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. 

Is There Liability for Dangerous Wild Animals in Your Community?

Is There Liability for Dangerous Wild Animals in Your Community?

Is There Liability for Dangerous Wild Animals in Your Community?

by JEFFREY REMBAUM, ESQ., KAYE BENDER REMBAUM

With the ever-increasing development in Florida, especially in South Florida, we are once again reminded that we live in close proximity to a number of native, exotic, invasive, and at times dangerous wild animals.

Tragically, and all too recently, in St. Lucie County an 85-year-old woman died while trying to rescue her dog from an alligator. Whether her community association will be held liable will largely depend upon what the association knew and when they knew it regarding the existence of alligators within the association’s property.

Simply put, if there is a foreseeable zone of risk, then the association’s members should be made aware of it. Phrased differently, where the association, acting by and through its board of directors, is aware or should reasonably be aware of a dangerous animal within association property, then there is a duty to act. Such action should minimally include notice to the entire community, and for those situations where reoccurrence is a likely possibility, then posting signs could be warranted, too.

What can and should happen when your community association is confronted with that unexpected wild animal that causes a disturbance or, even worse, the wild animal has become a source of imminent danger to the members of the association or their guests? Guidance is presented from Hanrahan v. Hometown America, LLC, 90 S.3d 915 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), decided on June 20, 2012, by Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal. In this case, the personal representative of a deceased resident, Ms. Hanrahan (Hanrahan), sought damages for the negligent death of Mr. Hanrahan, who died from fire-ant bites sustained on the common areas of Pinelake Gardens and Estates, a mobile home park (Pinelake Gardens).

By way of background, Mr. Hanrahan was walking his dog in the common area of Pinelake Gardens known as the “Preserve.” Mr. Hanrahan claimed that he brushed up against a bush, at which point the fire ants gained access to his body. Mr. Hanrahan attempted to wash the fire ants off of his body but collapsed on the shower floor. He died two days later. During the trial, the Pinelake Gardens community manager testified that she was not aware of any resident in Pinelake Gardens being exposed to or attacked by fire ants on the premises, nor was she aware of any fire ants in the area of Pinelake Gardens where the incident allegedly occurred. She testified that Pinelake Gardens regularly contracted with an exterminator to spray insecticide, which included killing ants (not specifically fire ants). She further testified that maintenance employees would treat observed ant mounds with granules and would contact the exterminator if there was anything out of the ordinary observed.

The trial court ruled in favor of Pinelake Gardens. The trial court determined that Pinelake Gardens was not on sufficient notice of a fire-ant infestation at the area of the alleged incident, and therefore did not have a duty to Mr. Hanrahan to guard against the fire ants or otherwise take action in this situation. As a result, Hanrahan appealed. On appeal, Hanrahan claimed that the trial court improperly determined whether Pinelake Gardens could foresee the specific injury that actually occurred, instead of, as Hanrahan claimed, whether Pinelake Gardens’ conduct created a “foreseeable zone of risk.”

The general rule in regard to wild animals in Florida, as explained by the appellate court citing another case, Wamser v. City of St. Petersburg, 339 So.2d 244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), is that

…the law does not require the owner or possessor of land to anticipate the presence of, or guard an invitee against harm from, animals “ferare naturae” (which is a common law doctrine where wild animals are considered owned by no one specifically but by the people generally) unless such owner or possessor harbors such animals or has introduced wild animals to the premises which are not indigenous to the locality.

The Wamser case involved a shark attack, in which the city did not have any knowledge of prior shark attacks and therefore did not have any foreseeability of the possibility of shark attacks nor a duty to guard against shark attacks. As in Wamser, the appellate court in Hanrahan v. Hometown America, LLC, ruled that there was no evidence in the record to show Pinelake Gardens had any knowledge of a “ferae naturae” attack in the alleged area. The appellate court held that the presence of the fire ants was not caused by any act of Pinelake Gardens and that Pinelake Gardens did not harbor or introduce them. Furthermore, Pinelake Gardens regularly attempted, by maintenance staff and exterminators, to treat the ant mounds and other manifestations of fire ants. To add a further caveat to its ruling, the appellate court quoted from another fire-ant case, State of Texas, Nicholson v. Smith, 986 S.W,2d 54 (Tex. App. 1999), in which it was stated:

…we do not say a landowner can never be negligent with regard to the indigenous wild animals found on its property. A premises owner could be negligent with regard to wild animals found in artificial structures or places where they are not normally found; that is, stores, hotels, apartment houses, or billboards, if the landowner knows or should know of the unreasonable risk of harm posed by an animal on its premises and cannot expect patrons to realize the danger or guard against it.

