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. 

Condominium Legislative Spotlight-House Bill 1021

Condominium Legislative Spotlight-House Bill 1021

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. If you have not done so already, we encourage you to review our comprehensive update that includes all of the 2024 relevant legislative changes impacting both condominium and homeowners’ associations (which can be found HERE).

As these new changes can be overwhelming to digest all at once, for this article, we will focus on a few key new items that will directly impact your day-to-day operations:

(A) Official Records:

(i) Website: Currently, only an association managing a condominium of 150 or more units must post copies of its official records on its website. With the new changes, by January 1, 2026, any association managing a condominium of 25 or more units must have a website with its records posted and available for unit owner review.  Further, in response to a record request, an association may direct the requesting party to its website (rather than having to schedule a physical inspection appointment).

(ii) Organization and Checklist:  The Official Records must be maintained in an “organized” manner, and in the event any of the records are lost, destroyed, or otherwise unavailable, the association will have a “good faith obligation” to obtain and recover the records as soon as reasonably possible. Further, in response to a record inspection request, the association must provide a “checklist”, which identifies the records that were provided and the records that were not made available (the “checklist” is an Official Record itself and must be maintained for 7 years).

(iii) Emails:  The law clarifies that owner email addresses are NOT part of the official records that are open for inspection by the owners unless: (i) the subject owner has consented to receiving notices of association meetings via email; or (ii) the subject owner has expressly indicated that his or her email address can be shared with other owners.

*Key Takeaway:  The new laws include increased penalties (including potential criminal charges for board members or managers who knowingly, willfully, and repeatedly violate the record inspection requirements, or who intentionally defaces or destroys financial/accounting records), so it is extremely important for your board to review its official record practices and procedures to avoid potential sanctions.  As a reminder, the law allows a board to adopt reasonable rules regarding the frequency, time, location, notice, and manner of record inspections and copying. Accordingly, we recommend contacting your association counsel to discuss these new requirements, and to consider reviewing (or modifying) your current record inspection rules.

(B)  Board Meetings/Board Education:

(i)  Frequency and Content of Board Meeting Notice/Agenda: The board must now hold a meeting at least once each quarter during the calendar year. Further, at least four (4) times each year, the agenda for the board meeting must include the opportunity for owners to ask questions of the board, including the right to ask questions relating to the status of construction/repair projects and the revenues/expenditures of the association. Also, if the board meeting has an agenda item regarding the approval of a contract for goods or services, a copy of the contract must be included with the notice.

*Key Takeaway: While the law does not expressly require the board to provide a substantive answer to these owner questions, be sure that the notice of your board meetings (at least 4 times a year) contains an agenda item for “owner questions” or words of similar effect.

(ii)  Continuing Education for the Board:  Board Members are now required to satisfactorily complete at least four (4) hours of State-approved “new board member” education curriculum (check our website at kbrlegal.com for upcoming approved classes) that include instruction on a host of important topics, including milestone inspections, structural integrity reserve studies, elections, and financial literacy and transparency.  The educational certificate must be submitted within 1 year before or within 90 days after election or appointment to the Board, and is valid for 7-years (and does not need to be resubmitted as long as the directors serves without interruption during the 7-year period).  Any Board Member elected or appointed prior to July 1, 2024 will have unitl July 1, 2025 to comply with this 4-hour education requirement.

Additionally, within one year after submitting the 4-hour educational certificate (and annually thereafter), all Board Members must complete one (1) hour of continuing education by a State-approved provider that addresses legislative changes from the past year. This is in addition to the “new board member” educational requirement.

*Key Takeaway: Simply signing a statement that you have read the governing documents and will work to uphold them to the best of your ability, in and of itself, is no longer sufficient to comply with the Board Member certification requirement.  It is clear that the new changes are aimed at ensuring that Board Members cannot “bury their heads in the sand” regarding the legal requirements of operating condominiums and will be proactive in ensuring awareness of the requirements of serving their communities.

C. Prohibition on Board Members “Retaliating” against Owners

The new changes expressly prohibit associations from “retaliating” against an owner, who, in good faith, does any of the following actions:

(i) filed a complaint with a governmental agency against the association;
(ii) organized, encourages, or participated in a unit owner’s organization;
(iii) exercised his or her rights under the Florida Statutes (for instance, by submitting a record inspection request or submitting questions via certified mail to the association); and/or,
(iv) made public statements critical of the operation or management of the association.

Further, associations may not expend association funds to bring a lawsuit for defamation against an owner or any other claim against an owner based on the conduct described in paragraphs “(i)-(iv)” above.

*Key Takeaway:  There is no doubt that every community, from time to time, has to deal with at least one difficult owner.  However, the law makes clear that public criticism from owners is “part of the job” of serving on the Board, and an owner expressing his or her opinion (even in a not-so-nice fashion) on operational issues is not a valid basis for the Board to pursue enforcement action with the common funds of the association.  As such, prior to considering sending a “cease and desist” demand letter (or other enforcement measures) to an owner regarding his or her public comments or criticism, it is suggested to review the situation with legal counsel to evaluate the most appropriate option to pursue.

As noted, the topics discussed here are only a small part of the larger changes contained in the new laws for 2024 and beyond. In the coming weeks and months, we will offer additional information regarding other such changes in future editions of Legal Morsels. In the interim, should you have any questions regarding these or any other changes, feel welcome to check with your association attorney.

