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

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

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

Violation Remedies: Self Help vs. Injunction by Jeffrey Rembaum, Esq. of Kaye, Bender, Rembaum

Violation Remedies: Self Help vs. Injunction by Jeffrey Rembaum, Esq. of Kaye, Bender, Rembaum

  • Posted: Jul 14, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Violation Remedies: Self Help vs. Injunction by Jeffrey Rembaum, Esq. of Kaye, Bender, Rembaum

Imagine this scenario: you are on the board of directors of your association. The association has repeatedly requested that an owner pressure wash their dirty roof to bring it into compliance with the community standards, but the owner refuses to do so. The association has already sent a number of demand letters and even levied a fine and perhaps a suspension of use rights, too, but the owner still will not comply. What is the association’s next step?

  • Is it time to file a lawsuit to compel compliance? Chapters 718 (governing condominiums), 719 (governing cooperatives), a 720 (governing homeowners associations), Florida Statutes, authorize the association to bring an action at law or in equity to enforce the provisions of the declaration against the owner.

or

  • Is it time for the association to use its “self-help” remedy? In fact, many declarations contain such “self-help” language, which authorizes the association to cure the violation on behalf of an owner and even, at times, assess the owner for the costs of doing so. These “self-help” provisions generally contain permissive language, meaning that the association may, but is not “obligated” to, cure the violation.

 

Assume that the association’s declaration contains both the permissive “self-help” remedy and the right to seek an injunction from the court that orders the owner to clean their roof or else be in contempt of court. Thus, it would appear the association has a decision to make: (i) go to court to seek the injunction; or (ii) enter onto the owner’s property, pressure clean the roof, and assess the costs to the owner. Not so fast! Recent case law from Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal affirmed a complication to what should be a simple decision, discussed in greater detail below.

In two cases decided 10 years apart, 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 to engage in “self-help” to remedy the violation. Prior to a discussion of the cases, a brief explanation of legal and equitable remedies is necessary.

There is a general legal principle 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). In the association context, a legal remedy would be to exercise the “self-help” authority granted in the association’s declaration. An equitable remedy would be to bring an action seeking an injunction to compel an owner to take action to comply with the declaration (e.g., compelling the owner to pressure wash their roof). A court will typically only award an equitable remedy when a legal remedy (such as “self-help”) is unavailable, insufficient, or inadequate.

This distinction is first illustrated in Alorda v. Sutton Place Homeowners Association, Inc., 82 So. 3d 1077 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). In Alorda, the owners failed to provide the association with proof of insurance coverage as required by the declaration. The association sent multiple demand letters to the owners, but they failed to comply. The declaration provided, in pertinent part, that “[t]he owner shall furnish proof of such insurance to the Association at the time of purchase of a lot and shall furnish proof of renewal of such insurance on each anniversary date. If the owner fails to provide such insurance the Association may obtain such insurance and shall assess the owner for the cost of the same in accordance with the provisions of this Declaration” (emphasis added). In accordance with the foregoing, the association had the option to purchase the insurance on behalf of the owners and assess them for the costs of same.

However, the association chose instead to file a complaint against the owners seeking the equitable remedy of injunctive relief, asking the court to enter a permanent mandatory injunction requiring the owners to obtain the required insurance coverage. The owners then filed a motion to dismiss the suit arguing that even though they had violated a provision of the declaration, the equitable remedy of an injunction is not available because the association had an adequate remedy at law. In other words, the owners argued that, because the association could have, pursuant to the declaration, undertaken the ”self-help” option by purchasing the required insurance and assessing it against the owners, they had an available legal remedy and, therefore, the equitable remedy sought (a mandatory injunction) was not available to the association. The court, citing to a different case, Shaw v. Tampa Electric Company, 949 So.2d 1006 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), explained that a mandatory injunction is proper only where a clear right has been violated, irreparable harm has been threatened, and there is a lack of an adequate remedy at law. As the association had an adequate remedy at law (the authority to purchase the insurance on behalf of the owners), the third requirement was not met. Therefore, the court held that the association failed to state a cause of action and dismissed the case. (This case might be decided differently today as it appears the insurance marketplace will not permit an association to purchase insurance for a unit that it does not own, so the legal remedy presumed available to the association would be inadequate).

