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

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

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

Selective Enforcement  A Grossly Misunderstood Concept  by Kaye Bender Rembaum

Selective Enforcement A Grossly Misunderstood Concept by Kaye Bender Rembaum

  • Posted: Mar 01, 2021
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Selective Enforcement A Grossly Misunderstood Concept by Kaye Bender Rembaum

Selective Enforcement –  A Grossly Misunderstood Concept

by Kaye Bender Rembaum

 

Without exception, the affirmative defense of “selective enforcement” is one of the most misunderstood concepts in the entire body of community association law. How often have you heard something like this: “The board has not enforced the fence height limitation, so it cannot enforce any other architectural rules”? Simply put, nothing could be further from the truth.

 

When a community association seeks to enforce its covenants and/or its board adopted rules and regulations, an owner can, under the right circumstances, assert an affirmative defense such as the affirmative defense of selective enforcement. An affirmative defense is a “yes I did it, but so what” type of defense. In civil lawsuits, affirmative defenses include the statute of limitations, the statute of fraudswaiver, and more. However, it’s just not as simple as that. For example, a fence height limitation is a very different restriction than a required set back. Under most if not all circumstances, the failure to enforce a  fence height requirement is very different from the failure to enforce a setback requirement. Ordinarily, the affirmative defense of selective enforcement will only apply if the violation or circumstances are comparable, such that one could reasonably rely upon the non-enforcement of a particular covenant, restriction, or rule with respect to their own conduct or action.

 

In the seminal case of Chattel Shipping and Investment Inc. v. Brickell Place Condominium Association Inc., 481 So.2d 29 (FLA. 3rd DCA 1986), 45 owners had improperly enclosed their balconies. Thereafter, the association informed all of the owners that it would thereafter take “no action with respect to existing enclosed balconies, but prohibit future balcony constructions and enforce the enclosure prohibition.” As you might have already predicted, nevertheless, thereafter an owner of a unit, Chattel Shipping, enclosed their unit; and the association secured a mandatory injunction in the trial court requiring the removal of the balcony enclosure erected without permission. The owner appealed. In the end, the appellate court disagreed with the owner who argued that the association decision to enforce the “no enclosure” requirement only on a prospective basis was both selective enforcement and arbitrary. The court held that the adoption and implementation of a uniform policy under which, for obvious reasons of practicality and economy, a given building restriction will be enforced only prospectively cannot be deemed “selective and arbitrary.”

 

In Laguna Tropical, A Condominium Association Inc. v. Barnave, 208 So. 3d 1262, (Fla. 3d DCA 2017), the court again used the purpose of the restriction in its determination of whether the association engaged in selective enforcement. In Laguna Tropical, a rule prohibited floor covering other than carpeting unless expressly permitted by the association. Additionally, the rule provided that owners must place padding between the flooring and the concrete slab so that the flooring would be adequately soundproof. In this case, an owner installed laminate flooring on her second floor unit and the neighbor below complained that the noise disturbed his occupancy. As a result of the complaint, the association demanded that the owner remove the laminate flooring. However, the owner argued selective enforcement because the association only enforced the carpeting restriction against the eleven exclusively upstairs units in the condominium. The court noted that the remaining units in the condominium were either downstairs units only, or were configured to include both first-floor and second-floor residential space within the same unit.

 

Again, the court looked to the purpose of the prohibition on floor coverings other than carpet and found that the prohibition was plainly intended to avoid noise complaints. Therefore, no selective enforcement was proven because no complaints were shown to have arisen regarding any units except the eleven exclusively upstairs units.

 

What about cats and dogs? In another case, Prisco v. Forest Villas Condominium Apartments Inc., 847 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), the Fourth District Court of Appeals heard an appeal alleging selective enforcement regarding the association’s pet restrictions. The association had a pet restriction which stated that other than fish and birds, “no pets whatsoever” shall be allowed. In this case, the association had allowed an owner to keep a cat in her unit, but refused to allow another owner to keep a dog. The association argued that there was a distinction between the dog and the cat. However, on appeal, the court found that the restriction was clear and unambiguous that all pets other than fish and birds were prohibited. Therefore, the court reasoned that the facts which make dogs different from cats did not matter because the clear purpose of the restriction was to prohibit all types of pets except fish and birds. In other words, the court held that the plain and obvious purpose of a restriction should govern any interpretation of whether the association engaged in selective enforcement.

 

If an association has a “no pets” rule and allows cats, must it allow dogs, too? There is a long line of arbitration cases that have distinguished dogs from cats and other pets for purposes of selective enforcement. For example, in Beachplace Association Inc. v. Hurwitz, Case no. 02-5940, a Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Florida Condominium Arbitration case, the arbitrator found, in response to an owner’s selective enforcement defense raised in response to the association’s demand for removal of a dog, that even though cats were allowed, that comparison of dogs to cats was not a comparative, like kind situation. Further the arbitrator found that cats and dogs had significant distinctions such as barking versus meowing, and therefore the owner’s attempted use of the selective enforcement argument failed.

 

But, in Hallmark of Hollywood Condominium Association Inc. v. Andrews, Case 2003-09-2380, another Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Florida Condominium Arbitration case, the learned arbitrator James Earl decided that because the association has a full blown “no pets of any kind”  requirement and since cats were allowed, then dogs must be allowed, too. In other words, the defendant owner’s waiver defense worked. But, the arbitrator wisely noted in a footnote as follows: “The undersigned notes that there is a long line of arbitration cases that have distinguished dogs from cats and other pets for purposes of selective enforcement. However, the fourth district court of appeal has ruled that where the condominium documents contain particular language prohibiting all pets, any dissimilarity between dogs and cats is irrelevant and both must be considered. See Prisco.” The distinction between the two arbitration cases could be explained because of timing in that the 4th DCA’s decision in Prisco was not yet published when Hurwitz was decided.

From these important cases, it can be gleaned that

(i) even if an association has ignored a particular rule or covenant, that by giving written notice to the entire community that it will be enforced prospectively, the rule or covenant can be reinvigorated and becomes fully enforceable once again (though of course, prior non-conforming situations may have to be grandfathered depending on the situation),

(ii) if an association or an owner is seeking an estoppel affirmative defense, they must be sure all of the necessary elements are pled,

(iii) at times a court will look to the purpose of the rule itself where it makes sense to do so, and

(iv) dogs and cats are different, but they are both considered “pets.”