Kaye Bender Rembaum
Reach any office: 800-974-0680

 

Architectural Committees Formal Procedures, Published Standards, and Self Help by REMBAUM’S ASSOCIATION ROUNDUP

Architectural Committees Formal Procedures, Published Standards, and Self Help by REMBAUM’S ASSOCIATION ROUNDUP

  • Posted: Jun 19, 2024
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Architectural Committees Formal Procedures, Published Standards, and Self Help by REMBAUM’S ASSOCIATION ROUNDUP

Architectural Committees Formal Procedures, Published Standards, and Self Help

by REMBAUM’S ASSOCIATION ROUNDUP

Formal Procedures

There are strict legal requirements that a homeowners’ association’s (HOA) architectural review committee (ARC) must follow, most especially if the ARC intends to deny an owner’s request. As this author has witnessed countless times, it is likely that many ARCs do not conduct their activities in conformity with Florida law such that an ARC denial may not withstand judicial scrutiny. If these legal requirements are not followed, and the ARC denies the owner’s architectural request, then it would be quite easy for the owner to challenge the ARC’s decision and prevail. Upon prevailing, the owner would be entitled to their prevailing party attorney’s fees and costs, as well. It is so easy to avoid this outcome, yet so few associations take the time to do it right.

Pursuant to §720.303(2), Florida Statutes, a meeting of the ARC is required to be open and noticed in the same manner as a meeting of the association’s board of directors. Notice of the ARC meeting must be posted in a conspicuous place in the community at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting, and the meeting must be open for all members to attend. Further, pursuant to §720.303(2)(c)(3), Florida Statutes, members of the ARC are not permitted to vote by proxy or secret ballot. Also, bare bone minutes should be taken to create a record of ARC decisions—especially denials.

We often hear from many HOAs that the ARC does not meet openly and does not notice their meetings. This leaves decisions made by the ARC vulnerable to challenge. If the ARC denies an application but fails to do so at a properly noticed board meeting, the owner can challenge the denial, claiming that it is not valid because the ARC did not follow proper procedure. In such cases, the ARC’s denial of an application is not valid because the ARC failed to comply with the procedural requirements for the meeting even if an application violates the declaration or other association-adopted architectural standards. However, by complying with the provisions of Chapter 720, Florida Statutes, your HOA can work to avoid this debacle.

 

 

Published Standards

Often a top priority for an HOA is ensuring that homes in the community maintain a harmonious architectural scheme in conformity with community standards and guidelines, and because the ARC is at the frontline of owners’ alterations and improvements to their homes, it is instrumental in ensuring that the community standards and guidelines are met. Pursuant to §720.3035(1), Florida Statutes, an HOA, or the ARC, “has the authority to review and approve plans and specifications only to the extent that the authority is specifically stated or reasonably inferred as to location, size, type, or appearance in the declaration or other published guidelines and standards.” But not every owner request is typically addressed in the declaration or other published guidelines and standards. If not, then the association may not be in a good position for proper denial. Therefore, the ARC is only as effective as the objective guidelines and standards (set forth in the declaration and other published guidelines and standards) are inclusive. So, what is the association to do when the ARC receives an owner’s application for an alteration to the home, but the association does not have any architectural guidelines or standards regulating the requested alteration?

While not court tested yet, a possible solution for this conundrum is to include a “catch-all” provision in the declaration to proactively address those ARC applications where a member may request a modification that is not directly addressed by the governing documents. Such a “catch-all” provision stands for the proposition that, if such a request is made, then the existing state of the community is the applicable standard by which the ARC application is to be judged. For example, imagine if an owner applies to the ARC to paint the owner’s house pink. If there are no architectural guidelines or standards that address what color a house must be, and there are no pink houses in the community, then the existing state of the community may provide a lawful basis for the ARC to deny the request because there are no existing pink houses in the community.

The Trouble With Self-Help Provisions

What if an owner refuses to maintain the owner’s property, such as pressure washing a dirty roof, despite the HOA sending demand letters, levying a fine, and perhaps even suspending the owner’s right to use the HOA’s recreational facilities? What is the HOA’s next step? Is it time to file a lawsuit to compel compliance? Well, Chapter 718 (governing condominiums), Chapter 719 (governing cooperatives), and Chapter 720 (governing HOAs) of the Florida Statutes authorize the association to bring an action at law or in equity to enforce the provisions of the declaration against the owner. Additionally, many declarations contain “self-help” language that authorizes the association to cure a violation on behalf of the owner and even, at times, assess the owner for the costs of doing so. These “self-help” provisions generally contain permissive language, meaning the association, may, but is not obligated to, cure the violation. Sadly, in this instance the word “may” means “shall,” and to find out why, read on.

There is a general legal principal that, if a claimant has a remedy at law (e.g., the ability to recover money damages under a contract), then it lacks the legal basis to pursue a remedy in equity (e.g., an action for injunctive relief). Remember, too, that an association’s declaration is a contract. In the context of an association, the legal remedy would be exercising the “self-help” authority granted in the declaration. An equitable remedy would be bringing an action seeking an injunction to compel an owner to take action to comply with the declaration. Generally, a court will only award an equitable remedy when the legal remedy is unavailable, insufficient, or inadequate.

Assume that the association’s declaration contains both the permissive “self-help” remedy and the right to seek an injunction from the court. Accordingly, it would appear the association has a decision to make—go to court to seek the injunction or enter onto the owner’s property, cure the violation, and assess the costs of same to the owner. However, recent Florida case law affirmed a complication to what should be a simple decision. In two cases decided ten years apart, Alorda v. Sutton Place Homeowners Association, Inc., 82 So.3d 1077 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2012) and Mauriello v. Property Owners Association of Lake Parker Estates, Inc., 337 So.3d 484 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2022), Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal decided that an association did not have the right to seek an injunction to compel an owner to comply with the declaration if the declaration provided the association the authority, but not the obligation, to engage in “self-help” to remedy the violation. Expressed simply, this is because the legal contractually based “self-help” remedy must be employed before one can rely upon equitable remedy of an injunction. Therefore, even though the declaration provided for an optional remedy of “self-help,” it must be used before seeking the equitable remedy of an injunction.

