the inspection, the association must distribute a copy of the inspector-prepared summary of the inspection report to each unit owner, regardless of the findings or recommendations in the report, by United States mail or personal delivery and by electronic transmission to unit owners who previously consented to receive notice by electronic transmission; must post a copy of the inspector-prepared summary in a conspicuous place on the condominium or cooperative property; and must publish the full report and inspector-prepared summary on the association’s website, if the association is required to have a website.

WHO PAYS FOR THE MILESTONE INSPECTION:

Pursuant to section 718.112, Florida Statutes, if an association is required to have a milestone inspection performed, the association must arrange for the milestone inspection to be performed and is responsible for ensuring compliance with all of the requirements thereof. The association is responsible for all costs associated with the inspection.

FAILURE TO OBTAIN THE MILESTONE INSPECTION:

If the officers or directors of an association willfully and knowingly fail to have a milestone inspection performed pursuant to section 553.899, Florida Statutes, such failure is a breach of the officers’ and directors’ fiduciary relationship to the unit owners.

MANAGER’S DUTY:

If a community association manager or a community association management firm has a contract with a community association that has a building on the association’s property that is subject to milestone inspection, the community association manager or the community association management firm must comply with the requirements of performing such inspection as directed by the board.

EXEMPTIONS:

For clarity, the otherwise required milestone inspection does not apply to a single family, two-family, or three-family dwelling with three or fewer habitable stories above ground.

FLORIDA BUILDING COMMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

The Florida Building Commission must review the milestone inspection requirements and make recommendations, if any, to the legislature to ensure inspections are sufficient to determine the structural integrity of a building. The commission must provide a written report of any recommendations to the Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives by December 31, 2022.

The Florida Building Commission must consult with the State Fire Marshal to provide recommendations to the legislature for the adoption of comprehensive structural and life safety standards for maintaining and inspecting all types of buildings and structures in this state that are three stories or more in height. The commission must provide a written report of its recommendations to the Governor, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives by December 31, 2023.

II.    STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY RESERVE STUDIES AND MANDATORY RESERVES:

The reserve legislation set out in section 718.112 (f)(2)(a), Florida Statutes, is, for all intents and purposes, re-written. Prior to examining these most recent revisions, it is necessary to first examine the definitions set out in section 718.103, Florida Statutes, where a brand new term is added as follows:

    Structural integrity reserve study means a study of the reserve funds required for future major repairs and replacement of the common areas based on a visual inspection of the common areas applicable to all condominiums and cooperative buildings 3 stories or higher.

Hereafter, the structural integrity reserve study is referred to as “SIRS”. Now we can turn our attention to the requirements of the SIRS as set out in section 718.112 (f)(2)(a), Florida Statutes

THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY RESERVE STUDY (required for all condominium and cooperative buildings three stories or higher regardless of date of certificate of occupancy):

An association must have a SIRS completed at least every 10 years after the condominium’s creation for each building on the condominium property that is three stories or higher in height which includes, at a minimum, a study of the following items as related to the structural integrity and safety of the building:

a.     Roof.

b. Load-bearing walls or other primary structural members.

c. Floor.

d. Foundation.

e. Fireproofing and fire protection systems.

f. Plumbing.

g. Electrical systems.

h. Waterproofing and exterior painting.

i.  Windows.

j. Any other item that has a deferred maintenance expense or replacement cost that exceeds $10,000 and the failure to replace or maintain such item negatively affects the items listed in subparagraphs a.-i., as determined by the licensed engineer or architect performing the visual inspection portion of the structural integrity reserve study.

The SIRS may be performed by any person qualified to perform such study. However, the visual inspection portion of the structural integrity reserve study MUST be performed by an engineer licensed under chapter 471 or an architect licensed under chapter 481.

As further set out in the legislation, at a minimum, “a structural integrity reserve study must identify the common areas being visually inspected, state the estimated remaining useful life and the estimated replacement cost or deferred maintenance expense of the common areas being visually inspected, and provide a recommended annual reserve amount that achieves the estimated replacement cost or deferred maintenance expense of each common area being visually inspected by the end of the estimated remaining useful life of each common area.”

