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. 

The Subtle and Not-So-Subtle Differences Between Homeowners and Condominium Associations

The Subtle and Not-So-Subtle Differences Between Homeowners and Condominium Associations

  • Posted: Jul 20, 2021
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on The Subtle and Not-So-Subtle Differences Between Homeowners and Condominium Associations

The Subtle and Not-So-Subtle Differences Between Homeowners and Condominium Associations

Florida has created an abundance of legislation governing homeowners’ and condominium associations. You would think that, by now, laws affecting both types of communities would have more parity than they actually do. (Please note that that commercial condominiums are not addressed in this article.)

Perhaps the most appreciative difference between a homeowners association and a residential condominium association is that the homeowners association exists in common law, but the condominium only exists because of legislation adopted by the Florida Legislature. That said, homeowners associations are subject to Chapter 720, Florida Statutes, and condominium associations are subject to Chapter 718, Florida Statutes. There is both parity and significant differences between these two Acts, the latter of which are further addressed below. We begin by examining bidding.

 

Bidding: A homeowners association is only required to obtain bids if the aggregate cost of the project (referring to the materials, work, and/or services) exceeds 10 percent of the total budget including reserves, if any. On the other hand, condominium associations are required to obtain bids if the aggregate cost of the project exceeds 5 percent of the total budget including reserves, if any. Please note, there is no requirement in the legislation for a community association to obtain a definitive number of a bids. Therefore, at least two would be appropriate. Also remember, there are exceptions to the bidding requirement for professional services such as attorneys, accountants, and landscape architects.

 

Certified Written Inquiry: A condominium association owner has the right to send a certified written inquiry to the board, and the board is obligated to answer it within 30 days (or 60 days if the certified written inquiry is provided to the community association’s lawyer to respond to). A failure to respond means that if the owner files a legal action over the item for which certified written inquiry was provided and loses, the owner will not be responsible to pay for the association’s prevailing party attorneys’ fees. There is no similar provision for a homeowners association.

 

Common Areas: Common areas in a homeowners association are owned by the association itself. In other words, no owner can claim an ownership interest in a homeowner association’s common areas. However, as to condominiums, the equivalent of the homeowner association’s common area is referred to as “common elements”. All of the unit owners of the condominium association own an indivisible interest in the common elements.

 

Disputes: In a homeowners association, disputes between an association and a parcel owner regarding use of or changes to the parcel or the common areas and other covenant enforcement disputes, disputes regarding amendments to the association documents, disputes regarding meetings of the board and committees appointed by the board, membership meetings not including election meetings, and access to the official records of the association must be the subject of a demand for pre-suit mediation served by an aggrieved party before the dispute is filed in the local court. Before a homeowners association can commence litigation where the amount in controversy is in excess of $100,000, the approval of a majority of a quorum of the membership is required. There is no similar provision as applied to condominium associations.

 

In a condominium association, prior to the institution of court litigation, a party to a “dispute” (as such term is hereinafter defined) must petition the Division of Florida Condominiums, Timeshares, and Mobile Homes of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation for non-binding arbitration or, as of July 1, 2021, avail themselves of the presuit mediation process as set out in Chapter 720.  “Disputes” subject to mandatory arbitration or presuit mediation include 1) the authority of the board of directors, under this chapter or association document to: i) require any owner to take any action, or not to take any action, involving that owner’s unit or the appurtenances thereto ii) alter or add to a common area or element; or 2) the failure of a governing body, when required by this chapter or an association document, to: i) properly conduct elections ii) give adequate notice of meetings or other actions iii) properly conduct meetings iv) allow inspection of books and records; and 3) a plan of termination pursuant to §718.117, Fla. Stat.

 

Elections: Elections in a homeowners association take place as per the bylaws, while elections for condominiums take place following the regime set out in chapter 718, Florida Statutes, more specifically §718.112, Fla. Stat., and the provisions of the Florida Administrative Code. In order to hold a homeowners association election, a quorum must be attained unless the bylaws provide otherwise. No quorum is required to hold a condominium election, but rather 20 percent of the eligible voters need to cast a ballot in order to hold the election. In a condominium association of more than 10 units, co-owners of a unit cannot serve on the board at the same time unless there are not enough candidates, or they own more than one unit. Commencing July 1, 2018, condominium association board members cannot serve more than eight consecutive years absent certain exceptions (note, this statute is not retroactive in its application). There is no similar co-owner prohibition and term limit restriction for homeowners associations.