In Alorda, the owners failed to provide the association with proof of insurance required by the declaration. Although the declaration allowed the association to obtain the required insurance, the association filed a complaint against the owners seeking injunctive relief, asking the court to enter a permanent mandatory injunction requiring the owners to obtain the requested insurance. The owners successfully argued that even though they violated the declaration, the equitable remedy of an injunction was not available because the association already had an adequate legal remedy—the “self-help” option of purchasing the required insurance and assessing them for same. The Court agreed.

In Mauriello, the declaration contained similar language as in Alorda but involved the issue of the owners failing to keep their lawn and landscaping in good condition as required by the declaration. The association filed a complaint seeking a mandatory injunction ordering the owners to keep their lawn and landscaping in a neat condition. However, the facts were complicated by the sale of the home in the middle of the suit when the new owners voluntarily brought the home into compliance with the declaration. The parties continued to fight over who was entitled to prevailing party attorney’s fees with the association arguing it was entitled to same because the voluntary compliance was only obtained after the association was forced to commence legal action. The owners, citing Alorda, argued that the complaint should have been dismissed at the onset because the association sought an equitable remedy (injunction) when a legal remedy was already available—the exercise of its “self-help” authority. The Court considered the award of attorney’s fees after the dismissal of the association’s action for an injunction. Ultimately, the Court held that the owners were the prevailing party as the association could not seek the injunction because it already had an adequate remedy at law.

Accordingly, if your association’s declaration contains a “self-help” provision, and your association desires to seek an injunction against an owner rather than pursue “self-help,” the board should discuss the issue in greater detail with the association’s legal counsel prior to proceeding. Also, remember that if the association wants to enforce architectural standards, then they must be published to the membership; and always remember to notice ARC meetings and take minutes.

 

Tags: , , ,
SECURING YOUR GATED COMMUNITY Exactly Who Is Allowed In? by KBR Legal

SECURING YOUR GATED COMMUNITY Exactly Who Is Allowed In? by KBR Legal

  • Posted: May 20, 2024
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on SECURING YOUR GATED COMMUNITY Exactly Who Is Allowed In? by KBR Legal

SECURING YOUR GATED COMMUNITY  Exactly Who Is Allowed In?

by  Kaye Bender Rembaum

 

While living in a gated community can add peace of mind for the residents who live behind the gates, there are many important considerations for the association when crafting rules and regulations regarding who may and who may not be permitted to enter the community. In today’s gated communities, there are three entry control options: (i) live personnel to monitor the gate, (ii) a virtual gate guard where the gate guard who allows guests to pass through is off-site and monitoring electronically, or (iii) a simple call box.

Many associations adopt rules which require visitors to the community to present valid identification to ensure that the visitors are authorized by the association or a resident to enter the community. But, what kind of identification can an association require? Are there limits? In the end, the association must balance its interest in ensuring that only authorized visitors enter the community with the rights of the owners and the visitors entering the community.

One question which bears analysis is, is the association permitted to “swipe” a driver license? Section 322.143, Fla. Stat. (2021), defines “swiping” a driver license as the act of passing a driver license or identification card through a device that is “capable of deciphering, in an electronically readable format, the information electronically encoded in a magnetic strip or bar code on the driver license or identification.”

Pursuant to §322.143, Fla. Stat. (2021), a private entity is not permitted to “swipe” an individual’s driver license or identification card to capture and store information contained in the magnetic strip unless the individual consents to allow this, and the association informs the individual what information will be collected and the purpose or purposes for which it will be used. However, an exception exists in that the association is allowed to “swipe” the driver license to verify the authenticity of the driver license, as long as the association is not capturing and storing the information on the magnetic strip. More specifically, §322.143(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2021), provides, in pertinent part, the following:

    (2) Except as provided in subsection (6), a private entity may not swipe an individual’s driver license or identification card, except for the following purposes:

        (a) To verify the authenticity of a driver license or identification card or to verify the identity of the individual if the individual pays for a good or service with a method other than cash, returns an item, or requests a refund.

 

 

In accordance with the foregoing, an association is permitted to “swipe” a driver license but is not permitted to store, sell, or share the personal information collected from swiping the driver license. Although swiping without storing the information is permitted, this author recommends that the association fully avoid swiping the driver license. If the information was inadvertently or even temporarily stored on the device that the association used to swipe the driver license, the association would be in violation of this statute. Note that manually collecting personal information or making a photocopy or other copy of the front of the driver license is not prohibited by the statute and is a far safer practice.

Another question worth addressing is, can the association require a valid United States driver license for any drivers entering the community? Be warned, such a requirement could land the association in hot water. Although the association can likely require any driver entering the community to have a valid driver license, the association cannot require that the license be issued in the United States.

Pursuant to §322.04(1), Fla. Stat. (2021), “a nonresident who is at least 16 years of age and who has in his or her immediate possession a valid noncommercial driver license issued to the nonresident in his or her home state or country” is permitted to operate a vehicle without a Florida license. In other words, a driver with a proper license in another state or another country is legally permitted to drive in Florida as long as they have their valid noncommercial driver license in their possession. Similarly, an association should accept a valid license issued from another state or country for entry into the community.