Similarly, in the recent case of Mauriello v. The Property Owners Association of Lake Parker Estates, Inc., Case No. 2D21-500 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022), Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal considered the award of attorneys’ 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 an injunction because the association had an adequate remedy at law. In Mauriello, the owners failed to maintain their lawn and landscaping in good condition as required by the declaration. As such, the association filed a complaint seeking a mandatory injunction ordering the owners to maintain the lawn and landscaping in a “neat condition.” The association’s declaration contained similar language to the declaration at issue in Alorda. The declaration provided that, if an owner failed to perform any maintenance required by the declaration, the association, after written notice, “may have such work performed, and the cost thereof shall be specifically assessed against such Lot which assessment shall be secured by the lien set forth in Section 9 of this Article VI” (emphasis added). In other words, the association had the permissive “self-help” authority pursuant to the declaration.

The facts of this case were complicated by the sale of the home in the middle of the suit. The new owners voluntarily brought the home into compliance with the declaration, and the case became moot. However, the parties continued to fight over who was entitled to prevailing party attorneys’ fees. The association argued it was entitled to prevailing party attorneys’ fees because the voluntary compliance was only obtained after the association was forced to commence legal action. The owners, citing Alorda, argued that they were entitled to prevailing party attorneys’ fees as the association’s complaint never stated a cause of action in the first place. They argued that the complaint should have been dismissed at the outset because the association sought an equitable remedy (mandatory injunction) when a legal remedy was available to the association (exercise of “self-help” authority).

Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal agreed with the owners that Alorda was controlling. The Court explained that, as in Alorda, “the association’s declaration gave it the option of remedying the alleged violation itself, assessing the owner for the cost, and if the owner failed to pay, placing a lien on the property and foreclosing if it remained unpaid.” As such, the association had an adequate remedy at law and could not seek the equitable remedy of an injunction, which was initially sought by the association. Because the mandatory injunction was not available to the association, the association’s complaint failed to state a proper cause of action and, thus, should have been dismissed by the trial court at the outset. Therefore, the association was not entitled to its sought-after prevailing party attorneys’ fee award, which is otherwise granted if a party comes into compliance after the lawsuit is served.

Sections 718.303 (as to condominiums), 719.303 (as to cooperatives), and 720.305 (as to homeowners associations), Florida Statutes, contain similar language that specifically authorizes the association to bring actions at law or in equity, or both, in the event an owner fails to comply with the governing documents of the association. However, neither the Court in Alorda nor the Court in Mauriello addressed the association’s statutory authority to bring an injunction against an owner who fails to comply with the requirements of the declaration, but rather found that the association must use the “self-help” remedy since it was available to cure the violation.

Notwithstanding the Alorda and Mauriello decisions rendered by Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal, past appellate court decisions from other appellate jurisdictions in Florida have permitted community associations to pursue claims for injunctive relief against violating owners so long as a violation of the restrictive covenant is alleged in the complaint. As such, the Alorda and Mauriello cases appear to be departures from the established principle. Additionally, as both decisions came from Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal, the decisions are certainly binding on those associations within the jurisdiction of the Second District, but there has been no indication that other districts will follow suit. However, there is risk that other appellate district courts may be persuaded by the holdings of Alorda and Mauriello.

As such, if your association’s declaration contains a “self-help” provision, and your association chooses to seek an injunction against an owner rather than pursue “self-help,” the board should definitely discuss the issue in greater detail with the association’s legal counsel prior to proceeding. 

Find out more about KBR Legal – If your community is looking for representation give us a call.

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.

Tags: , ,
Season 3, Episode 10 of ‘Association Leadership’ New Inspections, Reserves and Insurance Legislation

Season 3, Episode 10 of ‘Association Leadership’ New Inspections, Reserves and Insurance Legislation

  • Posted: Jun 14, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Season 3, Episode 10 of ‘Association Leadership’ New Inspections, Reserves and Insurance Legislation
Presented by Castle Group
Season 3, Episode 10 of ‘Association Leadership’
New Inspections, Reserves and Insurance Legislation
If you know CAMS and Board Members who will benefit from these important webinars, please share.
This online webinar is hosted by The Castle Group. If you have any questions before or after this event, please visit them at: https://castlegroup.com/contact/
Castle Group invites you to join us for Season 3, Episode 10 of Association Leadership: New Inspections, Reserves and Insurance Legislation.
The live webinar will be hosted by James Donnelly, Castle Group – Founder & CEO who will be joined by attorney Jeffrey A. Rembaum and Michael S. Bender – Kaye Bender Rembaum, P.L. Board Certified Specialists in Condominium and Planned Development Law, with special guest Misha Mladenovic, M2E – President.
Wednesday, June 15, 2022 | 12 Noon to 1:00pm