Thus, in the end, the appellate court ruled that there was no evidence that Pinelake Gardens knew or should have known of the unreasonable risk of harm posed by the fire ants. Even though the Hanrahan case concerned fire ants, the case could be applied by analogy to any number of wild animals that you could encounter in your community association, including, without limitation, alligators.

When it comes to injuries caused by wild animals, the board of directors should examine whether there is a foreseeable zone of danger. The question is not whether an injury occurred (as strict liability does not exist), but rather was it foreseeable that an injury could occur? If so, then the board has a duty to act. Remember, the basic rule is that if the association is aware of a dangerous animal or if it is foreseeable that a dangerous wild animal could be within the lands governed by the association, then the association has a duty to act. Importantly, please be certain to discuss the situation with the association’s legal counsel for proper guidance.

 Jeffrey Rembaum, Esq. of Kaye, Bender, Rembaum attorneys at law, legal practice consists of representation of condominium, homeowner, 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.
Tags: ,
Release of Liability and Hold Harmless Agreements by JEFFREY REMBAUM, ESQ., KAYE BENDER REMBAUM

Release of Liability and Hold Harmless Agreements by JEFFREY REMBAUM, ESQ., KAYE BENDER REMBAUM

Release of Liability and Hold Harmless Agreements

by JEFFREY REMBAUM, ESQ., KAYE BENDER REMBAUM

If Your Association Requires One, Then You Must Read This…

Many communities offer a host of amenities for their residents and guests to enjoy, such as clubhouses, fitness centers, playgrounds, swimming pools, tot lots, tennis courts, etc. One of the upsides to providing such amenities is that the residents and their guests have a variety of activities to choose from, which enhances the quality of life within the community. However, one of the potential significant downsides to offering such benefits is that the association often incurs liability if a resident or guest is injured while using one of the amenities.

Accordingly, it has become commonplace for associations to require that residents and guests sign a document that releases the association from liability and holds the association harmless when a resident or guest uses the amenities. Although the title of the document may vary—“Hold Harmless,” “Indemnification Agreement,” “Release of Liability,” or “Waiver and Release”—there is usually language included within the document along the lines of the following:

“I, Mr. Owner, on my own behalf and on behalf of all other occupants and guests to my home, for and in consideration for use of the association’s facilities, equipment, etc. hereby release and hold harmless the association, its members, officers, directors, agents, etc. from any and all liability which may arise out of or in connection with my participation or use of the foregoing facilities, equipment, etc.”

This language is often referred to as an “exculpatory clause,” which is a clause that is designed to relieve a party from blame or liability. Such language has traditionally served to help prevent an association’s liability to an owner or guest when he or she is injured while using the amenities. It may have been a while since anyone has taken a good look at the specific language included in the association’s release, and it may be taken for granted that such language will automatically protect the association from liability. Many such form documents do not provide the protection you might think they should. A recent Florida appellate court case dealing with such exculpatory clauses highlights this potential issue and offers pause.

Specifically, The Estate of Nicholas Adam Blakely, By and Through Michele Wilson, as Personal Representative v. Stetson University, Inc., WL 17997526 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022), involved the tragic death of a young man who played football at Stetson University. As described in the written appellate opinion, the young man pulled himself out of an afternoon football practice complaining to an assistant athletic trainer that he felt dizzy and that his chest felt tight. Although the trainers continued to monitor his symptoms on the sidelines, after approximately 45 minutes the young man collapsed. Thereafter, university employees attempted various emergency medical procedures in an unsuccessful effort to revive him. The young man was transported to the hospital where, sadly, he died.

The trial court found that the two identical releases signed by the young man were sufficiently clear to bar claims brought against the university arising from his death after participating in the football practice. On appeal, however, one of the arguments focused on whether the language in the releases that the young man signed were sufficient to be enforceable. The appellate court determined it was not. Although the entirety of the written releases are unable to be reproduced here, the particular language that the court focused on is set out below. Specifically, the appellate court placed emphasis on the following:

I understand that the dangers and risks of playing or participating/practicing may include, but are not limited to: death…Because of the dangers and risks involved in participating in intercollegiate athletics, I recognize the importance of following the Coaches and Sports Medicine staff instructions regarding playing techniques, conditioning, rehabilitation/treatment recommendations and team rules, etc. and agree to obey such instructions…I hereby assume all risks associated with participation and agree to hold Stetson University…from any and all liability…of any kind or nature which may arise by or in connection with my participation in any activities related to the Stetson University athletic program. The terms hereof shall serve as a release and assumption of risk for myself, my heirs, estate, executor, administrator, assignees and for all members of  my family. The terms hereof shall serve as a complete release and waiver of liability for myself, my heirs, estate, executor, administrator, assignees, and for all members of my family.