If the above is not enough to encourage your associations to accept driver licenses from all countries and states, consider that a policy requiring a driver license issued in the United States may be considered a violation of the Fair Housing Act in that doing so may be deemed discrimination based upon national origin and may form the basis of a discrimination lawsuit based on disparate treatment or disparate impact. “Disparate treatment” is an intentional form of discrimination, whereas “disparate impact” discrimination occurs when a policy has an unintentional negative effect on members of a protected class. Thus, while this author is not aware of any such appellate decisions issued in the State of Florida, the last thing any association needs is to be the first defendant in such a Fair Housing Act lawsuit.

 

With regard to all rules adopted by the board of the association, rules regarding who can enter the community are only enforceable if they are within the board’s scope of authority and are reasonable for the purpose. If a rule is outside the board’s scope of authority as set out in the governing documents of the association, or if the rule represents arbitrary or capricious decision-making, such rule will not be enforceable. When adopting rules, remember the following:

  1. The board or the body making the rule must have authority from the governing documents or statute to adopt the rule.
  2. The rule cannot conflict with any rights afforded by documents of higher priority, whether express or implied rights.
  3. The rule must be reasonable. Reasonableness is hard to define, but the case law provides that the rule must be rationally related to a legitimate association objective. The rule cannot be wholly arbitrary or capricious.
  4. The rule cannot contravene any law or compelling public policies.
  5. The rule must be adopted in a procedurally correct manner, which includes proper notice.

 

On a different note, remember that material alterations to the gate area may require a vote of the membership.

In regard to official records and as to homeowners associations, §720.303(5)(c), Fla. Stat. (2021), provides, in relevant part, that although part of the official records of the association, “nformation an association obtains in a gated community in connection with guests’ visits to parcel owners or community residents” are not accessible to members.

As is evident from this discussion, there are many different issues to take into consideration when drafting rules governing who is permitted in your community. To ensure that your rules comply with Florida law, we recommend that the association have its counsel review any rules prior to their adoption.

Jeffrey A. Rembaum, Esq., BCS

Jeffrey Rembaum’s, Esq. legal practice consists of representation of condominium, homeowners, commercial and mobile home park associations, as well as exclusive country club communities and the developers who build them. Mr. Rembaum is a Certified Specialist in Condominium and Planned Development Law. He is the creator of “Rembaum’s Association Roundup,” an e-magazine devoted to the education of community association board members, managers, developers and anyone involved with Florida’s community associations. His column appears monthly in the Florida Community Association Journal. Every year since 2012, Mr. Rembaum has been selected to the Florida Super Lawyers list, and was also named Legal Elite by Florida Trends Magazine. He can be reached at 561-241-4462.

 


If you are looking for a company to help with securing your Gates, Doors to your Amenities, Our members can help.

Florida’s Top Access Control System Companies, CCTV, Security Gates and Card Readers. keeping your properties safe and secure. State Approved Members of SFPMA

Search for Security & Access Control Members

 

Tags: , ,
THE FEDERAL CORPORATE TRANSPARENCY ACT REQUIREMENTS AFFECTING ALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS

THE FEDERAL CORPORATE TRANSPARENCY ACT REQUIREMENTS AFFECTING ALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS

What Every Board Member and Manager Must Know

In January 2021 the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) was enacted by Congress. In 2024 its far-reaching requirements are planned to go into effect. The CTA was adopted by Congress to provide additional transparency in entity structures and ownership in an effort to combat tax fraud, money, laundering, and other illicit activities. It is designed to capture more information about the ownership of specific entities operating in or accessing the United States marketplace. A recent Small Business Administration reports over 27 million small businesses that are considered non-employer firms and thus have no employees. Learning of the beneficial ownership of these entities, Congress hopes to crack down on their misuse. The CTA is particularly targeted to these types of small businesses operating as so called “shell companies.”

By the time you are finished reading this article, each reader should be familiar with some new terms, such as, “FinCen,” and “beneficial owner,” to name just a couple. While the practical enforcement procedures of the CTA are currently unknown, the reason why you must be familiar with the registration and continuing reporting requirements of the CTA is because failure to comply with requirements of the CTA can lead to fines from $500–$10,000 per violation and jail time of up to two years.

While there is little doubt that community associations do not pose a threat for terrorist activity, tax evasion, money laundering, and other illegal activity that is the target of the CTA, sadly, community associations are not currently exempt from the initial registration and continual updating requirements of the CTA. While the CTA requirements for compliance are not particularly difficult, they are onerous and will reveal certain personal information about board members and possibly managers, too. Also, at the present time there does not appear to be any type of exemption from the requirements of the CTA for law enforcement personnel and others who may have gone to extra lengths to keep certain personal information private. However, the CTA does require that this information remains confidential and only used for its intended purposes.

The CTA, amongst its other requirements, requires domestic reporting companies such as corporations, limited liability partnerships, and any other entity, created by the filing of a document with the secretary of state, or any similar office under the laws of the state, to comply with its reporting requirements. This includes community associations as they are organized as a business entity (i.e., a not-for-profit corporation). In addition to providing the information regarding the entity (meaning the association), the CTA requires certain information regarding the association’s “beneficial owners.” A “beneficial owner” is defined, in part, as a person who exercises substantial control of the reporting entity.

Therefore, minimally, according to the CTA, the president and vice president are deemed to “exercise substantial control over the entity” thereby seemingly requiring certain personal information to be provided to the federal “Financial Crimes Enforcement Network” or “FinCen” for short. These beneficial owners must report their name, date of birth, address, unique identifier number, such as a Social Security number, possibly a driver’s license number or passport number, and a photocopy of the non-expired document that evidences such information, too. Whether other officers and directors will be required to similarly provide personal information remains to be seen but it is likely.