 

Tags:
WHO REPAIRS THE INCIDENTAL DAMAGES CAUSED BY THE ASSOCIATION? Article by KBR Legal

WHO REPAIRS THE INCIDENTAL DAMAGES CAUSED BY THE ASSOCIATION? Article by KBR Legal

  • Posted: Jun 14, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on WHO REPAIRS THE INCIDENTAL DAMAGES CAUSED BY THE ASSOCIATION? Article by KBR Legal

WHO REPAIRS THE INCIDENTAL DAMAGES CAUSED BY THE ASSOCIATION?

 Imagine: the association has just informed you it is set to begin a massive concrete restoration project. As part of the project, the contractor will need access to the rebar beneath the concrete slab connected to (or in legalese, “appurtenant to”) your unit’s balcony. To access the balcony slab, the contractor will have to remove the custom Italian tiles you just installed on your balcony. Who is responsible for the costs of the removal? Who is responsible to replace the tiles? The answers to these questions will largely depend on whether the governing documents of the association include an “incidental damage clause” and the specific circumstances of the situation, too.

In its most simplistic sense, an incidental damage clause in the declaration means that the association is responsible to repair any “incidental damage” caused by the association’s exercise of its maintenance, repair, and/or replacement responsibility. However, the existence or absence of such language is not always dispositive as to the repair responsibility. This is similar to “i” before “e” unless after “c” as there always seem to be exceptions.

For example, the repair and replacement obligation of the association may be limited only to damage caused to the unit and not cover any owner improvements to limited common elements, such as the balcony; or the obligation may be limited to damage to improvements only as originally installed by the developer, too. Whether the association or the owner will be responsible to repair the damage is highly fact-specific and will depend on the exact language in the governing documents of the association. Arbitration decisions of the Division of Florida Condominiums, Timeshares, and Mobile Homes (the Division), discussed below, provide some guidance as to when the association may be responsible for incidental damage and when the owners will be responsible to repair same. That said, bear in mind that such decisions are not precedential and in addition only apply to the parties in the arbitration that resulted in the Division’s order. However, it does provide a good understanding of how the Division may rule in a similar circumstance.

As discussed above, where the governing documents contain incidental damage language, and the association damages a portion of the unit while conducting its maintenance, repair, and replacement responsibility, the association is likely responsible for the repair. This is illustrated in Rock v. Point East Three Condominium Corporation, Inc., Arb. Case No. 99-0220, Final Order (September 29, 2000).

In Rock, the association removed a shelf located under a sink and several wall tiles in order to repair rough plumbing in the common elements. The association replaced the wall tiles but did not replace the shelf after the repairs were completed. The unit owner sought, among other things, to have the association replace the shelf. The unit owner also sought to have the association repair tiles in the dining room of the unit which had “popped up” as a result of an unrelated water leak. The association’s declaration of condominium provided that the association was responsible to repair conduits and rough plumbing and provided that “[a]ll incidental damage caused to an apartment by such work shall be promptly repaired by the association.” The arbitrator ordered the association to replace the shelf, holding that the incidental damage to the shelf was caused by the repair to the rough plumbing, which was the association’s duty to maintain. As such, the incidental damage language of the declaration applied to the shelf. However, the arbitrator held the association was not responsible to replace the tiles in the dining room, as the damage to the tiles was not incidental to any work the association performed to repair the rough plumbing.

Therefore, Rock clearly establishes that while an association is responsible to repair portions of the unit that are damaged as a result of the association’s exercise of its maintenance, repair, and replacement obligation, the damage must be incidental to the association’s work.

If the declaration requires the association to repair or replace incidental damage to the unit, the association will likely be responsible to repair and replace owner modifications to the units, too, unless the declaration provides otherwise. In Brickell Town House Association, Inc. v. Del Valle, et al., Arb. Case No. 95-0133 Final Order (September 12, 1995), the association was required to remove certain owner-installed alterations to the unit in order to access and maintain the common elements. The unit owners asserted that the association was responsible to replace the alterations in accordance with the incidental damage provision in the declaration of condominium. The arbitrator agreed, holding that the association was required to reimburse the owners for the expenses required to restore the units to the condition which existed immediately prior to the association’s reconstruction activities, including betterments which were added by the unit owners since the original construction of the units by the developer.