Remember to always discuss the complexities of re-enforcement of covenants and rules and regulations that were not enforced for some time with your association’s legal counsel in an effort to mitigate negative outcomes. The process (commonly referred to as “republication”) can restore the viability of a covenant or rule that may have been waived due to the lack of uniform and timely enforcement.

 

 

Legal Morsel | Court Concludes That Mistakes on a Claim of Lien Does Not Invalidate the Claim by BY ROBERT KAYE, ESQ., B.C.S

Legal Morsel | Court Concludes That Mistakes on a Claim of Lien Does Not Invalidate the Claim by BY ROBERT KAYE, ESQ., B.C.S

  • Posted: Feb 22, 2021
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Legal Morsel | Court Concludes That Mistakes on a Claim of Lien Does Not Invalidate the Claim by BY ROBERT KAYE, ESQ., B.C.S

Legal Morsel | Court Concludes That Mistakes on a Claim of Lien Does Not Invalidate the Claim

by BY ROBERT KAYE, ESQ., B.C.S

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal recently provided a ruling regarding the ability of a homeowner’s association to successfully complete a foreclosure for unpaid assessments when there was an error in the amount indicated as being owed on the claim of lien.  In the case of Pash v. Mahogany Way Homeowners Association, Inc., Case No. 4D19-3367, January 27, 2021, the Appellate Court was faced with the challenge of a lower court ruling in favor of the homeowner’s association in which the homeowner, Mr. Pash, had claimed that the amount indicated on the claim of lien was overstated from what was owed.  The record also reflected that the homeowner’s association admitted that it made a mistake in its calculation of the assessments on the lien but corrected the amount when it filed the foreclosure case.  It was not disputed that some assessments were delinquent when the foreclosure case began.

In a split decision, a majority of the Court focused on the requirements of Section 720.3085(1)(a) of Florida Statutes, as well as the provisions of the Declaration of Covenants for the Community.  The Statute provides the following:

To be valid, 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 attorney fees incurred by the association incident to the collection process.  The person making payment is entitled to a satisfaction of the lien upon payment in full.

While the case was reversed for other reasons, the majority of the Court stated that “Nothing in section 720.3085(1)(a) suggests that the claim [of lien] must be free of error for it to serve as an otherwise valid claim of lien.”  The Court also concluded that the statute, as written, does not provide that an error in the amount stated in the claim of lien invalidates an otherwise valid claim by an association.  Rather, the Court indicated that the association is merely asserting “a claim” in the lien and the association remains obligated to prove its claim in order to prevail in its case and homeowners have the ability to contest the claim made.

The Florida Condominium Act contains substantially the same provision as set forth above in Section 718,116(5)(b) F.S.  Consequently, it is anticipated that a lower court would likely apply the conclusions of this case to a condominium association foreclosure case.

It remains to be seen whether this holding is going to be viewed as an anomaly or will be followed by the remaining District Courts in Florida.  Notwithstanding this easing of the perception of association requirements on this point, it remains the recommendation that all collection efforts by associations be fully documented to a “zero” balance on the specific homeowner account to minimize any possible adverse conclusion in an assessment foreclosure case.  Legal counsel familiar with community association law should be involved to assist in the formal collection efforts against any homeowner.

 

 

Tags: , , ,
COVID-19 Best Practices for Community Associations with US Congressman TED Deutch Presented by KWPM & Kaye Bender & Rembaum

COVID-19 Best Practices for Community Associations with US Congressman TED Deutch Presented by KWPM & Kaye Bender & Rembaum

  • Posted: Feb 16, 2021
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on COVID-19 Best Practices for Community Associations with US Congressman TED Deutch Presented by KWPM & Kaye Bender & Rembaum

COVID-19 Best Practices for Community Associations with US Congressman TED Deutch

Feb 17, 2021 03:00 PM

Presented by KWPM & Kaye Bender & Rembaum

KWPM Executive Director Tim O’Keefe host this live, monthly webinar offering a dynamic landscape that addresses best practices for HOAs and Condo Associations, provides updates and features guests who offer insight into the industry.

This week’s panel of experts:
*US Congressman Ted Deutch, FL-22
*Attorney Jeffrey Rembaum, Partner with Kaye, Bender, & Rembaum
*Attorney Michael Bender, Partner with Kaye, Bender, & Rembaum

Register Today

Feb 17, 2021 03:00 PM
Mar 17, 2021 03:00 PM
Apr 21, 2021 03:00 PM
May 19, 2021 03:00 PM
Jun 16, 2021 03:00 PM
Jul 21, 2021 03:00 PM
Aug 18, 2021 03:00 PM

Time shows 

Tags: , ,
Discriminatory Practices: Is Your Association Prepared? by KBR Legal

Discriminatory Practices: Is Your Association Prepared? by KBR Legal

  • Posted: Feb 12, 2021
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Discriminatory Practices: Is Your Association Prepared? by KBR Legal

Discriminatory Practices: Is Your Association Prepared?

by Kaye Bender Rembaum

On September 26, 2016, Rembaum’s Association Round Up published an extremely important article regarding a community association’s potential liability when allegations by one member accuse another member of a discriminatory practice. (Click HERE to view the 2016 article). On September 13, 2016, HUD made clear that a housing provider is responsible for discriminatory practices that may take place. In its Rules and Regulations set out in Chapter 24, Part 100 of the Code of Federal Regulations, effective which further interprets the Federal Fair Housing Act, HUD explained that it believes that, “we are long past the time when racial harassment is a tolerable price for integrated housing; a housing provider is responsible for maintaining its properties free from all discrimination prohibited by the Act.” Those regulations became effective on October 14, 2016.

In this author’s opinion, HUD went way too far by mandating that housing providers act as the investigator, police, judge and jury in cases of alleged discrimination. After all, there are countless Fair Housing offices in each state where complaints can be filed and are actively investigated, often times with only a bare inference. Community association board members are volunteers with no required special training other than to be “certified” within 90 days of taking office, which certification can be met by signing a one-page form acknowledging duties or taking a two-hour class. Neither the individual board members nor the community as a whole should have to bear liability for its board of directors not taking action in a neighbor to neighbor dispute. Afterall, the court room is the proper setting where such matters should be resolved.