Those filing the requisite documents to assist an entity with its compliance with the CTA must provide similar information too. Those qualified to file such documents for corporate entities with FinCen are as follows either:

i) the individual who directly files the document that creates the entity (this could be the attorney that files the articles of incorporation with the state to create the community association corporation); or,

ii) the individual who is primarily responsible for directing or controlling the filing of the relevant document by another (this prong could refer to the authorized individual as directed by the board of directors, such as the attorney, accountant, or management company personnel to file the necessary documentation with FinCen to comply with the CTA).

In addition to the initial compliance requirements, which must be accomplished within 2024 for already existing corporations, reports must also be updated within 30 days of a change to the beneficial ownership, or within 30 days after becoming aware of or having reason to know of inaccurate information previously filed. Under a strict reading of these provisions, this means that every time there is a change in board members and officers, a report of the change must be made to FinCen within 30 days of the event. As mentioned above, failure to comply with requirements of the CTA can lead to fines from $500–$10,000 per violation and jail time of up to two years.

There are procedures set out in the CTA for information sharing among the federal governmental agencies when in relation to terrorist activity and money laundering as well as requirements for compliance with FinCen when it seeks additional information in regard to such matters. The Internal Revenue Service, the Customs and Border Protection agency, and FinCen can all issue summons for purposes of civil enforcement of the CTA. There are even rewards for persons who report on another that lead to recovery of a criminal fine, civil penalty, or forfeiture that exceeds $50,000 where the payment of the reward is limited to 25 percent of the net amount of the fine or $150,000, whichever is less.

Federal community association lobbyists are seeking an amendment to the CTA so that community associations are expressly made exempt and not caught in its web. But, unless that happens, compliance with the CTA is required for Florida’s community associations. Whether such compliance will be performed by the community association‘s attorney, accountant, or manager remains to be seen, and hopefully additional guidance will be provided by the appropriate federal government agencies in the near future. Should you have the opportunity, please reach out to your federal legislators in regard to the need for an exception for community association compliance with the requirements of the CTA.

For those that would like to read up on the CTA, the starting point for the Act itself can be found at 31 U.S.C 5336. This is the CTA-enabling legislation passed by the United States Congress and signed into law by the President that provides lawful authority to executive departments and agencies of the federal government to both adopt and enact, after public notice and hearings, their own laws that have the same force and effect, as if our Congress enacted them. (As an aside in case you ever wondered how our country ended up with so many laws, it is because of this particular process.) Once 31 U.S.C 5336 was enacted into law, the requisite executive departments and agencies of the federal government went to work adopting all sorts of laws to carry out the intent of the enabling legislation. These laws are published in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).   The CTA is set out in section 1010 FCR 380 and is actually called “Reports of Beneficial Ownership Information;” however, its nickname is the “Corporate Transparency Act,” which has a better ring to it. The CTA can be cited to more fully as Part 1010 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Subpart C, section 380. It is a sub-part of CFR Title 31 titled “Money and Finance,” Subtitle B “Regulations Relating to Finance and Money,” Chapter X “Financial Crimes Enforcement Network Department of the Treasury.”

Due to the far reaching aspects of the CTA and its many nuances that could lead to many traps for the unwary, consultation with the association’s attorney and certified public accounting firm should be considered regarding any questions you may have in regard to the CTA, along with its registration and compliance requirements, too.

Read other great articles on:

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

 

Tags:
Join us Jan 15, 2024 11:00 AM while we discuss the intricacies of employee management in an association

Join us Jan 15, 2024 11:00 AM while we discuss the intricacies of employee management in an association

  • Posted: Jan 14, 2024
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Join us Jan 15, 2024 11:00 AM while we discuss the intricacies of employee management in an association

Join us Jan 15, 2024 11:00 AM while we discuss the intricacies of employee management in an association

Employee Management for Boards

Date & Time   Jan 15, 2024 11:00 AM 
Description     Course # 9632457 | Provider # 0009134 | 1 CEU in IFM or Elective Presented and instructed by Leslie Alvarez, PCAM, Community Ace. Guests: Nicole Johnson (Partner, Dir. of Operations; Hafer CPAs & Consultants) and Jeffrey Rembaum, Esq., BCS (Kaye Bender Rembaum).
Managing employees is not an easy task, especially in an association. Board members are not usually experts in human resources. Join us while we discuss the intricacies of employee management in an association. We will cover a review of the actual costs of an employee, costs of turnover, managing performance, ensuring your compensation and benefits is competitive in today’s market, and maintaining a positive work environment.
Florida Legislature to Pass Law Prohibiting Associations From Charging Estoppel Fees

Florida Legislature to Pass Law Prohibiting Associations From Charging Estoppel Fees

  • Posted: Jan 02, 2024
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Florida Legislature to Pass Law Prohibiting Associations From Charging Estoppel Fees

YOUR ASSESSMENTS ARE ABOUT TO GO UP AGAIN

Act Now Before It IS Too Late!

Of all the subjects I never would have thought I would be writing to you about, it is this: the Florida Legislature is dangerously close to passing legislation that prohibits a Florida community association from charging a fee for the preparation and delivery of an estoppel certificate!!! The text of Senate Bill 278, along with its companion House Bill 979, fully prohibits condominium and homeowners’ associations from being able to charge the requesting party a fee for the preparation of the estoppel certificate. But, however, the professional who assists the association prepare and issue the estoppel, such as the management company and attorney, will now charge the association and not the party who requested the estoppel. This year’s legislative session starts very early, on January 9th. Your legislators need to hear from you that you do not want them to support these bills because they will cause financial harm to your association.