 

On its face, it sounds complete. But is it? In its analysis of the language included in the releases, the appellate court began by expressing that

n exculpatory clause purports to deny an injured party the right to recover damages from a person negligently causing his injury. They are disfavored in the law because they relieve one party of the obligation to use due care and shift the risk of injury to the party who is probably least equipped to take the necessary precautions to avoid the injury and bear the risk of loss. Such claims are strictly construed against the party seeking to be relieved of liability. Thus, exculpatory clauses are enforceable only where and to the extent that the intention to be relieved from liability is made clear and unequivocal. The wording must be clear and understandable that an ordinary and knowledgeable person will know what he is contracting away (quoting UCF Athletics Ass’n, v Plancher, 121 So. 3d 1097, 1101 ).

 

Unlike the trial court, the appellate court took issue with the language contained within the releases because the release forms

  1. failed to expressly inform the young man that he was contracting away his rights to sue the university for its own negligence,
  2. used language that could reasonably lead one to believe that the university would be supervising and training properly such that the young man was only being asked to sign the exculpatory clause to cover injuries inherent in a sport, and
  3. used language suggesting that the terms of the releases were for the young man’s benefit.

 

Accordingly, the appellate court determined that the foregoing supported a determination that the releases were not clear and unambiguous. So, what does the appellate court’s decision mean for exculpatory clauses as related to an association’s release? It means that associations need to review the language in such exculpatory clauses with counsel to assist in aligning the language with the thinking of the court. For example:

  1. Is the language in the release clear, unambiguous, and written in such a way that an ordinary and knowledgeable person would know that he or she is contracting away his or her right to sue the association if an injury occurs?
  2. Is the language in the release free from any indication whatsoever that training and/or supervision is being provided by the association to avoid a mistaken belief by the owner or guest that he or she is merely signing away his or her right to sue for injuries inherent in a particular activity?
  3. Is it unequivocally clear that the individual is giving up all rights to litigate against the association in regard to any accident that may occur, even if the association was negligent?
  4. Are there terms in the release that would make it seem as though the release is for the benefit of the homeowner or guest and not the association?
    If you are in doubt as to the exculpatory language included in your association’s release, do not wait until a homeowner or guest is injured, or possibly worse, to discover that the language is not appropriate for protecting the association from liability. In light of this most recent opinion, you should discuss with your association’s legal counsel when there would be a good opportunity to review and amend such release of liability and hold harmless agreements.
Jeffrey Rembaum, Esq. of Kaye, Bender, Rembaum attorneys at law, legal practice consists of representation of condominium, homeowner, 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.
Tags: ,
HOA Architectural Committees Required Statutory Procedures Requirement For Published Standards Required Self Help

HOA Architectural Committees Required Statutory Procedures Requirement For Published Standards Required Self Help

HOA Architectural Committees

Required Statutory Procedures, Requirement For Published Standards and Required Self Help.




REQUIREMENT OF 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: , ,
CAN YOU REPEAT THAT? Is Your Condominium in Compliance?

CAN YOU REPEAT THAT? Is Your Condominium in Compliance?

  • Posted: Feb 08, 2023
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on CAN YOU REPEAT THAT? Is Your Condominium in Compliance?

CAN YOU REPEAT THAT?

Is Your Condominium in Compliance?

Additional Clarity Provided

If your condominium is greater than 75 feet tall, then you need to read this article (most especially due to a small but meaningful typo in the prior version which is now revised with the red text below).

It is essential for condominium associations to ensure that their buildings are in compliance with the requirements of the Florida Fire Prevention Code (the “Fire Code”). For the safety of all residents, associations must ensure they stay up to date with the latest and greatest in fire safety provisions. One of these essential safety features is a requirement that systems be built into new and existing buildings to ensure that first responders’ radios will work throughout buildings in an emergency situation. Pursuant to Section 11.10.1 of the Fire Code, “in all new and existing buildings, minimum radio signal strength for fire department communications shall be maintained at a level determined by the AJH . Additionally, Section 11.10.2. provides that where required by the authority having jurisdiction, two-way radio communication enhancement systems must comply with the requirements of the Fire Code.

When originally adopted, the requirements of Sections 11.10.1 and 11.10.2 of the Fire Code applied only to new buildings, so the requirement was not a burden on existing buildings. However, in 2013, the Fire Code was updated as set out above to provide that all new and existing buildings must maintain adequate fire department radio signal strength inside the building. This new requirement applied to all buildings and did not provide a grace period. This posed a significant problem for many high-rise condominiums, as the installation of the necessary equipment involves opening walls and ceilings and can be quite costly to the association. The cost of such installation was a substantial burden to condominiums, not expecting to be required to install same, and therefore never budgeted for the installation.