The amount to be reserved for an item is determined by the association’s most recent structural integrity reserve study that must be completed by December 31, 2024. If the amount to be reserved for an item is not in the association’s initial or most recent structural integrity reserve study or the association has not completed a structural integrity reserve study, the amount must be computed using a formula based upon estimated remain useful life and estimated replacement cost or deferred maintenance expense of each reserve item.

If the condominium building is less than three stories then the legislation provides that, “in addition to annual operating expenses, the budget must include reserve accounts for capital expenditures and deferred maintenance. These accounts must include, but are not limited to, roof replacement, building painting, and pavement resurfacing, regardless of the amount of deferred maintenance expense or replacement cost, and any other item that has a deferred maintenance expense or replacement cost that exceeds $10,000.”

The association may adjust replacement reserve assessments annually to take into account any changes in estimates or extension of the useful life of a reserve item caused by deferred maintenance.

If an association fails to complete a SIRS, such failure is a breach of an officer’s and director’s fiduciary relationship to the unit owners.

NON-WAIVABLE AND WAIVABLE RESERVES IN THE UNIT OWNER CONTROLLED ASSOCIATION:

As to the SIRS, the legislation is patently clear that unit owners may not vote for no reserves or lesser reserves for items set forth SIRS report. There is on-going debate amongst attorneys in regard to whether a condominium under three stories can waive or reduce reserves for any of the reserve items required to be in the SIRS that are included in the under three story condominium reserve, for example, roof and painting (For those interested, examine lines 1029 to 1033 and 1050 to 1071 in SB 4-D).

MANDATORY RESERVES IN THE DEVELOPER CONTROLLED ASSOCIATION:

Before turnover of control of an association by a developer to unit owners other than a developer pursuant to section 718.301, Florida Statutes, the developer-controlled association may not vote to waive the reserves or reduce the funding of the reserves (Previously, a developer could fully waive all reserves for the first two years, meaning this is a monumental change).

PRE-TURNOVER DEVELOPER DUTY:

Before a developer turns over control of an association to unit owners other than the developer, the developer must have a SIRS completed for each building on the condominium property that is three stories or higher in height.

III.    OFFICIAL RECORDS:

Official records of the condominium and cooperative association include structural integrity reserve studies, financial reports of the association or condominium, and a copy of the inspection reports and any other inspection report relating to a structural or life safety inspection of condominium or cooperative property.

In addition to the right to inspect and copy the declaration, bylaws and rules renters have the right to inspect the milestone inspection report and structural integrity reserve study inspection reports as well.

Structural integrity reserve studies must be maintained for at least 15 years after the study is completed. In addition, inspection reports report and any other inspection report relating to a structural or life safety inspection of condominium property must be maintained for 15 years after receipt of such report.

IV.    ASSOCIATION WEBSITES:

In addition to other positing requirements, the inspection reports described above and any other inspection report relating to a structural or life safety inspection of condominium property and the association’s most recent structural integrity reserve study must be posted to the website.

V.    JURISDICTION OF DIVISION OF CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES, AND MOBILE HOMES:

Pre-turnover, the Division of Florida Condominiums, Timeshares, and Mobile Homes (Division) may enforce and ensure compliance with rules relating to the development, construction, sale, lease, ownership, operation, and management of residential condominium units, and complaints related to the procedural completion of milestone inspections. After turnover has occurred, the Division has jurisdiction to investigate complaints related only to financial issues, elections, and the maintenance of and unit owner access to association records, and the procedural completion of structural integrity reserve studies.

VI. NEW REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL CONDOMINIUM AND COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS:

On or before January 1, 2023, condominium associations existing on or before July 1, 2022, must provide the following information to the Division in writing, by e-mail, United States Postal Service, commercial delivery service, or hand delivery, at a physical address or e-mail address provided by the division and on a form posted on the division’s website:

  1. The number of buildings on the condominium property that are three stories or higher in height.
  2. The total number of units in all such buildings.
  3. The addresses of all such buildings.
  4. The counties in which all such buildings are located.

An association must provide an update in writing to the division if there are any changes to the information in the list within six months after the change.

VII.    APPLICABLE TO ALL SELLERS OF UNITS:

As a part of the sales process, the seller of a condominium or cooperative unit and developers must provide to potential purchasers a copy of the inspector-prepared summary of the milestone inspection report and a copy of the association’s most recent structural integrity reserve study or a statement that the association has not completed a structural integrity reserve study.