In the January 25, 2021, edition of the Palm Beach Post reporter Mike Diamond Special to Palm Beach Post USA TODAY NETWORK, authored an article titled “Judge Won’t Dismiss HOA Religious Bias Suit.” In the article the judge was quoted as follows: ““the La-Grassos [the plaintiff’s] have plausibly alleged a claim against the association for its failure to respond to or seek to control Ms. Tannenholz’s allegedly discriminatory conduct.” Amongst other things, the allegation is that Tannenholz’s told La-Grassos, “you do not belong in a community that is 80% Jewish and that La-Grassos should “move the F… out and go to a white supremist community.”

 

But for HUD’s position that a housing provider can have liability for discriminatory practices of the residents it is unlikely the association would be a defendant in this lawsuit. By forcing housing providers, such as Florida’s countless condominium, homeowners’ and cooperative associations, to interject themselves into what should be private disputes amongst neighbors, HUD is providing the deepest of pockets to the plaintiff’s attorneys. At the end of the day, it is just another reason to sue the innocent community association to create liability where there should not be any in the first place.

Practical Tip no. 1: In light of this lurking danger, be sure to check in with your association’s insurance agent to be sure the association has proper liability coverage for accusations of discrimination.

Practical Tip no. 2: Also, given that there can even be personal liability in such actions, board members would be wise to speak to their own personal insurance agents too… Afterall you never know when that umbrella policy may come in handy. Remember this, too: if one board member has knowledge about an event, then such knowledge can be imputed to all board members as if they are all similarly aware. In other words, when one board member knows, then the association itself is on notice.

Practical Tip no. 3: Consider formally adopting a “no discrimination” type of rule. It could be as simple as “discrimination of any kind will not be tolerated”.

Practical Tip no. 4: If your association is made aware of an alleged discriminatory practice, then a written record of such allegation and the association’s efforts to remedy the situation should be made.

Be sure to discuss each and every alleged discriminatory practice brought to the attention of the board and/or its manager with the association’s attorney to obtain the proper guidance needed.

 

 

Tags: , , ,
Hosting Association Meetings via Zoom by KBRLegal.com

Hosting Association Meetings via Zoom by KBRLegal.com

  • Posted: Feb 08, 2021
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Hosting Association Meetings via Zoom by KBRLegal.com

Hosting Association Meetings via Zoom

by KBRLegal.com

 

What You Need to Know    

The most asked question of 2020 is this: Can our association host our board and annual meetings using Zoom or another similar virtual/electronic platform? There is no doubt that technology will always advance faster than legislation. In fact, advances in technology seem to take place in light speed whereM as advances in legislation seem to travel at the speed of your average turtle.

 

As to board meetings, §718.112(2)(b)5 of the Condominium Act provides, “A board or committee member’s participation in a meeting via telephone, real-time videoconferencing, or similar real-time electronic or video communication counts toward a quorum, and such member may vote as if physically present. A speaker must be used so that the conversation of such members may be heard by the board or committee members attending in person as well as by any unit owners present at a meeting.” Note that similar provisions are provided for cooperative associations in §719.106(1)(b)5 and in §617.0820 for homeowners’ associations.

 

As to virtual membership meetings, Chapter 617 Florida Statutes, applicable to all of Florida’s not-for-profit community associations, provides in §617.0721(3) that if authorized by the board of directors, and subject to such guidelines and procedures as the board of directors may adopt, members and proxy holders who are not physically present at a meeting may, by means of remote communication participate in the meeting and be deemed to be present in person and vote at the meeting if the corporation implements reasonable means to verify that each person deemed present and authorized to vote by means of remote communication is a member or proxy holder; and the corporation implements reasonable measures to provide such members or proxy holders with a reasonable opportunity to participate in the meeting and to vote on matters submitted to the members, including an opportunity to communicate and to read or hear the proceedings of the meeting substantially concurrent with the proceedings. If any member or proxy holder votes or takes other action by means of remote communication, a record of that member’s participation in the meeting must be maintained by the corporation in accordance with §617.1601. [emphasis added]

 

In addition, the Condominium, Homeowners Association, and Cooperative Acts (Chapters 718, 720, and 719, Florida Statutes, respectively), provide that members have a right to speak during board and membership meetings (more on that below). In fact, each of the Acts also provide that board members can even communicate, but not make decisions, via email. Rule 61B23.001(2) of the Florida Administrative Code provides, in relevant part, that “all unit owners have the right to attend and observe all meetings of the board…” With this limited guidance as our backdrop, let’s ask the question slightly differently.

 

Can our association host our board and annual meetings via Zoom or another electronic platform so long as all members have their opportunity to speak at the relevant times and all other statutory requirements are followed, such as a speakerphone in the designated meeting location for condominium association board meetings? The answer, simply put, is “yes,” you can.

 

It is extremely important when planning on hosting the meeting through a Zoom-type platform that you think ahead about the implications. The type of vote that will occur at any membership meeting must be carefully considered. For example, what if there is an election and members have not yet opted to vote electronically? Provisions must be made to gather ballots up to the closing of the balloting at the membership meeting and for write-in candidates, too, as applicable (in a homeowners association type setting). Instructions must also be clearly provided to the members letting them know how the votes will be counted and ensuring the membership that they can observe the entire tabulation of the voting process. For example,

 

Dear Members, In accordance with s. 720.316, Florida Statutes, in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the Association’s members, except for the members who volunteer to assist with the tally of the ballots (along with the man- agement team and the Association’s legal counsel), there will be NO in-person attendance at the annual meeting. Although there will be no in-person atten- dance, the annual meeting will be broadcast through Zoom (online video conf- erencing) for those who wish to remotely attend and observe the annual meeting, including the tallying of ballots. You may join the Zoom meeting at the appointed time by using the following link in your web browser: ___________ or through the Zoom ap- plication on your smart phone or tablet with Meet- ing ID: __________ and entering the following Password: ___________.

 

Since we are on the subject of board and membership meetings and we are in “election season,” as it is affectionally referred to, let’s take a quick look at meeting notice requirements, eligibility, and terms for board of directors, vacancies, election disputes, and a members’ right to speak.

 

BOARD MEETING NOTICE REQUIREMENTS

 

Pursuant to §718.112(2)(c)1, 719.106(1)(c), and 720.303(2)(c), Florida Statutes, notice of a meeting of the board must be posted in a conspicuous place on the property at least 48 continuous hours preceding the meeting, unless the governing documents of the association require additional notice. However, notice of meetings of the board at which regular or special assessments against unit owners or at which amendment to the rules regarding unit use will be considered must be mailed, delivered, or electronically transmitted to the owners and posted conspicuously on the property not less than 14 days before the meeting. Remember, too, electronic transmission is only permitted if the owner provides prior written consent.