Recognizing the problem, in 2016 the Florida Legislature adopted section 633.202(18), Florida Statutes, which provided a grace period for high-rise buildings. Existing high-rise buildings were not required to comply with minimum radio strength for fire department communications until January 1, 2022. You may be thinking, “that date is passed”, but do not panic. If your condominium has not yet complied with the requirements, have no fear. The 2021 Florida Legislature amended section 633.202(18), Florida Statutes, to provide another extension for compliance.

In accordance with the newly amended statute, existing high-rise buildings now have until January 1, 2025 to come into compliance with the requirements. However, the association must apply for an appropriate permit for the required installation by January 1, 2024. More specifically, section 633.202(18), Florida Statutes, is amended to provide, in pertinent part, that:

(18) The authority having jurisdiction shall determine the minimum radio signal strength for fire department communications in all new high-rise and existing high-rise buildings. Existing buildings are not required to comply with minimum radio strength for fire department communications and two-way radio system enhancement communications as required by the Florida Fire Prevention Code until January 1, 2025. However, by January 1, 2024, an existing building that is not in compliance with the requirements for minimum radio strength for fire department communications must apply for an appropriate permit for the required installation with the local government agency having jurisdiction and must demonstrate that the building will become compliance by January 1, 2025. Existing apartment buildings are not required to comply until January 1, 2025…

Therefore, all existing high-rise buildings must come into compliance by January 1, 2025. It is important to note that this time extension applies only to high-rise buildings. By way of over simplification, it does not apply to buildings less than 75 feet tall (the measurement can be tricky, so if your building is close to 75 feet check with your association attorney regarding this measurement). In 2018, the Florida Department of Financial Services, Division of State Fire Marshal issued a Declaratory Statement finding that section 633.202(18), Florida Statutes does not apply to the enforcement of Section 11.10 of the Fire Code to buildings under 75 feet in height. Therefore, if your building is greater than 75 feet in height, it is required to comply with the radio signal strength required by the authority having jurisdiction at this time.

In light of the foregoing, it is essential that your association take action to determine whether sufficient fire department radio signal exists in your building. We recommend the association reach out to the local fire code official to determine the exact requirements for your jurisdiction. If sufficient signal does not exist in your building, it is essential to prepare a plan (including design, permits, financing, etc.) to ensure that your building will comply by the deadline of January 1, 2025.
Federal Court Identifies Potential Collection Issue for Community Associations in Florida

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.

About Robert
Robert L. Kaye is Board Certified in Condominium and Planned Development Law. Mr. Kaye attended Michigan State University, graduating with a B.B.A. in General Business in 1976. In 1986, Mr. Kaye graduated from the Detroit College of Law, magna cum laude. Mr. Kaye initially practiced tax law for the firm of Raymond, Rupp, Weinberg, Stone & Zuckerman, P.C. in Troy, Michigan, before moving to South Florida in 1987, joining Becker & Poliakoff to concentrate in the area of community association representation. In 1991, Robert Kaye left that employ to start Kaye & Roger, P.A. He was the managing shareholder of the Firm from its inception, directing all legal operations and overseeing its growth to represent over 1,000 Communities in South Florida at the time of its name change to Robert Kaye & Associates, P.A. on January 1, 2003.
On January 1, 2009 Mr. Kaye joined with Michael Bender to form Kaye & Bender, now known as Kaye Bender Rembaum, after Jeffrey Rembaum joined in 2012. Mr. Kaye serves on the Florida Bar’s Grievance Committee, is a member of the Condominium Committee of the Real Property Section of The Florida Bar, and previously served on the Committee on the Unlicensed Practice of Law. He also lectures on Community Association law and is regularly published on the subject. Mr. Kaye hosts KBR’s appearances on the radio show, ‘Ask the Experts’, from 6pm to 7pm, the first Thursday of each month.
See his full bio HERE.

Tags: ,
Condominium Unit Owner Insurance The Risks of Not Purchasing Insurance For Your Condominium Unit

Condominium Unit Owner Insurance The Risks of Not Purchasing Insurance For Your Condominium Unit

Condominium Unit Owner Insurance

The Risks of Not Purchasing Insurance For Your Condominium Unit

Do you think you do not need condominium insurance because your condominium association has it? You would be so very wrong if you do! It has happened more times than I can count—the supply line that feeds the toilet ruptures in the upstairs unit while the owner of the unit is out of town, the upstairs unit owner forgot that he or she started to fill the tub and it overflows, or the upstairs unit owner ignores a broken toilet, all of which result in water flowing down into the unit below. Next thing you know, the remediation workers arrive and start ripping out the soaked, damaged drywall in the units below and after cutting holes in the drywall use their industrial-sized blowers to dry things out to prevent mold.