VIII.    GLITCHES:

As with any new legislation of such a substantial nature, there often follow in subsequent years what are referred to as “glitch bills” which help provide additional clarity, remove ambiguity, and fix unintended errors. To name a few: (i) the term “common areas” is used in the legislation when in fact the correct term is “common element;” (ii) clarity needs to be provided regarding whether reserve items that are required to be in SIRS, but show up in the under three story reserves, such as paint and paving, can be waived or reduced by the membership; and (iii) for those buildings that are within three miles of the coastline, additional clarity could be provided to provide better guidance as to how to perform the measurement.    

Tags: , ,
Disability Discrimination Under the Fair Housing Act by Guest Columnist: Danielle M. Brennan, Esq. B.C.S. [Kaye Bender Rembaum]

Disability Discrimination Under the Fair Housing Act by Guest Columnist: Danielle M. Brennan, Esq. B.C.S. [Kaye Bender Rembaum]

As directors and managers of community associations, it is likely that you are very familiar with disability-related requests for reasonable accommodations under the Fair Housing Act, particularly requests for accommodation to pet restrictions so that a disabled person may have an assistance animal within the community. However, the failure to grant reasonable accommodations is not the only form of disability discrimination under the Fair Housing Act.

The Fair Housing Act also makes it unlawful for a housing provider to refuse to permit, at the expense of the disabled person, reasonable modifications of existing premises occupied or to be occupied by such person if such modifications may be necessary to afford such person full enjoyment of the premises. For example, reasonable modifications may include widening doorways to make rooms more accessible for persons in wheelchairs, installing grab bars in bathrooms, lowering kitchen cabinets to a height suitable for persons in wheelchairs, adding a ramp to make a primary entrance accessible for persons in wheelchairs, or altering a walkway to provide access to a common use area.

In order for an individual to be entitled to a reasonable modification under the Fair Housing Act, the individual must first make a request for a reasonable modification. An individual makes a reasonable modification request whenever he/she makes clear to the association that he/she is requesting permission to make a structural change to the premises because of his/her disability. Although the association may adopt and use specified forms and procedures for processing modification requests, the association cannot refuse a request because the individual does not use the specified form or follow the established procedures. All the individual needs to do is make the request, orally or in writing, in a manner that a reasonable person would understand to be a request for permission to make a structural change because of a disability.

As part of the request, the individual must (i) establish that he/she is disabled (i.e., the person has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities) if the disability is not already known to the association or readily apparent; (ii) describe the type of modification requested; and (iii) explain the relationship, or nexus, between the requested modification and the individual’s disability.

The association is required to provide a prompt response to a reasonable modification request. An undue delay in responding to a reasonable modification request may be deemed a failure to permit a reasonable modification. There is no clarity as to what constitutes a “prompt response” or “undue delay” for a reasonable modification. However, if we are to borrow from guidance from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development regarding reasonable accommodations under the Fair Housing Act, then a response should be issued within ten days.

The failure to permit a person with a disability to make a reasonable modification or the failure to promptly respond to a request for a reasonable modification is deemed discrimination under the Fair Housing Act. If discrimination is found to have occurred, the association may be subject to an injunction, forcing the association to permit the requested modification, and an award for damages, which may include punitive damages. In addition, violations of the Fair Housing Act are one of the few instances in which individual board members may be held personally liable for such violations. Given the potential for liability and the many factors which must be considered upon receiving such a request, the board must carefully evaluate a request for a reasonable modification in a timely manner and on a case-by-case basis.

The association cannot condition its approval of the requested modification upon the payment of a security deposit or the purchase of additional insurance and cannot insist that a particular contractor do the work. However, the association can require that the unit owner obtain any building permits needed to make the modification and that the work be performed in a workmanlike manner. From a practical perspective, there will need to be coordination between the association and the unit owner, for example, to obtain whatever permits may be required and to schedule the work, given that the modification may be made to the common areas owned by the homeowners’ association or the common elements controlled by the condominium association.