In accordance with the holdings in Brickell and Rock, if the governing documents provide that the association is responsible for incidental damage to the unit, the association will likely be responsible to repair any portions of the unit damaged by the association’s exercise of its maintenance, repair, and replacement responsibility, including alterations made by owners (unless specifically provided for otherwise).

On a different note, if the governing documents of the association contain incidental damage language which is specific to damage caused to units, then the association will not be responsible for incidental damage caused to owner modifications to the common elements or the limited common elements. Similarly, the association will likely not be responsible to repair any damage to any owner alteration to a unit where the declaration required association approval and the owner failed to obtain same prior to installation of the improvement.

In Continental Towers, Inc. v. Nassif, Arb. Case No. 99-0866, Summary Final Order (November 24, 1999), the association needed to conduct concrete restoration, waterproofing, and other repairs to the unit owner balconies. The unit owners had installed tiles on the balcony and argued that the association was responsible for the replacement of the tile because the declaration provided that the association was responsible for incidental damage to the unit. However, the balcony was part of the common elements, not the unit. Therefore, the incidental damage language in the declaration did not apply to the tile, and, absent any other agreement between the parties, the association had no responsibility to repair and replace same. The arbitrator concluded that:

…in the absence of an agreement between the parties or a controlling provision of the documents, ‘it cannot be said from the mere fact of association permission that the association has assumed the perpetual obligation to remove and replace the personal property when necessary to repair and replace the common elements.’ The arbitrator adopts the rationale articulated in the Carriage House case. Since the balcony is a part of the common elements, and the tile was not part of the original construction, the unit owners are responsible for its removal and replacement.

Further, where there are owner modifications which were not approved as required by the declaration, the association will likely not be responsible to repair notwithstanding the incidental damage requirement set out in the declaration. In Harrison v. Land’s End Condominium Association, Inc., Arb. Case No. 94-0298, Final Order (June 27, 1995), the association was required to remove an owner-installed balcony finish in order to effectuate repairs to the balcony slab. In this case, the balcony was considered part of the unit, and the declaration contained a provision requiring the association to repair incidental damage to the unit. The declaration also required the owner to obtain approval of the association before making any alterations to the bal-cony. However, the owner never obtained such approval. Therefore, despite the incidental damage provision, the arbitrator determined that the association was not responsible to replace the balcony finish because the owner did not obtain association approval as required by the declaration.

Therefore, if an alteration requires association approval and an owner fails to obtain such approval, the association will far more likely not be responsible to repair any incidental damage to the alteration notwithstanding the existence of incidental damage language.

Generally, the association’s repair obligation is limited to actual damage caused to the unit as a result of its maintenance, repair, and replacement obligation. If the unit owners are required to vacate their unit in order for the association to effectuate the repairs, the association is not generally responsible to reimburse the owners for the costs of same. However, as the Brickell case, discussed above, shows us, that is not always the case. In Brickell, the owners also argued that the association was responsible to reimburse them for the costs they incurred in vacating the unit for the repairs. In this case, the association chose to proceed with a method of repairing damage to common element pipes from the interior of the units, which required the unit owners in the affected units to vacate. The association did not explore an option in which the repairs could be made from the exterior, which would permit the unit owners to remain in the unit. The arbitrator agreed with the owners and ordered the association to pay for the costs the owners incurred in vacating the units. As you can glean, this case is very fact specific, which led to this outcome.

In an order denying the association’s motion for rehearing, the arbitrator in Brickell, reiterated its earlier decision that the board, within its business judgment, decided to proceed with a method of reconstruction that required the removal of the owners. Therefore, the expenses of those owners are a common expense to be borne by all owners. The important consideration in this case was the fact that the association proceeded with the repairs from the interior without exploring options to proceed from the exterior. The arbitrator notes that the order should not be construed to mean that an association would be responsible for accommodations for all unit owners in the event that the condominium building had to be tented for termites, or if a hurricane rendered the building uninhabitable. In those cases, all owners would be required to vacate the units, and there can be no other decision of the board. Additionally, in Brickell, if there was no way for the association to make the repairs that would allow the owners to remain in unit, the arbitrator’s decision may have been different. How-ever, as the association chose to displace certain unit owners to effectuate the repairs without exploring any other options, the association was responsible for the owners’ costs to vacate.