Meanwhile, the downstairs unit owners want to have a “word” with the upstairs unit owner to discuss who is going to pay for the repairs. They demand a copy of the upstairs unit owner’s insurance policy. The owner of the upstairs unit where the leak occurred smiles and explains, “The condominium association has insurance. They’ll take care of it.” Right? Wrong! Even if the condominium association has the duty of repair to portions of the damaged property, typically the damaged common elements, the upstairs unit owner is not off the hook because both the condominium association and its insurance company can often “subrogate” their financial damages against the upstairs unit owner and so, too, can the downstairs unit owners and their insurance companies. At the end of the day, the upstairs owner who caused the damages could have significant financial liability. (In plain English, to “subrogate” a claim means that one party goes after the other for their financial damages for having caused the damage in the first place.)

So, now that I have your attention, most especially if you are a unit owner who does not have insurance for your unit—in the example described above, not only can the upstairs unit owner bear significant financial liability, but even their condominium unit is at risk of being foreclosed to satisfy a judgment against them—and there is no homestead protection! Because the upstairs unit owner decided not to purchase insurance, he could actually lose his unit in a foreclosure. The following explanation is why:

By way of oversimplification, the Condominium Act, more specifically, §718.111(11)(f), Florida Statutes, requires the condominium association to insure everything that the unit owner is not responsible to insure. The unit owner is responsible to insure

all personal property within the unit or limited common elements, and floor, wall, and ceiling coverings, electrical fixtures, appliances, water heaters, water filters, built-in cabinets and countertops, and window treatments, including curtains, drapes, blinds, hardware, and similar window treatment components, or replacements of any of the foregoing which are located within the boundaries of the unit and serve only such unit…  the association is not obligated to pay for any reconstruction or repair expenses due to property loss to any improvements installed by a current or former owner of the unit or by the developer if the improvement benefits only the unit for which it was installed and is not part of the standard improvements installed by the developer on all units as part of original construction, whether or not such improvement is located within the unit.

But, however, the unit owner’s insurance policy, typically referred to as an “HO-6 policy,” not only includes coverage for the items set forth above plus other personal items, but also includes liability coverage for having caused damages to the condominium property.

§718.111(11)(j)1–2, Florida Statutes, makes patently clear that

A unit owner is responsible for the costs of repair or replacement of any portion of the condominium property not paid by insurance proceeds if such damage is caused by intentional conduct, negligence, or failure to comply with the terms of the declaration or the rules of the association by a unit owner, the members of his or her family, unit occupants, tenants, guests, or invitees, without compromise of the subrogation rights of the insurer.

The provisions… regarding the financial responsibility of a unit owner for the costs of repairing or replacing other portions of the condominium property also apply to the costs of repair or replacement of personal property of other unit owners or the association, as well as other property, whether real or personal, which the unit owners are required to insure. (emphasis added.)

Furthermore, also pursuant to §718.111(11)(g)2, Florida Statutes

unit owners are responsible for the cost of reconstruction of any portions of the condominium property for which the unit owner is required to carry property insurance , or for which the unit owner is responsible, and the cost of any such reconstruction work undertaken by the association is chargeable to the unit owner and enforceable as an assessment and may be collected in the manner provided for the collection of assessments pursuant to § 718.116, Fla. Stat. (emphasis added.)

§718.116, Florida Statutes, is the unit fore-closure section of the Condominium Act which explains the steps necessary to foreclose against an owner’s unit for failing to pay assessments.

In condominium living, the general rule is that the party who has the duty of purchasing insurance for a particular portion of the condominium property also has the primary duty to repair the damages to such portion regardless of fault (unless the condominium association has opted out of that regime by a vote of the unit owners, which is a rarity). But, simply because the condominium association has insurance and may have that primary duty of repair after the insurable casualty event, that does not mean that the negligent unit owner that caused the damage will not be the primary target for reimbursement for expenses incurred by the condominium association’s insurance company or by the condominium association for its deductible and related expenses. The same concept applies for the downstairs unit owners, who could seek reimbursement from the upstairs unit owner for any necessary expense incurred because the upstairs unit owner was negligent.