As to the modification itself, the disabled person is responsible for determining the type of modification and for payment of the costs of the modification. Generally, the association cannot insist on an alternative modification, particularly if the requested modification is to the interior of the unit. However, if the requested modification is to the common area or common elements, the association can propose an alternative modification (e.g., different type of modification, different placement, different design, etc.). However, if the association’s proposed alternative modification costs more than the modification requested by the disabled person, the association will be required to pay the difference.

Once the modification is installed, whether the disabled person or the association will be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the modification will depend upon where the modification is located and who is able to use the modification. As to modifications made to the common areas or common elements, if the modification is used exclusively by the disabled person, such person is responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the modification. However, if the modification is installed on the common areas or common elements which are normally maintained by the association and may be used by others, the association is responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of such modification under the Fair Housing Act.

Although some modifications to the interior of the unit must be restored if requested by the association when the disabled person vacates the unit, the association cannot require the disabled person to have a modification made to the common areas or the common elements removed and area restored.

Additionally, the Fair Housing Act controls over the provisions of the governing documents of the association and any requirements of Chapter 718, Florida Statutes. For example, even if the modification is a material alteration or substantial addition to the common elements or association property subject to membership approval under a community association’s governing documents and/or section 718.113(2)(a), Florida Statutes, such membership approval would not be required for a reasonable modification under the Fair Housing Act. However, the board still must approve the requested modification at a properly noticed board meeting, and the minutes of such meeting must reflect the board’s approval of same.

Regarding property insurance for modifications to a condominium’s common elements, section 718.111(11)(f), Florida Statutes, requires that the condominium association carry adequate property insurance for primary coverage of all portions of the condominium property, only excluding from such coverage the following which is the responsibility of the unit owner: 1) all personal property within the unit or limited common elements and 2) floor, wall, and ceiling coverings; electrical fixtures; appliances; water heaters; water filters; built-in cabinets and countertops; and window treatments (including curtains, drapes, blinds, hardware, and similar window treatment components); or replacements of any of the foregoing which are located within the boundaries of the unit and serve only such unit. Therefore, if modifications are not within the unit or the limited common elements serving the unit, the condominium association is responsible to carry property insurance for the modification and will be responsible for the reconstruction, repair, or replacement of the modification if it is damaged by an insurable event.

Finally and importantly, because there are so many ways for a board to create legal liability when handling reasonable modification and/or reasonable accommodation requests, the board and manager should absolutely involve the association’s attorney, particularly if the board is going to request additional information or deny the request. Simply asking the wrong question can create legal liability for an association, such as asking for additional information regarding a person’s disability when the disability is readily apparent. Because there are so many ways to misstep in this arena, significant caution is advised.

Guest Columnist: Danielle M. Brennan, Esq. B.C.S.

Reprinted with permission as it appears in the December 2024 issue of the Florida Community Association Journal.

 Danielle M. Brennan is a board-certified specialist in condominium and planned development law by the Florida Bar. Mrs. Brennan is a firm member in the Palm Beach Gardens’ office and joined Kaye Bender Rembaum as an associate attorney in April 2013. She assists community association clients (including residential and commercial condominium associations, homeowners’ associations, cooperatives, and commercial associations) and developer clients with all aspects of community association establishment and operations, including corporate filings and mergers, governing document drafting and amendments, contract drafting and negotiations, membership meeting and board meeting operations, fair housing matters, land use and zoning matters, and covenant enforcement.

 

Tags: , , ,
A Differing Tale of Two Terminating Condominiums by Rembaum’s Association Roundup

A Differing Tale of Two Terminating Condominiums by Rembaum’s Association Roundup

A Differing Tale of Two Terminating Condominiums

Have an association related question?

Find your answer at RembaumsAssociationRoundup

An extremely similar fact pattern leads to diametrically opposed results between Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal and Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal.

In the case before the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Fellman v. Mission Viejo Condominium Association, Inc., Case No. 4D22-1260, (Fla. 4th DCA April 6, 2023), 175 of the 176 condominium units were acquired over time by a bulk owner, and the bulk owner sought termination of the condominium. However, Fellman as the single holdout objected to the plan of termination. At trial, the trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of terminating the condominium, which Fellman then appealed to the Fourth District Court of Appeal.