Why should community associations be stuck with the bill for the estoppel? This bill will fully shift the financial responsibility for the estoppel from the buyer or seller right on over to the association. In other words, the association still has to pay its agents, be it the management company or attorney, etc., to prepare the estoppel. At times it takes a lot of work, coordination and effort to timely issue the estoppel, let alone all of the liability that comes along with its issuance.

Since when in the United States of America can the legislature require any of us work for free? Well, it may sound like that because the buyer or seller will not have to pay for the estoppel but we all know in reality, nothing is free. This draconian fee shifting legislation could in a great many cases, if not all, act to increase every homeowner and condominium unit owner’s assessments who live in the community. Preparing estoppels can take significant time, most, especially, if there is a long history of nonpayment associated with the account. Also, existing violations must be taken into account in the estoppel certificate, etc., If the math is wrong, the issuer of the estoppel could end being financially responsible for the shortage, and they could be subject to, amongst others, Federal Fair Debt Collection Practice Act claims due to a mistake. Therefore, there is significant time involved in gathering all of this information, ensuring it is correct, and then issuing the estoppel within the required 10-day business day legislative timeframe. To make a long story short, management companies will have to increase their fees charged to the associations to offset their inability to charge the fee to the requesting party for the estoppel, and thus, every member of your association will have to pay more.

As to any rumors of rare abuse by those charging excessive estoppel fees, there are already safeguards built into the existing legislation which provide for summary legal proceedings that can be brought to compel compliance with the existing estoppel legislation and its financial cap. It even provides for prevailing party attorneys fees.

If you hear that objections to this legislation from management companies and attorneys are because they do not want to lose revenue such is not the case at all. It’s really quite simple: This legislation will fully shift the responsibility for the estoppel fees, from that of the requesting party, to all the owners that already live in the association’s community and who have nothing to do with the transaction at all.

As this is holiday season, if this passes into law, what a horrible gift that would be. To prevent this legislation from becoming law, please reach out to your legislators and let them know that you object to Senate Bill 278 and House bill 979.

HERE is a link to the SB 278.

Tags:
Legal Morsel by Robert Kaye: “Federal Court Identifies Potential Collection Issue for Community Associations in Florida”.

Legal Morsel by Robert Kaye: “Federal Court Identifies Potential Collection Issue for Community Associations in Florida”.

Federal Court Identifies Potential Collection Issue for Community Associations in Florida

Community association operations rely upon the timely and full payment of all assessments by all of the owners. One of the mechanisms that Florida law provides to put associations in a stronger position when an owner becomes delinquent is the “secured interest” of the association in the unpaid assessments by way of its ongoing lien against the unit or lot for the unpaid assessments. This secured interest puts the claim of the association at a higher priority than most other claims, other than a first mortgage or unpaid property taxes. However, a recent decision in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida, In re: Adam, Case No.: 22-10140-MAM, September 23, 2022, has cast a potential cloud on that secured interest.

In the In re Adam case, the Association previously obtained a judgment of foreclosure for over $76,000, which was considered as a secured interest by the Court.  The Association was also claiming an additional $36,558 which came due after the judgment was entered.  The owners were asking the Court to decide that the $36,000 was not secured and therefore uncollectible in the bankruptcy (or at least not fully collectible).

In deciding whether certain association claims were secured and collectible in the bankruptcy setting, the Court undertook an analysis of Florida law on the subject.  The Court noted that both the Florida Condominium Act (Chapter 718 F.S.) and the Homeowner’s Association Act (Chapter 720 F.S.) currently contain express provisions that identify that the lien of the association is effective from the original recording of the declaration (with the added requirement in HOA’s that the declaration specifically expresses this lien right).  However, the Court also points out that the Condominium Act was amended in 1992 to provide for this effective date.  (The Homeowner’s Association Act was amended to provide for it in 2008.)  Prior to these amendments, these Statutes provided for the effective date of the lien to be when it was recorded in the public records of the county.  The analysis of the Court required it to consider whether the current version of the Statute applies to the situation or whether an earlier version of the Statute is the controlling authority.  (This case involved a condominium so only the Condominium Act was considered in the decision.)

To make that determination, the Court applied the principles of the seminal case of Kaufman v. Shere, 347 So.2d 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), which require declarations to contain the specific phrase “as amended from time to time” when identifying the Statute that governs the documents in order for the current version of the Statute to apply.  This is because Statutes are not retroactive in their application unless the legislature expressly makes them so in the Statute itself.  Both the U.S. and Florida Constitutions do not allow for the State to make a law that infringes upon the vested rights in an existing contract (which would be the declaration).  As a result, the contract (declaration) would need to have the specific “as amended from time to time” language (often called “Kaufman” language) to automatically incorporate changes to the Statute that is not otherwise retroactive.

When the Court reviewed the governing documents, it noted that they were from 1987 and did not have the Kaufman language.  As such, the Court held that the provisions of the declaration were the same as the Statute in 1987, which provided that the lien was effective only upon being recorded in the public records of the county.  Since the Association did not file another lien for the amount being claimed subsequent to the foreclosure judgment, the Court concluded that this portion was not secured.  In the bankruptcy setting, this meant that the Association would likely be unable to recover most, if not all of this claim from the Debtors, Mr. and Ms. Adam.

While this issue may be most relevant to associations when dealing with a case in bankruptcy, it is possible that it could also be raised in state court foreclosure cases under certain circumstances.  It is also important to note that this Bankruptcy Court did not include a significant issue in the analysis regarding the Statute at issue, that being whether or not the statutory provision was “substantive” or “procedural”, as those terms apply to this situation, which could have led to a different result.  (This portion of the legal analysis is quite technical and beyond the scope of this article.)