There are typically two parts to the HO-6 insurance policy, the primary coverage for personal losses and the other for liability coverage. Condominium associations should consider amending their declaration to require every unit owner to have both personal and liability coverage, and at a minimum, liability coverage. Your condominium association should discuss this requirement with the condominium association’s insurance agent as well as review the possibility of amending the declaration of condominium with legal counsel.

Anytime a condominium association experiences a casualty event, in addition to reporting the claim to the insurance carrier, usually through the condominium association’s insurance agent, the condominium association should be in touch with its legal counsel to explore all the different aspects necessary to both repair and reimburse the condominium association for its financial losses. At the end of the day, owning a condominium unit and not having purchased insurance is similar to taking a rowboat out on a rough sea day without life preservers.

Kaye Bender Rembaum, Attorneys at Law

The law firm of Kaye Bender Rembaum, with its 20 lawyers and offices in Broward, Palm Beach and Hillsborough Counties, is a full service law firm devoted to the representation of more than 1,200 community and commercial associations, developers, and their members throughout the State of Florida. Under the direction of attorneys Robert L. Kaye, Michael S. Bender and Jeffrey A. Rembaum, the law firm of Kaye Bender Rembaum strives to provide its clients with an unparalleled level of personalized and professional service that takes into account their clients’ individual needs and financial concerns.
Tags:
It is essential for condominium associations to ensure that their buildings are in compliance with the requirements of the Florida Fire Prevention Code

It is essential for condominium associations to ensure that their buildings are in compliance with the requirements of the Florida Fire Prevention Code

  • Posted: Sep 22, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on It is essential for condominium associations to ensure that their buildings are in compliance with the requirements of the Florida Fire Prevention Code

It is essential for condominium associations to ensure that their buildings are in compliance with the requirements of the Florida Fire Prevention Code

It is essential for condominium associations to ensure that their buildings are in compliance with the requirements of the Florida Fire Prevention Code (the “Fire Code”). For the safety of all residents, associations must ensure they stay up to date with the latest and greatest in fire safety provisions. One of these essential safety features is a requirement that systems be built into new and existing buildings to ensure that first responders’ radios will work throughout buildings in an emergency situation. Pursuant to Section 11.10.1 of the Fire Code, “in all new and existing buildings, minimum radio signal strength for fire department communications shall be maintained at a level determined by the AJH . Additionally, Section 11.10.2. provides that where required by the authority having jurisdiction, two-way radio communication enhancement systems must comply with the requirements of the Fire Code.

When originally adopted, the requirements of Sections 11.10.1 and 11.10.2 of the Fire Code applied only to new buildings, so the requirement was not a burden on existing buildings. However, in 2013, the Fire Code was updated as set out above to provide that all new and existing buildings must maintain adequate fire department radio signal strength inside the building. This new requirement applied to all buildings and did not provide a grace period. This posed a significant problem for many high-rise condominiums, as the installation of the necessary equipment involves opening walls and ceilings and can be quite costly to the association. The cost of such installation was a substantial burden to condominiums, not expecting to be required to install same, and therefore never budgeted for the installation.

Recognizing the problem, in 2016 the Florida Legislature adopted section 633.202(18), Florida Statutes, which provided a grace period for high-rise buildings. Existing high-rise buildings were not required to comply with minimum radio strength for fire department communications until January 1, 2022. You may be thinking, “that date is passed”, but do not panic. If your condominium has not yet complied with the requirements, have no fear. The 2021 Florida Legislature amended section 633.202(18), Florida Statutes, to provide another extension for compliance.

In accordance with the newly amended statute, existing high-rise buildings now have until January 1, 2025 to come into compliance with the requirements. However, the association must apply for an appropriate permit for the required installation by January 1, 2024. More specifically, section 633.202(18), Florida Statutes, is amended to provide, in pertinent part, that:

The authority having jurisdiction shall determine the minimum radio signal strength for fire department communications in all new high-rise and existing high-rise buildings. Existing buildings are not required to comply with minimum radio strength for fire department communications and two-way radio system enhancement communications as required by the Florida Fire Prevention Code until January 1, 2025. However, by January 1, 2024, an existing building that is not in compliance with the requirements for minimum radio strength for fire department communications must apply for an appropriate permit for the required installation with the local government agency having jurisdiction and must demonstrate that the building will become compliance by January 1, 2025. Existing apartment buildings are not required to comply until January 1, 2025…

Therefore, all existing high-rise buildings must come into compliance by January 1, 2025. It is important to note that this time extension applies only to high-rise buildings. By way of over simplification, it does not apply to buildings less than 75 feet tall (the measurement can be tricky, so if your building is close to 75 feet check with your association attorney regarding this measurement). In 2018, the Florida Department of Financial Services, Division of State Fire Marshal issued a Declaratory Statement finding that section 633.202(18), Florida Statutes does not apply to the enforcement of Section 11.10 of the Fire Code to buildings under 75 feet in height. Therefore, if your building is less than 75 feet in height, it is required to comply with the radio signal strength required by the authority having jurisdiction at this time.