The Mission Viejo Declaration of Condominium was recorded in 1980 and required 100 percent consent of all unit owners as necessary to terminate the condominium form of ownership. Forty-one years later, on February 5, 2021, the bulk owner amended the required vote to terminate the condominium from 100 percent to 80 percent, using the general amendatory provision set out in the Declaration of Condominium, which required only 80 percent consent of the voting interests. Therefore, notwithstanding the original 100 percent requirement necessary to terminate the condominium, only 80 percent of the owners had to vote in favor of lowering the consent needed from 100 percent to 80 percent, which resulted in fully divesting Fellman of the right to object to the termination of the condominium.

Obviously, Fellman did not vote in favor of the amendment. Fellman argued that by allowing 80 percent of the unit owners to amend the otherwise required 100 percent consent of all owners to terminate the condominium, it fully eviscerated his right to object to the termination of the condominium and his voting rights—a right bestowed upon him when he purchased the unit. There are few things more sacrosanct than an owner’s right to vote. Nevertheless, neither the trial court nor the Fourth District Court of Appeal agreed.

While Fellman should have been able to rely on the 100 percent termination approval requirement as originally required in the declaration of condominium, the trial court believed that if the 100 percent requirement was to be protected from being amended with a lower percentage of voting interests, then the provision in the declaration of condominium should have clarified that it could only be amended by nothing less than 100 percent approval of the unit owners. Since it did not, the trial court found no issue with the bulk buyer eviscerating the 100 percent vote needed to terminate the condominium with 80 percent of the voting interests casting their vote in favor of the amendment.

Fast forward eleven months to March 13, 2024, when Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal, in Avila v. Biscayne 21 Condominium, Inc., Case No. 3D23-1616 (Fla. 3d DCA Mar. 13, 2024), noted that the provision in the Biscayne 21 Declaration of Condominium (requiring 100 percent of the voting interests to vote in favor of the termination could NOT be amended using the lower vote threshold needed to amend the declaration of condominium) was likely to prevail. As you will note, this decision diametrically opposes the outcome in the Fellman case. In this case, Avila sought a temporary injunction to stop the plan of termination. The trial court denied it. Avila appealed, and the Third District Court of Appeal agreed with Avila that Avila’s claim stood a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. The declaration of condominium at issue in the Avila case had an additional provision that required “100 percent approval for amendments that alter the voting power of unit owners.” However, it should be axiomatic that to obliterate an owner’s right to vote by terminating the condominium where the declaration had required 100 percent of the owners to vote in favor of termination could not be amended by a termination provision of anything less than 100 percent of the owners.

The Third District Court of Appeal commented that the change to the termination vote threshold materially altered the unit owners’ voting rights. By requiring a unanimous vote for termination, the declaration of condominium originally gave every unit owner an effective “veto” over any termination plan, which would be lost if the amendment adopted by using the general amendatory powers set out in the declaration of condominium were to stand. The Court even cited the Tropicana Condominium Association, Inc. v. Tropical Condominium , LLC, 208 So. 3d 755 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016), finding that nonunanimous amendments to a declaration reducing the vote threshold for termination of condominium could not be applied where the declaration expressly required the unanimous vote to amend the termination provision, and the amendment, if retroactively applied, would eviscerate the unit owners’ contractually bestowed veto rights.

In fact, Fellman also argued the Tropicana case to the trial court, which rejected the argument; and to add insult to injury, such decision was affirmed by the Fourth District Court of Appeal. So, in the world of inconsistent decisions, Fellman was denied by the Fourth District Court of Appeal the right to veto the plan of termination and is in process of potentially losing his unit, while the Avila court found his right to veto the plan of termination seemingly protected by the Third District Court of Appeal as evidenced by issuance of the temporary injunction in his favor. Unfortunately, even once the Avila case reaches a final judgment, and if in Avila’s case that decision is appealed and upheld by the Florida Supreme Court, Fellman still loses his right to veto the plan of termination as initially bestowed upon him and, even more unfortunately, will lose ownership of the unit.

Sign up for the upcoming courses.

November Board Member Certification Courses

  1. Condominium Nov. 13 – Click Here
  2. HOA Nov. 19 Daytime – Click Here
  3. HOA Nov. 21 Evening – Click Here

If you plan to enroll in any of the free courses above, please note the following:

All Board Members who attend must conduct their own webinar registration and, on the day of the webinar, log in/join in on their own, with their own unique link (or phone in information) provided by Zoom. This must take place even if you watch with other people. This assures you will appear on the attendance sheet, providing proof of attendance.