 

As discussed in more detail below, for annual meetings of the membership where an election will be held, the notice requirements for condominium and cooperative associations differ from the requirements for homeowners associations. However, for other meetings of the members, unless a homeowners association’s bylaws provide differently, the notice requirements are the same. Pursuant to §718.112(2)(d)3 and 719.106(1)(d), Florida Statutes, notice of a meeting of the membership must be given to each owner and posted in a conspicuous place on the property at least 14 days before the meeting. For homeowners associations, pursuant to 720.306(5), Florida Statutes, notice of meetings of the members must be given 14 days prior to the meeting, unless the bylaws provide differently. For meetings of the members where an election will be held, pursuant to §718.112(2)(d)4 and 719.106(1)(d)1, Florida Statutes, the first notice of the annual meeting of the membership must be sent to the members at least 60 days prior to the meeting, and the second notice must be provided at least 14 days to the members and posted conspicuously on the property at least 14 days in advance before the meeting. For homeowners associations’ annual meetings, notice must be provided at least 14 days before the meeting unless the bylaws provide differently pursuant to §720.306(5), Florida Statutes.

 

ELIGIBILITY AND TERMS FOR BOARD OF DIRECTORS

 

The eligibility requirements for board members are set out in §718.112(2)(d)2, 719.106(1)(a), and 720.306(9)(b). Pursuant to the foregoing, a person who is delinquent in the payment of any fine, fee, or other monetary obligation to the association is not eligible to be a candidate for the board. Additionally, any person who has been convicted of a felony is not eligible to serve on the board unless the person’s civil rights have been restored for at least five years. With the passage of Amendment 4, voting rights were restored to people convicted of a felony. It is unclear what impact Amendment 4 will have on the restrictions to eligibility for board members.

 

Additionally, condominium associations should be aware that §718.112(2)(d)2 was amended to provide that a board member may not serve more than eight consecutive years unless approved by two-thirds of all votes cast in an election or if there are not enough eligible candidates to fill vacancies on the board. However, this provision applies prospectively, which means the clock did not start until the law went into effect on July 1, 2018. Additionally, this only prohibits eight consecutive years of service. If a board member has a break in service, then the clock would begin again.

 

For condominium and cooperative associations with 10 or more units, co-owners of units are not eligible to serve on a condominium board unless they own more than one unit or unless there are not enough eligible candidates. This is not applicable to homeowners associations.

 

Governing documents may provide that you must be an owner to serve on the board, but generally they cannot establish other eligibility requirements, such as residency requirements.

 

VACANCIES

 

In the event of a vacancy on the board, pursuant to §718.112(2)(d)9, 719.106(1)(d)6, and 720.306(9)(c), unless the bylaws provide otherwise, the vacancy may be filled by the affirmative vote of a majority of the remaining directors, even if the remaining directors constitute less than a quorum, or if there is only one director remaining. In the event there is only one director remaining on the board, that director can choose to appoint people to fill all of the vacancies.

 

ELECTION DISPUTES

 

Election disputes for condominium, cooperative, and homeowners associations are handled by the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Florida Condominiums, Timeshares, and Mobile Homes (the “DBPR”) through mandatory arbitration in accordance with §718.1255(1), 719.1255, and 720.311(1), Florida Statutes. Pursuant to §718.112(2)(d)4.c, 719.106(1)(d)1.a, and 720.306(9)(a), any challenge to an election must be brought within 60 days after the election results are announced. Additionally, a board member cannot be subject to a recall when there are 60 or fewer days until a scheduled election, or when 60 or fewer days have not elapsed since the election of the board member sought to be recalled.

 

MEMBER PARTICIPATION

 

Members have a right to speak at meetings of the membership. Pursuant to §718.112(2)(c) and 719.106(1)(d)4, Florida Statutes, members of condominium and cooperative associations have the right to participate in meetings of the unit owners with reference to all designated agenda items. Pursuant to §720.306(6), members of a homeowners association have the right to speak with reference to all items opened for discussion and all items included on the agenda. In other words, in a homeowners association, members can speak on any matter that was opened for discussion, even if the matter was not listed on the agenda for the meeting. Additionally, §720.306(6), Florida Statutes, provides that a member must be allowed at least three minutes to speak on any item.

 

Members also have a right to speak at meetings of the board of directors. [Pursuant to §718.112(2) (d)7 and 719.106(1)(c), Florida Statutes, members of condominium and cooperative associations have a right to speak at board meetings with reference to all designated agenda items. Pursuant to §720.303(2)(b), members have a right to speak at a board meeting with reference to all designated items.]

 

In all instances condominium, cooperative, and homeowners association boards are authorized to adopt reasonable rules governing frequency, duration, and other manner of member comments for the board and membership meetings. To make the member comments more meaningful, consider permitting them after the board fully discusses each item, prior to voting, and prior to moving on to the next item.

 

It is recommended you consult with your association legal counsel on the adoption of reasonable rules to ensure your virtual/electronic meetings run smoothly while also ensuring that they are in compliance with the association’s governing documents, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code.

 

 

Tags: ,
Discriminatory Practices, Is Your Association Prepared?  by Rembaum’s Association Roundup

Discriminatory Practices, Is Your Association Prepared? by Rembaum’s Association Roundup

  • Posted: Jan 28, 2021
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Discriminatory Practices, Is Your Association Prepared? by Rembaum’s Association Roundup

Discriminatory Practices, Is Your Association Prepared?

by Rembaum’s Association Roundup  presented by: Kaye Bender Rembaum

On September 26, 2016, Rembaum’s Association Round Up published an extremely important article regarding a community association’s potential liability when allegations by one member accuse another member of a discriminatory practice. (Click HERE to view the 2016 article). On September 13, 2016, HUD made clear that a housing provider is responsible for discriminatory practices that may take place. In its Rules and Regulations set out in Chapter 24, Part 100 of the Code of Federal Regulations, effective which further interprets the Federal Fair Housing Act, HUD explained that it believes that, “we are long past the time when racial harassment is a tolerable price for integrated housing; a housing provider is responsible for maintaining its properties free from all discrimination prohibited by the Act.” Those regulations became effective on October 14, 2016.