In light of the foregoing, it is essential that your association take action to determine whether sufficient fire department radio signal exists in your building. The minimum requirements may differ by jurisdiction, and we recommend the association reach out to the local fire code official to determine the requirements for your jurisdiction. If sufficient signal does not exist in your building, it is essential to prepare a plan (including design, permits, financing, etc.) to ensure that your building will comply by the deadline of January 1, 2025.

The law firm of Kaye Bender Rembaum, with its 20 lawyers and offices in Broward, Palm Beach and Hillsborough Counties, is a full service law firm devoted to the representation of more than 1,200 community and commercial associations, developers, and their members throughout the State of Florida. Under the direction of attorneys Robert L. Kaye, Michael S. Bender and Jeffrey A. Rembaum, the law firm of Kaye Bender Rembaum strives to provide its clients with an unparalleled level of personalized and professional service that takes into account their clients’ individual needs and financial concerns.

The Firm is ranked ninth in South Florida and 62nd in the Southern U.S. among “Top 300 Small Businesses” by Business Leader magazine.

Safety is on the minds of every Building owner from Fire sprinklers, Extinguishers, Monitoring, Alarms and Testing and system certification. 

Find Top Companies for your buildings Fire Sprinkler and Equipment

Congratulations, Jeff Rembaum, Firm Members and Attnys at Kaye Bender Rembaum

Congratulations, Jeff Rembaum, Firm Members and Attnys at Kaye Bender Rembaum

Jeffrey A. Rembaum Once Again Named to Florida Trend’s Legal Elite

Only 1.4% of Florida’s lawyers appear among the exclusive Florida Legal Elite, and Kaye Bender Rembaum is proud to announce attorney Jeffrey A. Rembaum, BCS has once again been selected.

Now in its 19th year, Florida Legal Elite presents the state’s top licensed and practicing attorneys selected by their peers. Florida Trend invited all in-state members of the Florida Bar to name attorneys whom they highly regard or would recommend to others. The list of top vote recipients was examined using Florida Bar membership status and histories. A panel of previous Legal Elite honorees from across the state representing different practice areas reviewed the list of finalists. Congratulations, Jeffrey!

Allison L. Hertz Named Co-Chair of Condominium & Planned Development Committee of The Florida Bar’s RPPTL Section.

The Real Property, Probate and Trust Law (RPPTL) Section of the Florida Bar announced that attorney Allison L. Hertz, BCS of Kaye Bender Rembaum has been named Co-Chair of its Condominium & Planned Development Committee. Ms. Hertz, a Board Certified Specialist in Condominium and Planned Development Law, joins a long line of the most preeminent and respected attorneys in this field of law to have held this position.

“I am honored and proud to serve as Co-Chair for the Committee and will continue to provide input for the betterment of all Florida community associations”, said Allison Hertz. Jeffrey Rembaum added, “Ms. Hertz is extremely knowledgeable in this body of law, and will no doubt be a valuable asset to the RPPTL committee.”

Ms. Hertz is also the Vice-chair of the Condominium & Planned Development Law Certification Review Committee, and she recently served as Chair of the Condominium & Planned Development Committee’s Hurricane Protection Subcommittee, and was a member of the Committee’s Emergency Powers Task Force.

KBR Attorneys Elevated to Firm Members

Danielle M. Brennan, Esq., BCS has been elevated to Firm Member at Kaye Bender Rembaum, P.L in Palm Beach Gardens, FL and Emily E. Gannon, Esq. has been elevated to Firm Member at Kaye Bender Rembaum, P.L in Pompano Beach, FL.

Danielle M. Brennan (pictured top left) is a Board Certified Specialist in Condominium and Planned Development Law. Ms. Brennan joined Kaye Bender Rembaum as an Associate Attorney in the Firm’s community association department in the Palm Beach Gardens’ office in April 2013. Ms. Brennan assists clients on all aspects of community association operations and enjoys leading presentations for managers and board members.

 

Emily E. Gannon (pictured bottom left) joined Kaye Bender Rembaum in April 2012, and assists the Firm’s association clients on all aspects of community association operations. Emily is also a frequent lecturer on community association law, which includes leading seminars providing CEUs for property managers and certifications for board members.

Congratulations to each new Firm Member of the Kaye Bender Rembaum team!