Finally, even when there is no incidental damage language in the governing documents, the association may be responsible for damage to the units if the association fails to conduct necessary maintenance to the common elements, when the association knows that such maintenance is necessary. In Dibiase v. Beneva Ridge, Arb. Case No. 92-0210, Final Order (January 19, 1994), the association was aware that the common element parking area was consistently flooding into an owner’s unit. The association retained an engineer to conduct a drainage study, and the engineer recommended several remedial measures to address the drainage problem. While the association took some remedial steps, the association did not follow through on the study’s recommendations. The arbitrator concluded that the association was responsible for the owner’s costs to repair the unit caused by the flooding. The arbitrator explained that, while “[n]o association is required to protect the property against a 100-year storm…” the association was responsible to take those steps reasonably necessary to protect the condominium property.

As the association had an expert report that advised if the association did not take certain remedial measures, the damage to the condominium property would continue, the association had an obligation to make the repairs. As the association failed to follow the report, it was responsible for the damage caused to the unit.

In accordance with the decision in Dibiase, if the association receives a report from an expert advising that certain repairs must be performed, and the association fails to take action, the association may be responsible for the costs of any damage to the units caused by its failure to act.

As you have likely gleaned from the foregoing discussion, it can be difficult to determine who is responsible to repair and replace improvements damaged during the association’s exercise of its maintenance, repair, and replacement obligations. Given the complexities of the issue, your association should consult with its legal counsel with any inquiries regarding the association’s responsibility for incidental damage.

Kaye Bender Rembaum

We are 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. Our areas of concentration include

1200 Park Central Boulevard South, Pompano Beach, FL. Tel: 954.928.0680
9121 North Military Trail, Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, FL. Tel: 561.241.4462
1211 N. Westshore Boulevard, Suite 409, Tampa, FL. Tel: 813.375.0731
  • Assessment collections
  • Construction defect claims
  • Contract drafting and negotiation
  • Cooperatives
  • Covenant enforcement
  • Fair Housing
  • Land Use and Zoning
  • Litigation and Arbitration
  • Master/ Sub Association Issues
  • Pre and Post Turnover Planning
  • Real Estate and Title Concerns
  • Review and amendment of covenants

 

Tags: ,
RSVP for Free Hot Breakfast and Seminar

RSVP for Free Hot Breakfast and Seminar

  • Posted: Jun 11, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on RSVP for Free Hot Breakfast and Seminar
The West Palm Breakfast Group
Wed., June 15, 2022 | 7:30am | PBI Airport Hilton
Peter C. Mollengarden, Esq., from KBR, with also be there.
Not close to Palm Beach Airport, or know of someone who will benefit from this seminar?
Please feel free to share this email!
“Protecting Your Community with Security Technology”
Course #: 9631505 | Provider #: 0008280 | 1 CE credit in OPP for CAMS
Courses presented by: Tatiana Yaques of CCTV
and
“40-Year Recertification Inspections & Process”
Course #: 9629296 | Provider #: 0006881 | 1 CE credit as Elective for CAMS
Courses presented by: David Riddle, PE, MBA | The Falcon Group
There will be a delicious, free hot breakfast and door prizes!
Airport (PBI) HILTON: 150 Australian Ave | West Palm Beach, FL 33406
Tags: ,
Condo Inspection & Insurance Legislation Webinar Discussion about SB 4D and SB 2D

Condo Inspection & Insurance Legislation Webinar Discussion about SB 4D and SB 2D

  • Posted: Jun 08, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Condo Inspection & Insurance Legislation Webinar Discussion about SB 4D and SB 2D

Condo Inspection & Insurance Legislation Webinar

Discussion about SB 4D and SB 2D

Tuesday, June 21, 2022 | 12 Noon Eastern | Live via Zoom
Join Campbell Property Management, Attorney Michael Bender from Kaye Bender Rembaum and Paul Mack from Mack, Mack & Waltz Insurance for this webinar discussing the impact of SB 4D and SB 2D on community associations.
Attendees will learn about law changes that may impact their community associations in Florida.
If you know anyone who will benefit from webinar, please share this email.
Questions? Contact the host, Campbell Property Management, HERE
The Kaye Bender Rembaum Team Remains Available To You and Your Community Association
Visit KBRLegal.com for awesome free resources, including news with Legal Morsels and Rembaum’s Association Roundup, and our Event Calendar, which lists upcoming free classes.
Join Kaye Bender Rembaum in attendance at this networking breakfast & education event