In this author’s opinion, HUD went way too far by mandating that housing providers act as the investigator, police, judge and jury in cases of alleged discrimination. After all, there are countless Fair Housing offices in each state where complaints can be filed and are actively investigated, often times with only a bare inference. Community association board members are volunteers with no required special training other than to be “certified” within 90 days of taking office, which certification can be met by signing a one-page form acknowledging duties or taking a two-hour class. Neither the individual board members nor the community as a whole should have to bear liability for its board of directors not taking action in a neighbor to neighbor dispute. Afterall, the court room is the proper setting where such matters should be resolved.

In the January 25, 2021, edition of the Palm Beach Post reporter Mike Diamond Special to Palm Beach Post USA TODAY NETWORK, authored an article titled “Judge Won’t Dismiss HOA Religious Bias Suit.” In the article the judge was quoted as follows: ““the La-Grassos [the plaintiff’s] have plausibly alleged a claim against the association for its failure to respond to or seek to control Ms. Tannenholz’s allegedly discriminatory conduct.” Amongst other things, the allegation is that Tannenholz’s told La-Grassos, “you do not belong in a community that is 80% Jewish and that La-Grassos should “move the F… out and go to a white supremist community.”

But for HUD’s position that a housing provider can have liability for discriminatory practices of the residents it is unlikely the association would be a defendant in this lawsuit. By forcing housing providers, such as Florida’s countless condominium, homeowners’ and cooperative associations, to interject themselves into what should be private disputes amongst neighbors, HUD is providing the deepest of pockets to the plaintiff’s attorneys. At the end of the day, it is just another reason to sue the innocent community association to create liability where there should not be any in the first place.

 

Practical Tip no. 1: In light of this lurking danger, be sure to check in with your association’s insurance agent to be sure the association has proper liability coverage for accusations of discrimination.

Practical Tip no. 2: Also, given that there can even be personal liability in such actions, board members would be wise to speak to their own personal insurance agents too… Afterall you never know when that umbrella policy may come in handy. Remember this, too: if one board member has knowledge about an event, then such knowledge can be imputed to all board members as if they are all similarly aware. In other words, when one board member knows, then the association itself is on notice.

Practical Tip no. 3: Consider formally adopting a “no discrimination” type of rule. It could be as simple as “discrimination of any kind will not be tolerated”.

Practical Tip no. 4: If your association is made aware of an alleged discriminatory practice, then a written record of such allegation and the association’s efforts to remedy the situation should be made.

Be sure to discuss each and every alleged discriminatory practice brought to the attention of the board and/or its manager with the association’s attorney to obtain the proper guidance needed.

 


Jeffrey Rembaum, Esq.

Board Certified Specialist in Condominium and Planned Development Law and a community association lawyer with the law firm Kaye Bender Rembaum, in its Palm Beach Gardens office.

His law practice consists of representing condominium, homeowners, and cooperative associations, developers and unit owners throughout Florida.

He can be reached by email at JRembaum@KBRLegal.com or by calling 561-241-4462.

 

 

Tags: , , ,
Financial Screening of Purchasers: How Far Is Too Far? by Kaye Bender Rembaum

Financial Screening of Purchasers: How Far Is Too Far? by Kaye Bender Rembaum

  • Posted: Jan 14, 2021
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Financial Screening of Purchasers: How Far Is Too Far? by Kaye Bender Rembaum

Financial Screening of Purchasers: How Far Is Too Far?

by Kaye Bender Rembaum / Rembaum’s Association Roundup

 

A few months back a case came before the county court in the 20th Judicial Circuit for Collier County, wherein a prospective buyer challenged the validity of a board-adopted rule which required that all prospective buyers provide two years of tax returns with their application for ownership approval. This requirement was in addition to the background check and credit check that were also required. While this is only a county court case and, therefore, has no precedential value other than to the parties themselves, there are principles addressed of which associations and managers should be aware; even though many learned attorneys would opine that the conclusions of the court are legally flawed under the facts of the case and, if appealed, would likely be overturned. Nevertheless, there are still nuggets of knowledge that can be gleaned from this case.

In this case, Mech v. Crescent Beach Condominium Association, Inc., Case No. 19-SC-3498, decided June 2020, the purchaser, who was the plaintiff, was seeking to buy a unit at Crescent Beach Condominium for $400,000, which was to be paid in cash. The purchaser purportedly had a clean background and a credit score of 800. Nonetheless, the board required that, like all other prospective purchasers at the condominium, this purchaser needed to produce his tax returns in order for the association to approve the transfer. The purchaser refused to provide his tax returns and cited his good credit score and clean background as evidence enough for approval. Eventually, an impasse was reached, and the purchaser canceled the contract. Then he brought the county court lawsuit challenging the requirement. (Generally speaking, typically under current Florida law, the purchaser would not have legal standing to even bring the claim against the association; but it does not appear that this legal infirmity was raised by the association, which allowed the case to proceed.)

The purchaser challenged the rule, arguing that the rule was not within the scope of the association’s authority to adopt, nor did it reflect reasoned decision-making. (It is noteworthy to point out that, after the initiation of the lawsuit, the association amended its declaration of condominium to provide that the association may require tax returns in an application for approval of a sale. However, this is not relevant to the conclusions of the Court in this case since it occurred after the litigation was filed.)

The association argued that the tax returns are necessary because they provide more information than a credit report and could help ensure that the potential purchaser is “a good credit risk.” The Court, however, did not agree, calling the argument “nonsensical.” The Court goes on to identify what this judge considers to be the best indicator of a person’s financial history, and as a result, it is the only information the association is allowed to seek. (We note that this conclusion is also without a stated legal basis.)

In the final judgment, some might argue that the Court goes way beyond what proper judicial consideration and conclusions typically contain and indicates that she could find “NO justification for the invasive requirement that a full, or even partial, return would be required when, in fact, the board already requires a full background check and credit check.” While no legal support for the conclusion was provided, the Court held that the request for tax returns was invasive and unnecessary and that the requirement was “shocking.”

 

The Court objected to the blanket requirement that applied to every applicant regardless of the results of their background and credit checks. Had the tax returns only been required when an applicant’s credit history showed a history of financial instability or delinquencies, the rule may have been upheld by the Court. How-ever, the Court held that “to take a position that ‘every person’ who applies to be a member at [the association] is patently unreasonable and shall be stricken.” Lastly, also without a legal basis or ability, the Court ordered the association to strike all reference in its condominium documents which require potential purchasers to produce tax returns unless the association can show good cause to request the information.