For communities whose declarations were recorded prior to the statutory changes described above, the first step in protecting the interests of the association is to review the documents to determine whether Kaufman language is already in them.  If not, the board may wish to consider proposing an amendment to the owners to change the documents to include this language, if not for the entire declaration, then at least for the timing of the effectiveness of the lien of the association.  Having qualified legal counsel review these issues in the documents is a strong business practice.

 

 

Kaye Bender Rembaum is a full service commercial law firm devoted to the representation of community associations throughout Florida. Under the direction of attorneys Robert L. Kaye, Esq., Michael S. Bender, Esq., and Jeffrey A. Rembaum, Esq. Kaye Bender Rembaum is dedicated to providing clients with an unparalleled level of personalized and professional service regardless of their size and takes into account their individual needs and financial concerns. Most of our attorneys are Board Certified in Condominium and Planned Development Law. The associates of Kaye Bender Rembaum establish relationships with clients to understand their needs and goals. Kaye Bender Rembaum assists clients in all matters of Association representation including, but not limited to, collection of assessments, contract negotiation, covenant review and amendment, covenant enforcement and construction defect claims. Kaye Bender Rembaum also keeps clients up-to-date on new developments in the law and how they are personally affected by them. Kaye Bender Rembaum provides prompt, effective, high quality, cost-efficient and understandable legal advice and services to a diverse client base. Associates strive to help clients operate and administer their communities better and to educate them on their responsibilities and duties under Florida law and their governing community documents. Robert Kaye, Michael Bender and Jeff Rembaum are industry leaders who are often sought out by public policy makers and the media for advice and commentary on community association law. Offices in Broward, Palm Beach, Orange and Hillsborough Counties, as well as Miami-Dade by appointment. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation. Thank you for your interest in Kaye Bender Rembaum.

Website
https://kbrlegal.com/
Phone
Tags:
As with each year, we hope for a season with no hurricanes coming our way. However, it is safe to expect that there may be at least one such event in the coming months and, at the start of the hurricane season, it is prudent to plan for that possibility.

As with each year, we hope for a season with no hurricanes coming our way. However, it is safe to expect that there may be at least one such event in the coming months and, at the start of the hurricane season, it is prudent to plan for that possibility.

If the Board desires additional information and contact information for obtaining the free inspection and analysis of the condition of the community, please contact Kaye Bender Rembaum.  The Firm wishes all a safe and peaceful hurricane season!

 Some of the planning steps that should be considered include the following:

  1. Create a Disaster Plan and establish off-site contact information and meeting points.
  2. Establish Evacuation Routes and conduct building or community evacuation drills in the weeks leading up to and once the hurricane season has begun.
  3. Verify Emergency Generators & Supplies operate and that fuel, flashlights, batteries, water and other necessities are available.
  4. Backup Computer Files and store information offsite, in case computers crash or systems fail.
  5. Secure the Premises – Make preparations for routine lockdown of the building(s) or other facilities as a storm approaches, so the building(s) is(are) secure during the storm and safe from vandalism or looting if a hurricane strikes.
  6. List of Owners & Employees – Have on hand a current, hard-copy reference list complete with the names of all property owners, emergency contact numbers and details of second residence addresses, as well as a list of all association employees, with full contact details.
  7. Photograph or Video Premises – Keep a visual record through video or photographs of premises, facilities and buildings to facilitate damage assessment and speed damage claims in a storm aftermath.  Consider having the premises evaluated by appropriate professionals to establish the conditions prior to any hurricane event. (see further details on this item below)
  8. Building and Facilities Plans – Make sure a complete set of building or community plans are readily available for consultation by first-responders, utilities workers and insurance adjusters following a storm.
  9. Insurance Policies & Agent Details – Be sure all insurance policies are current and coverage is adequate for community property, facilities and common areas and compliant with State Law; full contact details for insurance companies and agents should be readily available in the event of a storm.
  10. Bank Account Details & Signatories – Keep handy a list of all bank account numbers, branch locations and authorized association signatories, and make contingency plans for back-up signatories in case evacuation or relocation becomes necessary.
  11. Mitigation of Damages – In the immediate aftermath of a storm, take the necessary steps to mitigate damages – this includes “Drying-In,” which is the placement of tarps on openings in the roof and plywood over blown out doors and windows, and “Drying-Out,” which is the removal of wet carpet and drywall to prevent the growth of mold.
  12. Debris Removal – Have a plan for speedy removal of debris by maintenance staff, outside contractors or civic public works employees, should a hurricane topple trees and leave debris in its wake.

With respect to item 7 above, Kaye Bender Rembaum has become aware of at least one service provider that will bring in engineering professionals to make a physical inspection of the entire community to assess the conditions and establish a record for all such conditions prior to any storm.  The assessment will also identify conditions that may have resulted from Hurricane Irma from 2017, for which claims were not made or even found and may still be claimed.  In many instances, conditions of significant damage may not be readily apparent to the layperson, but to a qualified professional, very obvious.  Quite often, such an inspection can result in substantial additional insurance claims for the association to recover.  It is not unusual for an insurance carrier to reject initial claims following a major storm, citing to maintenance or pre-existing conditions as the basis for the denial.  The team of experts performing the assessment has assisted several communities overcome such rejections and ultimately receive additional settlement proceeds to make further repairs to the premises.  While there is no guaranty of such a result, without making such an assessment, the board will never know and certainly have no further recovery.  Most importantly, this inspection and assessment is undertaken at no charge to the association by this company, and with no obligation to the association!