Join Kaye Bender Rembaum in attendance at this networking breakfast & education event

  • Posted: Jun 08, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Join Kaye Bender Rembaum in attendance at this networking breakfast & education event
Wed., June 8, 2022 | 7:30am | DoubleTree PBG
Peter C. Mollengarden, Esq., from KBR, will be in attendance.
If you know someone who will benefit from this seminar, feel free to share this email.
Asbestos: The Truth & Nothing But the Truth
Course # 9628540 | 1 CE in OPP or ELE | Provider # 0005930
and
What Every CAM Should Know About Mold
Course # 9630575 | 1 CE in OPP or ELE | Provider # 0005930
Instructor: Robert Lozano, Environmental Pro with The Water Restoration Group
There will be a delicious, free hot breakfast and door prizes!
At the DoubleTree in Palm Beach Gardens
DoubleTree by Hilton: 4431 PGA Blvd. Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
If you have any questions or comments about this event, including about registration, please contact Terri Kaye at TSK. Here is how: TSK4Marketing@gmail.com
Kaye Bender Rembaum | Visit Us Online
Pompano: 1200 Park Central Boulevard South; Tel: 954.928.0680
Palm Beach Gardens: 9121 North Military Trail, Ste. 200; Tel: 561.241.4462
Tampa: 1211 N. Westshore Boulevard, Ste. 409; Tel: 813.375.0731
Offices in Miami by appointment: 800.974.0680
KBRLegal | 1200 Park Central Blvd. SouthPompano Beach, FL 33064
Video: The Whirlwind Condo Safety Legislative Session is Passed: “Now What”?

Video: The Whirlwind Condo Safety Legislative Session is Passed: “Now What”?

  • Posted: Jun 03, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Video: The Whirlwind Condo Safety Legislative Session is Passed: “Now What”?

The Whirlwind Condo Safety Legislative Session is Passed: “Now What”?

Two bills were presented to the Governor and passed: SB 2D –

Property Insurance and SB 4D – Building Safety Learn about how this will affect your associations.

The following (and more) was discussed:

-Mandatory structural inspections, reserve studies and timelines for repairs

-Changes to florida building code concerning roof repairs and replacements

-New rules on deductibles and time limits for filing claims

-What is RAP and will it reduce insurance premiums

-Changes for contractors and AOBs

-Immediate and long term impacts on associations The panel of professionals include:

-Lisa A. Magill, Esq., BCS (Kaye Bender Rembaum)

-Michael York (Socotec)

-Matt Mercier (CBIZ)

-Michael Kornahrens (Advanced Roofing)

-Rafael Aquino (Affinity Management)

 

The Whirlwind Condo Safety Legislative Session is Passed: “Now What”?

The Whirlwind Condo Safety Legislative Session is Passed: “Now What”?

  • Posted: May 30, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on The Whirlwind Condo Safety Legislative Session is Passed: “Now What”?

Lunch & Learn Round Table: The Whirlwind Condo Safety Legislative Session is Passed: “Now What”?

12:00 pm-1:00 pm
06/01/2022
register for the informative round table.
Florida residential property owners are subject to restrictive covenants on their property, be it by a declaration of condominium or declaration of covenants.

Florida residential property owners are subject to restrictive covenants on their property, be it by a declaration of condominium or declaration of covenants.

  • Posted: May 30, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Florida residential property owners are subject to restrictive covenants on their property, be it by a declaration of condominium or declaration of covenants.

Robert L. Kaye, Esq., BCS | Legal Morsels

A large percentage of Florida residential property owners are subject to restrictive covenants on their property, be it by a declaration of condominium or declaration of covenants.  In addition to these restrictions, Florida Statutes contain additional restrictions that apply to these properties, some of which involve use restrictions.  For condominiums, the provisions of the statutes are of a heightened significance because but for the statutes, condominium ownership of property does not exist.  However, for homeowners’ associations, restrictive covenants have been in use for centuries, well in advance of the existence of such statutes.  As a result, certain statutory provisions may not apply to every homeowners’ association in Florida.