A brief discussion regarding the adoption of rules and regulations is necessary to highlight lessons that can be learned from this case. Generally, both condominium and homeowners association governing documents will typically provide that the board of the directors has the authority to adopt rules and regulations for the community. While some governing documents may contain restrictions requiring a membership vote to approve new rules, it is common for the governing documents to provide the board with the authority to adopt rules and regulations. (Careful review of the documentary authority for each community is recommended as some may limit the rule-making authority to common areas only and not to the residential property within the community.)  Although the board is generally authorized to adopt rules and regulations, those rules and regulations must not conflict with any provision expressly set out in the governing documents or reasonably inferred from them, and they must be reasonable. (This should be contrasted with covenants recorded in the County’s official records, which may be unreasonable and still be legally enforceable under long-standing Florida case law.)

 

In Beachwood Villas Condominium v. Poor, et. al., a 1984 Fourth District Court of Appeal (4th DCA) case  in which several owners challenged rules enacted by their association’s board of directors, the Court noted that there could be two sources of use restrictions: (i) those set out in the declaration of condominium and (ii) those adopted by the board. As to the use restrictions set out in the declaration, the court held that such restrictions are “clothed with a very strong presumption of validity,” as initially provided in Hidden Harbor Estates v. Basso (a 1981 4th DCA case).

In examining board-adopted rules, the court first must determine whether the board acted within its scope of authority—in other words, whether the board had the express authority in the documents to adopt the rule in the first place. If the answer is “yes,” the second question to determine is whether the rule conflicts with an express provision of the governing documents or one that is reasonably inferred. (If the documents are silent on an issue, the inference is that it is unrestricted. Adopting a rule to restrict a topic that the declaration is otherwise silent about would conflict with the inferred unrestricted use and therefore be unenforceable.)  If these first two issues are found to exist, the court will then determine if the rule is reasonable. The board’s exercise of its reasonable business judgment in adopting a rule is generally upheld so long as the rule is not “violative of any constitutional restrictions and does not exceed any specific limitations set out in the statutes or condominium documents.”

 

In examining your own board-adopted rules, ask the following:

  • Did the board have the power to adopt the rule?
  • Is the rule in accord with with the declaration, articles of incorporation, or bylaws?
  • Is the rule reasonable under the circumstances? (While ultimately only a court can make this final determination, the board should use its best judgment, with assistance of its counsel, to reach this decision.)

If the answer to these three questions is “yes,” then the rule should be found to be valid and enforceable by the court upon an owner challenge.

Ultimately, what can be gleaned from Mech v. Crescent Beach Condominium Association Inc. is that even if the association acts reasonably when adopting rules and even when amending the declaration, a lower court judge can reach almost any decision it wishes. Had the provision at issue only required tax returns when the background or credit checks revealed that the prospective purchaser had a history of financial irresponsibility, the provision may have withstood judicial challenge by this particular judge. Additionally, had the provision requiring tax returns been set out in the declaration before the initiation of the lawsuit, the outcome may have been different under existing, well-established case law.

Bottom line, whenever the board is considering new rules, it is recommended that the board consult with the association’s legal counsel before adopting them.


Jeffrey Rembaum, Esq.

Board Certified Specialist in Condominium and Planned Development Law and a community association lawyer with the law firm Kaye Bender Rembaum, in its Palm Beach Gardens office.

His law practice consists of representing condominium, homeowners, and cooperative associations, developers and unit owners throughout Florida.

He can be reached by email at JRembaum@KBRLegal.com or by calling 561-241-4462.

 

Tags: , ,
Association Rules After Expiration of the Governor’s State of Emergency Order for COVID-19 by Kaye Bender Rembaum

Association Rules After Expiration of the Governor’s State of Emergency Order for COVID-19 by Kaye Bender Rembaum

  • Posted: Jan 08, 2021
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Association Rules After Expiration of the Governor’s State of Emergency Order for COVID-19 by Kaye Bender Rembaum

Association Rules After Expiration of the Governor’s State of Emergency Order for COVID-19

by Kaye Bender Rembaum

By the time you read this article, the governor’s declared state of emergency as related to the coronavirus may have reached an end. If not, well, hopefully it will soon enough due to significant diminution of the coronavirus. What then? What happens to the rules adopted by an association in an effort to combat the coronavirus? Can an association turn away guests of residents? Can the number of people allowed to use the amenities, such as the pool, be limited? Just how far can the board go in its efforts to create reasonable rules?

The emergency powers set out in §720.316 of the Homeowners’ Association Act, §718.1265 of the Condominium Act, and §719.128 of the Cooperative Act begin essentially the same. They each begin with the following phrase:

To the extent allowed by law and unless specifically prohibited by the declaration or other recorded document [or declaration of condominium, its articles or bylaws or cooperative documents, as the case may be], the articles, or the bylaws of an association, and consistent with the provisions of s. 617.0830, the board of administration, in response to damage caused by an event for which a state of emergency is declared pursuant to s. 252.36 in the locale in which the association [or condominium or cooperative as the case may be]   is located, may, but is not required to, exercise the following powers:…

 

In addition, they each end essentially the same, too, as follows:

The special powers authorized under subsection (1) shall be limited to that time reasonably necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the association and the unit owners and the unit owners’ family members, tenants, guests, agents, or invitees and shall be reasonably necessary to mitigate further damage and make emergency repairs.

 

Therefore, the emergency power legislation contemplates use of the emergency powers in response to damage caused by an event for which a state of emergency has been declared by the governor and for a reasonable amount of time after the state of emergency is over, as necessary. But, as related to the coronavirus, can the emergency powers still be relied upon at the conclusion of the governor’s declared state of emergency? It is undisputable that the emergency power legislation was drafted in response to hurricanes, where actual damage to buildings and other property occurred, and not for the epidemic of an unexpected deadly virus. But, at least this ever-important legislation lent its applicability to the coronavirus situation and was relied upon by boards and lawyers alike to allow association board members to approve rules in an effort to contain the coronavirus. In response to the virus, some association boards restricted realtor showings and construction work, limited or even prevented guests, and the list goes on and on. Often these rules were adopted with limited notice to the members, sometimes outside of properly noticed meetings (which, depending on the situation may have been, was permitted at the time pursuant to the statutory emergency powers, which still require providing reasonable notice under the circumstances). The further in time we are from the end of the declared state of emergency, the less the emergency powers legislation can be relied upon…most especially because they were drafted with a different type of emergency in mind.