 

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

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

  • Posted: Aug 14, 2023
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on REMBAUM’S ASSOCIATION ROUNDUP | The Community Association Legal News You Can Use

Jeffrey Rembaum, Esq. is a  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.

Guns in the Clubhouse: What Can a Community Association Do?

The right of the people to carry and bear arms without governmental infringement is a right which stems from both the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Florida. The State of Florida recently adopted new gun legislation, effective July 1, 2023, which allows the everyday citizen to carry a concealed weapon without first obtaining a concealed weapons permit. This raises interesting questions for community associations such as, is the right to carry a concealed weapon absolute? Can a community association adopt a rule that prohibits the carrying of concealed weapons in the clubhouse or other common area facilities?

Before we get too far in our analysis, it is important to point out that the intent of this article is not to advocate for gun control or the right to carry. Rather, the intent of this article is to examine the rulemaking authority of a board of directors of a community association to prohibit concealed weapons in the clubhouse and other common areas. In short, is it possible for a community association to adopt such a rule? Yes, subject to the cautions and explanations explained below. Is the adoption of such a rule risk free? No!

As the starting point, in order for a board-made rule of this nature to have validity, we must examine whether it violates either the United States Constitution or the Constitution of the State of Florida. As to when constitutional protections apply within a community association, this is an interesting question. In prior cases, courts have found that recorded covenants restricting home ownership based on race will subject the covenants to a constitutional examination, and in the end, such covenants were deemed to violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Another method by which courts may find application of constitutional protections to community associations is if there is significant governmental action associated with the community association. For example, an argument would exist that if a community association were built with federal monies, the covenants of such a community association would be subject to all the protections afforded by both the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Florida. Often, multiple community associations that exist within a sprawling master association are built in community development districts (CDD). The CDD is a quasi-governmental entity established to govern and control what would otherwise be the common areas of the master association. The creation of the CDD allows many of the hard costs associated with the community’s build-out, such as the roads and drainage systems, to be immediately passed on to the first-time home buyers. By utilizing a CDD, long-term bonds can be issued, which are paid back through ad valorem tax obligations allowing the costs to spread out over a significantly longer period of time. As quasi-governmental entities, constitutional protections which limit powers of government would likely apply to CDDs. Therefore, should a CDD adopt rules to prohibit concealed weapons in the common areas, such a rule would likely be found to violate constitutional protections. However, the same analysis is not applicable if the community association itself adopted such a rule.

It should be remembered that courts have long held that owners give up certain individual rights and liberties when living in a community controlled by a community association. In 2002 the Florida Supreme Court held, in Woodside Village v. Jahren, 806 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 2002), that certain individual rights must be compromised when one chooses to live in a condominium association (and by analogy, in a homeowners’ association, too). But, on occasion courts have found that certain constitutional protections apply within a community association; however, such application is somewhat rare.

Thankfully, we do have some limited guidance. In 1989 the Florida Supreme Court held, in Quail Creek POA v. Hunter, 538 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), that neither a homeowners’ association’s recording of its covenants in the public records, nor the enforcement of its covenants in state court, created a sufficient nexus to evidence “state action” such that the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution would apply. By analogy, such logic could be applied to defending the right of a community association to adopt a rule prohibiting concealed weapons in the clubhouse. Thus, there is no reason to believe that such arguments would not also apply to the application of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution within community associations. That said, it would not at all be surprising for an owner to challenge such a rule; so, any association that adopts such a rule should be prepared to be a possible test case, which could have national implications associated with it.

Let us assume that the board understands and accepts such a risk and is ready to move forward to adopt a rule prohibiting the carry of concealed weapons in the clubhouse. Certainly, we recommend that counsel for the association be consulted prior to adopting these types of rules. For the purposes of our analysis, let us also assume that the community association at issue does not have a sufficient nexus to the federal or state governments that would, in and of itself, render such a rule unconstitutional. Under these circumstances, the analysis can then shift to the ordinary rulemaking criteria necessary to withstand judicial challenge, as follows:

      1. Does the board have the necessary rulemaking authority set out in the governing documents or by statute to adopt such a rule?
      2. Does the rule conflict with any rights afforded by governing documents of higher priority, whether they are considered express or implied rights?
      3. Is the rule reasonable? Reasonableness is difficult to define, but case law provides that the rule must be rationally related to a legitimate association objective. The rule cannot be arbitrary or capricious.
      4. Does the rule contravene existing laws or compelling public policies?
      5. Was the rule adopted in a procedurally correct manner that is provided by both the governing documents and existing law?

Of course, even if the association adopts such a rule, enforceability is an entirely different issue. Assuming the association is not using some type of full body scanner, then so long as the possessor of the concealed weapon does not brandish the weapon, and thus it remains fully concealed, no one will be the wiser. In addition, such a rule would not apply to certain individuals who have an absolute right to carry a concealed weapon, subject to very few limitations, such as an off-duty police officer.

As an aside, just because a person may not need to have a concealed weapon permit to carry a concealed weapon, this does not mean that the still-available concealed weapon permit does not have value. It certainly does when it comes to traveling outside the State of Florida to one of the many states, over 26, that have reciprocity with Florida, meaning that the other states recognize Florida’s concealed weapons permit. With that in mind, obtaining a concealed weapons permit may still make sense.

While a properly drafted rule prohibiting guns in the clubhouse stands a decent chance of validity, remember that even if your association

i) fully analyzes whether it has any type of federal governmental nexus which would provide for clear application of constitutional protections and such analysis is answered in the negative, ii) meets the rule adoption criteria listed above, and iii) consults with the association’s lawyer who helps draft such a rule, the association could still find itself as a defendant in a lawsuit seeking to have such a rule invalidated by the court.