There is a restriction within both the U.S. and Florida Constitutions that limit the ability of the state to enact a law that will impair an existing contract or vested contractual right.  Use restrictions contained in declarations of covenants have been identified by Florida courts as existing contracts between the property owner and the entity that operates the community under the governing documents (the association). There is also case law in Florida that addresses whether a change in the statute applies to the community based upon if a particular phrase is included in the governing documents (commonly referred to as Kaufman language).

If the governing documents include  Kaufman language, any changes made by the legislature in a given year will automatically be incorporated into the governing documents and apply to that community.  Conversely, if there is no Kaufman language, only what is referred to as “procedural” changes made by the legislature will apply to that community.  An example of a procedural change would be a change in a notice requirement for elections.  Statutory changes that are “substantive” would not apply in that instance to that community.  An example of a substantive change would be requiring the association to take on all exterior maintenance of the residential dwellings (presuming the documents do not already provide for that obligation).  Without the Kaufman language in the governing documents, this latter statutory change would not apply to that community, as such change would likely be considered unconstitutional.

During the legislative session in 2021, Section 720.306 of the Florida Statutes was amended to add subsection (h), which provides, in pertinent part, that any amendment to a governing document after July 1, 2021 that prohibits or regulates rental agreements applies only to a parcel owner who acquires title to the parcel after the effective date of the amendment or to a parcel owner who consents to the amendment (with specific exceptions relative to short term rentals and limiting rentals to up to 3 times a year).  However, under the analysis discussed above, rental restrictions and the ability to amend governing documents are generally considered substantive vested rights.  As such, this new statute appears to  impair the existing contractual rights of many property owners in homeowner association communities.

The first step in considering whether this new rental restriction change applies to a particular homeowner association community is to check the governing documents for Kaufman language (this also assumes that the documents were not initially created on or after July 1, 2021).  Typically, Kaufman language is not included in original documents by developers of communities, but  many associations have added it by amendment after the developer was no longer involved.  If the Kaufman language is in the documents, the new statutory rental restriction provisions apply.  If, however, there is no Kaufman language, the new rental restriction statute would not be applicable to the community.  In this instance, the membership could still amend the governing documents to prohibit or regulate rentals within the community, which should be enforceable against all current owners, regardless of whether or not they voted in favor of the amendment.

The issue of whether or not this new statutory change regarding rental restrictions violates the Federal and State Constitutions has not been tested in the Florida or Federal courts as of this writing.  Before considering amending the governing document in a homeowner association community to create rental restrictions, it is recommended to consult with the association attorney as to the limitations that may apply.

Kaye Bender Rembaum is a full service commercial law firm dedicated to the representation of community associations throughout Florida.

Kaye Bender Rembaum is a full service commercial law firm dedicated to the representation of community associations throughout Florida.

  • Posted: May 05, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Kaye Bender Rembaum is a full service commercial law firm dedicated to the representation of community associations throughout Florida.

Kaye Bender Rembaum is a full service commercial law firm dedicated 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 provides its clients with an unparalleled level of personalized and professional service regardless of their size and takes into account their individual needs and financial concerns. They have offices in Pompano Beach, Palm Beach Gardens and Tampa, and in Miami-Dade by appointment.

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 personally affect them. The firm 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 Jeffrey Rembaum are industry leaders who are often sought out by public policy makers and the media for advice and commentary on community association law.

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.


Practice Areas

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. Our areas of concentration include:

  • Assessment Collections
  • Construction Defect Claims
  • Contract Drafting and Negotiation
  • Covenant Enforcement
  • Fair Housing
  • Land Use and Zoning
  • Litigation and Arbitration
  • Master / Sub Association Issues
  • Pre and Post Turnover Planning
  • Review and Amendments of Covenants

Contact Us

Tags:
Watch the Webinar: Updating Governing Documents

Watch the Webinar: Updating Governing Documents

  • Posted: May 03, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Watch the Webinar: Updating Governing Documents

Watch the Webinar: Updating Governing Documents

We recently held an educational “Updating Governing Documents” webinar with Emily Gannon from Kaye Bender Rembaum to discuss why updating governing documents is critically important. The Webinar covered: The Hierarchy of Governing Documents The Amendment Process Common Misconceptions and more…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdKVohy_DhY&feature=emb_imp_woyt