Therefore, in order to ensure your community’s, by now likely revised and lessened, coronavirus rules and regulations remain valid and enforceable, it is important to review the basics. Board members have a fiduciary duty to their association members. That duty supports board-promulgated rules that promote the health, happiness, and peace of mind of the majority of the members. Thus, rules can be adopted for different reasons. At times, a rule may be necessary under the circumstances. For example, say the local health department issues a special bulletin regarding a significant rise in coronavirus within a very limited geographic region in which an association has membership consisting of aged members. Likely, that association may reasonably adopt more stringent rules than an association located in an area with very few cases.

Clearly, if an association is going to restrict vendor and guest access or the rights of the members to use amenities that they otherwise have a lawful right to use, then the board better be able to create the necessary nexus between the situation at hand and rule at issue.

 

Rules Must Be Reasonable

In Hidden Harbour Estates v. Norman, 309 So. 2d 180 (Fla 4th DCA 1975), unit owners challenged a board-adopted rule prohibiting the use of alcoholic beverages in certain areas of the common elements of the condominium. The trial court found the rule invalid, holding that rules must have some reasonable relationship to the protection of life, property, or the general welfare of the residents of the condominium to be valid and enforceable. The Fourth District Court of Appeal, however, held that the rule was valid because the rule was reasonable. The Court explained that there is a principle “inherent to the condominium concept” that each unit owner must give up a certain degree of freedom in a condominium in order to promote the health, happiness, and peace of mind of the majority of unit owners. The Court concluded that the test for the validity of a rule is reasonableness. An association is not permitted to adopt arbitrary or capricious rules that do not relate to the health, happiness, and enjoyment of the unit owners. However, if a rule is reasonable, the association is permitted to adopt it.

 

Rule Validity

In Hidden Harbour Estates v. Basso, 393 So. 2d 637 (Fla 4th DCA 1981), the association sought to enjoin unit owners from maintaining a shallow well on their property. The Fourth District Court of Appeal noted that there are two categories of use restrictions: (i) use restrictions set out in the declaration of condominium and (ii) rules adopted by the board or the refusal of the board to allow a certain use when the board has the authority to grant or deny such use. The Court concluded that use restrictions set out in the declaration are “clothed with a very strong presumption of validity” because unit owners purchase their unit knowing of and accepting the restrictions to be imposed. However, rules adopted by the board do not enjoy the strong presumption of validity and must be “reasonably related to the promotion of the health, happiness, and peace of mind of the unit owners.” In this case, the board articulated three reasons for refusing to allow the unit owners to install a well on their property. However, the Court held that the there was no evidence to support the association’s articulated reasons for denial, and therefore the association failed to demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the denial of the application and the objectives which the association argued the denial would achieve. Because the board’s denial was not reasonable, it was held invalid.

 

Rules Cannot Contravene Declaration or Rights Inferable Therefrom

In Beachwood Villas Condominium v. Poor, 448 So. 2d 1143 (Fla 4th DCA 1984), unit owners challenged two rules adopted by the board of directors of the association which regulated unit rentals and the occupancy of units by guests during the owner’s absence. The trial court held that the rules were invalid because they exceeded the scope of the board’s authority. However, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court and held that the rules were within the scope of the board’s authority. The Court looked to the decision in Hidden Harbour v. Basso, and the two sources of use restrictions: those set out in the declaration of condominium and those adopted by the board. The Court noted that board-adopted rules are reviewed first by determining whether the board acted within the scope of its authority and second, whether the rule reflects reasoned or arbitrary and capricious decision-making.

 

The Court determined that a board-adopted rule that does not contravene either an express provision of the declaration or a right reasonably inferable therefrom will be found valid. In other words, if the board has the authority to adopt the rule, and the rule does not conflict with the declaration or any right reasonably inferable from the declaration, the board is acting within the scope of its authority to adopt the rule. In this case, the unit owners did not challenge the reasonableness of the rules, so the Court ended its analysis with the question of the board’s authority to adopt the rule and did not move on to the reasonableness considerations discussed in Hidden Harbor v. Basso. As the rules adopted by the board did not contravene either an express provision of the declaration or any right inferable therefrom, the Court held that the rules were within the scope of the board’s authority, and were, therefore, valid.

 

Remember, when the board publishes an agenda which provides rules will be considered for adoption, that if the rule governs a member’s use of their property or unit then it requires a 14-day notice to all members. The notice must also be posted conspicuously on the property 14 days in advance of the meeting. Rules affecting the common area and common elements only require the typical 48- hour board meeting notice. Of course, your community’s governing documents may also have requirements regarding rule adoption, and if so, they likely should be adhered to as well. After board adoption the rules need to be sent out to the entire community. In addition, homeowners’ association rules should be recorded in the county’s official records, too.

 

It is a given that as society progresses to normal, rules that were needed yesterday can become outdated today. Be sure to be in touch with your association’s lawyer regarding the continuation of any previously adopted coronavirus restrictions and any proposed new rules prior to board adoption to help ensure their continued enforceability.

 


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

The health and safety of your Community and all residents is very important to us.

We also realize that our clients have uncertainty and concerns around the continuing operation of your Community, and our team of attorneys will remain available to all of you during these times.

Be sure to check out our very useful and informative COVID-19 section on our website, which is updated regularly, as we continue to follow developments affecting community associations. You can visit it by clicking HERE.

 

Tags: , ,
With all the Rent, Evictions issues we are facing we thought you should remember the Foreclosure Act of 2009 and the Florida Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. by Kaye Bender Rembaum

With all the Rent, Evictions issues we are facing we thought you should remember the Foreclosure Act of 2009 and the Florida Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. by Kaye Bender Rembaum

  • Posted: Dec 31, 2020
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on With all the Rent, Evictions issues we are facing we thought you should remember the Foreclosure Act of 2009 and the Florida Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. by Kaye Bender Rembaum

Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 – Resurrected and Here to Stay

Posted

On May 20 2009, just after the peak of the national foreclosure crisis, a federal statute was enacted to help protect a residential tenant who was renting a unit subject to foreclosure from being evicted without being afforded a reasonable amount of time to find alternative housing.

The federal law was known as Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009. It generally provided that a bona fide tenant was authorized to remain in a residential unit that was acquired by a new party through foreclosure for the balance of the unexpired term of the lease, unless the unit was acquired by a party that intended to occupy the unit, in which case the tenant was authorized to remain in the unit for ninety days after receiving a notice to vacate.

For purposes of the federal law, a “bona fide tenant” was a tenant who was not the mortgagor or the parent, spouse, or child of the mortgagor and who was under a lease that was the result of an arms-length transaction where rent was not substantially lower than fair market value.