 

Tags: ,
DOS AND DON’TS OF ELECTION CHALLENGES by Rembaum’s Association Roundup

DOS AND DON’TS OF ELECTION CHALLENGES by Rembaum’s Association Roundup

  • Posted: Nov 04, 2024
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on DOS AND DON’TS OF ELECTION CHALLENGES by Rembaum’s Association Roundup

DOS AND DON’TS OF ELECTION CHALLENGES

Rembaum’s Association Roundup

Pursuant to their relevant statutory provisions, election disputes that take place in condominium, homeowners’, and cooperative associations are subject to mandatory nonbinding arbitration before the Division of Florida Condominiums, Timeshares, and Mobile Homes (the “Division,” for short). It is referred to as “nonbinding” because the arbitrator’s order is not final until 30 days after its issuance, which provides time for either party in the dispute to challenge the decision to their local circuit court, which hears the case de novo (anew).

As you will read, not every election dispute will be heard by the Division. As a threshold matter of importance, the Division will not hear election disputes within 60 days prior to an election or 60 days after the election has taken place. In order to bring an election challenge, Florida Statutes require prior written notice to the other party of the dispute, where a reasonable opportunity to correct the alleged error is provided, and it is clearly expressed that if the alleged error is not cured, an arbitration action will take place. In a prior arbitration case, it was held that providing only 10 days to cure the alleged defect in a pre-arbitration notice was insufficient. Therefore, it is suggested to provide more than 10 days opportunity to cure the alleged election defect prior to filing an action for arbitration.

Interestingly, the general rule is that to have standing to challenge election results, arbitration action must be brought by a candidate or an individual who was prevented from being a candidate.  The Division has even held that a member who was not a candidate did not have standing to challenge the election results that other persons should have been declared the winning candidates. While these arbitration decisions are not binding precedent, they are instructive and, if nothing else, useful in evaluating the best course of action.

In the context of condominium election challenges, there are three flaws that are typically “fatal” to the association, if committed. They are i) a substantive or serious defect in the first notice of election, ii) the failure to include a timely submitted candidate information sheet in the second notice of election, and iii) failure to include the name of each eligible candidate on the election ballot. While each of these can potentially be timely cured in advance of the election, if not, then they likely lead to a successful election challenge.

For example, failing to mail the notice of election to one or more owners or the failure of the first or second notice of election to accurately state the street address of the meeting have been considered as “fatal” flaws. Also, the failure to include a timely submitted candidate information sheet or failure to include the name of a candidate on the ballot have also been considered as  “fatal” flaws. However, so long as the election is re-noticed from the second notice of election, including all of the candidate and information sheets and/or also including the name of all of the candidates on the ballot, then such fatal flaws can be cured in advance of the election. In these instances there would be no further solicitation of candidates, but rather a rescheduling of the night of the election itself by sending a revised and corrected second notice of election at least 14 days prior to the election which would cure that defect. This amended second notice should clearly state the reason(s) for having to send the corrected notice.

It is important to note that while condominium association elections are strictly construed in accordance with relevant Florida Statutes, homeowners’ association elections occur in accordance with their governing documents. Therefore, whether the above fatal flaws have applicability to a homeowners’ association fully depends upon the style of election set out within the governing documents.

Arbitrators with the Division have held that a new election will have to be scheduled if  in the governing documents there is included a requirement that candidates be full-time residents of the state of Florida or even reside in their unit full time and such requirements were enforced during the election. Therefore, there cannot be a residency requirement of any kind for board members. Similarly, arbitrators have held that associations cannot require candidates to complete a criminal background check or even execute an acknowledgment that they are not a felon.

Contrary to popular belief, the relevant Florida Statutes do not require candidates to be members of a community association in order to run for the board of directors (often, “membership” is defined in the governing documents as being an owner of a parcel within the community). However, such requirements can be set out in the governing documents; but if such a requirement is not in the governing documents, then the board cannot disqualify a potential candidate because he or she is not an owner or member. This means that without such requirements specifically set forth in the governing documents of the association, any non-member, including tenants and occupants, are qualified to run for the board of directors. Therefore, if you desire to avoid such a circumstance, you should consult with legal counsel for your association regarding whether such requirements exist in the governing documents; if not, then you should consider preparing an amendment for the community to approve to ensure that only members who are actual members/owners of the association are qualified to run and serve on the board.