KBR’s Jeffrey Green Attains Florida Bar’s

Board Certified Specialist in Construction Law

The Florida Bar has confirmed Firm Member Jeffrey D. Green, to be officially certified in Construction Law.

Board certification is the highest level of recognition by the Florida Bar and demonstrates an attorney’s significant competency and experience in a specialty field of law. Attorneys must meet stringent application criteria before officially becoming certified, including satisfactory peer review assessments as it relates to proficiency, character, ethics and professionalism, completing the certification area’s continuing legal education requirements and passing a rigorous written examination. Only attorneys who have earned the “board-certification” distinction are allowed to describe themselves as legal “specialists” or “experts” in a specific field.

“Board Certification is an achievement I’m very proud of, and I am excited to continue assisting our clients in construction-related matters and all other areas of association law,” said Jeffrey Green. Michael Bender added, “This is a career milestone for Jeffrey that warrants recognition. He’s an extremely knowledgeable and skilled attorney and we appreciate all he has done for the Firm and its clients.”

Congratulations to Jeffrey Green on this impressive achievement.

Latest Videos with Kaye Bender Rembaum

Association Leadership S3:E12 | August 17, 2022 | SB-4D and more on Preparing your 2023 Budget

Lunch & Learn | Cyberstalking and Defamation in Community Associations

 

Tags: ,
Mandatory Condominium & Cooperative Building Inspections and Non-Waivable Reserve Requirement

Mandatory Condominium & Cooperative Building Inspections and Non-Waivable Reserve Requirement

Mandatory Condominium & Cooperative Building Inspections and Non-Waivable Reserve Requirement

The City of Surfside, Champlain Towers South Related Legislation Already in Effect

 

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

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

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

I. Milestone Inspections: Mandatory Structural Inspections For Condominium and Cooperative Buildings. (§553.899, Fla. Stat.)

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

Milestone Inspections

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

Substantial Structural Deterioration

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

Milestone Inspections For Buildings Three Stories or More In Height

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

Within Three Miles of Coastline

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

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

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

If The Certificate of Occupancy was Issued Before July 1, 1992

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

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

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

A Milestone Inspection Consists of Two Phases

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

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

Post-Milestone Inspection Requirements

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

  1. Bear the seal and signature, or the electronic signature, of the licensed engineer or architect who performed the inspection.
  2. Indicate the manner and type of inspection forming the basis for the inspection report.
  3. Identify any substantial structural deterioration within a reasonable professional probability based on the scope of the inspection, describe the extent of such deterioration, and identify any recommended repairs for such deterioration.
  4. State whether unsafe or dangerous conditions, as those terms are defined in the Florida Building Code, were observed.
  5. Recommend any remedial or preventive repair for any items that are damaged but are not substantial structural deterioration.
  6. Identify and describe any items requiring further inspection.

Local Government Enforcement

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

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

Board’s Duty After Obtaining The Milestone Report

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

Who Pays for The Milestone Inspection?

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

Failure to Obtain the Milestone Inspection

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

Manager’s Duty

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

Exemptions

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

Florida Building Commission Requirements

The Florida Building Commission must review the milestone inspection requirements and make recommendations, if any, to the legislature to ensure inspections are sufficient to determine the structural integrity of a building. The commission must provide a written report of any recommendations to the governor, the president of the senate, and the speaker of the house of representatives by December 31, 2022. 

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

II. Structural Integrity Reserve Studies and Mandatory Reserves:

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

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

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

The Structural Integrity Reserve Study (required for all condominium and cooperative buildings three stories or higher regardless of date of certificate of occupancy):

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

  1. Roof
  2. Load-bearing walls or other primary structural members
  3. Floor
  4. Foundation
  5. Fireproofing and fire protection systems
  6. Plumbing
  7. Electrical systems
  8. Waterproofing and exterior painting
  9. Windows
  10. Any other item that has a deferred maintenance expense or replacement cost that exceeds $10,000 and the failure to replace or maintain such item negatively affects the items listed in subparagraphs a.-i., as determined by the licensed engineer or architect performing the visual inspection portion of the structural integrity reserve study.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-Waivable and Waivable Reserves In The Unity Owner-Controlled Association

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

Mandatory Reserves In The Developer-Controlled Association

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

Pre-Turnover Developer Duty

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

III. Official Records

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

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

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

IV. Association Websites

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

V. Jurisdiction of Division of Condominiums, Timeshares and Mobile Homes

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

VI. New Reporting Requirements For All Condominium and Cooperative Associations

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

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

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

VII. Applicable To All Sellers of Units

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

VIII. Glitches

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

Tags: , , ,