The federal law assured that residential tenants would have a reasonable amount of time to plan and find alternative housing after the unit they were renting was foreclosed and acquired by a new party. However, it also assisted community associations in finding desirable tenants to rent units they owned through the foreclosure of the association’s assessment lien for a fair market value, which then helped the association recoup unpaid assessments and bad debt otherwise attributable to the unit.

The protections of the federal law were intended to “sunset”, which is a term meaning ”to expire”, on December 31, 2012. However, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) later extended the sunset date to December 31, 2014. Once the federal law finally expired on January 1, 2015, tenants of residential property in Florida no longer had any special protection from eviction by parties acquiring such units by foreclosure.

Then, approximately six month later, the Florida legislature adopted its own version of the law as part of the Florida Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. Specifically, section 83.561, Florida Statutes, became effective on June 15, 2015, and provides that “if a tenant is occupying a residential premises that is the subject of a foreclosure sale, the purchaser named in the certificate of title is permitted to give a tenant a thirty day notice to vacate and the tenant must comply”. Therefore, as of June 15, 2015, residential tenants had a much shorter timeframe of thirty days’ notice to vacate a unit acquired by foreclosure.

Finally, on June 23, 2018, the federal Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act became effective again. It no longer contains any sunset or expiration date; so it is here to stay. Since a federal law will supersede a Florida law when it is more stringent, the provisions of the Federal Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act giving tenants more time to vacate residential property after it is acquired by a new party through foreclosure will apply to transactions in Florida despite the shorter time frame provided by state statute.

 


There is help for Landlords and Property managers: You can view the Process of Evictions where you can learn what are the Laws of Evictions in your State

Learn the Eviction Process in the State your Property is Located.

Each State has different things to do in an eviction, most all evictions start with some kind of termination of the tenancy either by the Landlord or the Tenant. Every State has Laws that make it necessary to follow that State’s Process in the event of an Eviction. Learn The Eviction Process in your State. Landlords and Tenants find information on how to evict a tenant or how to defend an eviction.

 


Jeffrey A. Rembaum, Esq., B.C.S.

Jeffrey Rembaum, Esq. is a community association lawyer with the law firm Kaye Bender Rembaum,
in its Palm Beach Gardens office. His law practice consists of representing condominium,
homeowners, and cooperative associations, developers and unit owners throughout Florida.
He can be reached by email at JRembaum@KBRLegal.com or by calling 561-241-4462

https://rembaumsassociationroundup.com/

 

 

Tags: , ,
December 8th, 9th and 10th Virtual HOA, Condo and HARASSMENT, CYBER-STALKING, DEFAMATION & SLANDER Events by Kaye Bender Rembaum

December 8th, 9th and 10th Virtual HOA, Condo and HARASSMENT, CYBER-STALKING, DEFAMATION & SLANDER Events by Kaye Bender Rembaum

  • Posted: Dec 07, 2020
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on December 8th, 9th and 10th Virtual HOA, Condo and HARASSMENT, CYBER-STALKING, DEFAMATION & SLANDER Events by Kaye Bender Rembaum

Virtual:

  • HOA Board Certification Course,
  • Condo Board Certification Course and
  • Board & Property Management Seminar on  “HARASSMENT, CYBER-STALKING, DEFAMATION & SLANDER IN COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS” 

Virtual HOA Board Member Certification Course

WEBINAR Florida

Virtual HOA Board Member Certification Course Tuesday, December 8, 2020 from 5:30 PM – 8:00 PM

Join us for this Virtual HOA Board Certification Course taught by Emily Gannon from Kaye Bender Rembaum. We will also have a “Board Member Best Practices” presentation during the course presented by Campbell Property Management. This session is for Board Members of Homeowners Associations only – NOT Condo Associations.

Register Today

 


 

CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION BOARD MEMBER CERTIFICATION by Kaye Bender Rembaum

WEBINAR Florida

CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION BOARD MEMBER CERTIFICATION  December 9th  5:30 pm – 8:00 pm Course #: 9630075  |  Provider #: 0005092  |  2 CEs in IFM or ELE Join us for this Virtual Condo Board Certification Course taught by Allison L. Hertz from Kaye Bender Rembaum. We will also have a “Board Member Best Practices” presentation during the course presented by Campbell Property Management. This session is for Board Members of Condominium Associations only – NOT Homeowners’ Associations. Hosted by Campbell Property Management. Webinar Online

Register Today

 


 

WEBINAR- “HARASSMENT, CYBER-STALKING, DEFAMATION & SLANDER IN COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS”

WEBINAR Florida

WEBINAR- “HARASSMENT, CYBER-STALKING, DEFAMATION & SLANDER IN COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS”  December 10th  11:00 am – 12:30 pm Harassment, Cyber stalking. Defamation & Slander in Community Associations: What the $%@# Did You Say to Me? Instructor: Shawn G. Brown, Esq., BCS An informative seminar covering various forms of communication and threats in Community Associations, including Facebook, Twitter and Next Door; how it affects those directly involved, how it affects the community, and how it affects the operations of the association; and what types of communication are protected. Note that there is no CE credit for this webinar.

Register Today

 

 

 

 


 

State of Florida Property Management Associations events brings attendees from all over the State of Florida – information, insights, and expertise, where amazing relationships are formed.  Members and Clients tell us the time spent with their peers at events are invaluable.  We’d love to hear from you- for questions, comments, or ideas, Note: as of now these members events are virtual, we hope to soon have in class education events in the future.

contact:  membership@sfpma.com

 

 

Tags: , , ,
Election Webinar: Condominiums, Homeowners’ Associations and Cooperatives by KBRLegal 

Election Webinar: Condominiums, Homeowners’ Associations and Cooperatives by KBRLegal 

  • Posted: Nov 16, 2020
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Election Webinar: Condominiums, Homeowners’ Associations and Cooperatives by KBRLegal 

Elections: Condominiums, Homeowners’ Associations and Cooperatives

by KBRLegal 

Join attorney Allison L. Hertz for a one-hour webinar addressing election law and procedures for condominiums, cooperatives and homeowners associations, including, eligibility requirements and terms of directors, best practices for remote meetings, vacancies between elections, and election disputes.

Course # 9630571 | Provider # 0005095 | 1 CE in OPP or ELE
Instructor: Allison L. Hertz, Esq., B.C.S.

Nov 18, 2020 11:00 AM in Eastern Time (US and Canada)

Register Now

 

Tags: , ,