As to the first notice of election, notwithstanding any strict requirements set out in the first notice of election regarding where potential candidates must submit their notice of candidacy, it is not sufficient to exclude a candidate on the basis of the candidate  delivering his or her intent to be a candidate elsewhere so long as it is reasonable to conclude the association actually received notice of such candidate’s intent to run for the board. For example, a specific address could be required to mail the intent to run form, but the fact that a candidate hand-delivered such notice to a board member or manager would likely not be sufficient grounds to exclude the candidate.

Through a variety of arbitration decisions, the arbitrators have made clear that if the violation at hand would not have changed the results of the election, then the challenge will fail. For example, an association that improperly excluded several ballots due to perceived flaws with the outer envelope, which in fact were later held not to be flaws at all and which if counted would not have overturned the otherwise valid election results if the ballots were later included in the total count, would not have changed the result.

In other instances where numerous violations combine to clearly affect the reliability of the election results, then an election challenge may be valid. For example, where unit owners are permitted to cast ballots without inner envelopes, at least one owner was permitted to retrieve his ballot and change it, and nobody verified signatures on the outer ballot envelopes and where at least one unit owner was allowed to cast a ballot after the polls had already closed, then cumulatively the election results were determined to be  no longer reliable and a new election was required.

While the Division has promulgated condominium election rules in the Florida Administrative Code, it has not yet done so for homeowners’ associations. Therefore, the body of condominium arbitration decisions can provide some guidance; but for the most part, when examining homeowners’ association election challenges, the arbitrators are required to consider the significance and totality of violations in their decision-making as to whether to void an election, or not.

At times, for reasons that really do not make any practical sense, some management companies when preparing a homeowners’ association election revert back to the condominium form of election with a first notice, second notice, intent to run, etc. rather than relying on the homeowners’ association governing documents, which have a completely different election style and where voting is by proxy or in person. Also, there are no requirements to declare candidacy in advance of the annual election, meaning a candidate could actually nominate himself or herself from the floor of the meeting on the election day itself. When management companies go on autopilot and use the condominium style of election contrary to the requirements set out in the homeowners’ association governing documents, then the arbitrators will likely require a new election to take place in conformity with the governing documents of the homeowners’ association.

A successful challenge of a homeowners’ association election often rests upon whether the alleged violation affected the outcome of the election. This once again is evidence that unless the alleged violation would have changed the outcome of the election, then the election challenge likely fails even if there were serious irregularities during the election process.

A few odds and ends are worthy of discussion as well. An active board of directors should not use the association’s pulpit for campaigning. Doing so can lead to a successful election challenge. However, an existing board member can certainly campaign on his or her own time and using their own means but not through the association or its website. If the association has not enforced use of voting certificates, then to do so without providing advanced written notice and an opportunity for the owners to comply could invalidate election results. Finally, if a valid election does not occur because either a quorum was not achieved or in the condominium context at least 20 percent of the eligible voters did not cast the ballot, then there is no obligation of the association to try again.

When bringing an election challenge is under consideration, ask yourself if the irregularity would have brought about a change in the outcome of the election. If not, then, think twice about bringing the challenge. In any event, it is worthwhile for an association concerned with its election process to consult with the association’s lawyer for a detailed conversation as to how best to avoid such problems in the future.

Tags: ,
By now, you likely have heard that House Bill 1021 was signed into law by the Governor on June 14, 2024.

By now, you likely have heard that House Bill 1021 was signed into law by the Governor on June 14, 2024.

This new law impacts condominium associations governed under Chapter 718 of the Florida Statutes and for the most part has an effective date of July 1, 2024 (one Section is effective January 2026).

There have been several local (and even national) news stories focusing on various aspects of these wide-ranging changes, which are intended to strengthen what is perceived as a lack of oversight of board members and other stakeholders in the operation of condominium associations….

Read the full article on our website:

Thank You to our Legal Member and Sponsor.

Reach any office: 800-974-0680