 

Elections by acclimation: In a condominium association if the same number of candidates, or less, run for the board as the number of seats available, then there is no need to have the election. This is referred to as an “election by acclimation” which means, those candidates will comprise the present board upon the annual meeting. If the election is contested because there are more candidates than seats available and at least 20 percent of the eligible voters do not cast a ballot, then last year’s board rolls over.

 

As to homeowners associations, if the election process allows candidates to be nominated in advance of the meeting, the association is not required to allow nominations at the meeting. An election is not required unless more candidates are nominated than vacancies exist. If an election is not required because there are either an equal number or fewer qualified candidates than vacancies exist, and if nominations from the floor are not required pursuant to the statute or the bylaws and write-in nominations are not permitted, then the candidates who nominated themselves in advance shall commence service on the board of directors regardless of whether a quorum is attained at the annual meeting. Otherwise, if those conditions are not met and a quorum is not attained for a homeowners association’s election, then last year’s board rolls over to this year’s board.

 

Elections, Voting: Unless otherwise set out in the bylaws, homeowners association members vote in the election for the board by proxy and/or ballot. On the other hand, condominium association owners cannot vote for the election of directors by proxy but rather must vote themselves by secret absentee ballot using the the inner and outer envelope system. A homeowners association only needs to use the inner and outer envelope system when the bylaws call for secret absentee ballots.

 

Fines: A condominium association cannot levy a fine greater than $1,000 for any one violation and cannot lien and foreclose the fine under any circumstances. In a homeowners association, an association can foreclose to collect a fine if both i) the fine is $1,000 or more and ii) the authority to lien is set out in the declaration.

 

Frequently Asked Questions and Answers Sheet: As to condominium associations §718.504, Fla. Stat., requires that a “Frequently Asked Questions and Answers” sheet be made available to prospective purchasers and to owners who request it. It must be updated annually and must include the following questions along with the answers to these questions: 1) What are my voting rights in the condominium association? 2) What restrictions exist in the condominium documents on my right to use my unit? 3) How much are my assessments to the condominium association for my unit type, and when are they due? 4) Do I have to be a member in any other association? If so, what is the name of the association and what are my voting rights in this association? Also, how much are my assessments? 5) Am I required to pay rent or land use fees for recreational or other commonly used facilities? If so, how much am I obligated to pay annually? 6) Is the condominium association or any other mandatory membership association involved in any court cases in which it may face liability in excess of $100,000? If so, identify each such case. There is no similar provision or requirement for homeowners associations.

 

Leasing Restrictions: Effective July 1, 2021  as to HOA leasing restrictions, any restriction that prohibits or regulates rental agreements applies only to (i) an owner who acquires title to a parcel after the effective date of the governing document or amendment, or (ii) an owner who consents, individually or through a representative, to the governing document or amendment.  As to condominium associations, according to §718.110(13), Fla. Stat., an amendment prohibiting unit owners from renting their units or altering the duration of the rental term or specifying or limiting the number of times unit owners are entitled to rent their units during a specified period, applies only to unit owners who consent to the amendment and unit owners who acquire title to their units after the effective date of the amendment.

 

Liens and Foreclosures: In a homeowners association, prior to recording a lien against a delinquent owner’s lot, the owner must be provided a statutorily compliant warning letter at least 45 days prior to recording the lien, warning the homeowner that if the assessment is not paid a lien may be recorded. Then, the owner must be provided a second letter at least 45 days prior to filing the foreclosure lawsuit warning that if the lien is not satisfied (paid-off), then a lawsuit to foreclose the lien may be filed anytime thereafter. For a condominium association the warning/waiting periods for both letters was 30 days. Effective July 1, 2021 this was changed to 45 days.

 

Material Alterations: Unless otherwise provided in the declaration of covenants and restrictions, a material alteration to a homeowners association’s common area is decided by the board. In condominium associations, material alterations require 75 percent approval of all unit owners unless the declaration provides otherwise.

 

Official Records Requests: In a homeowners association, official record requests must be made by certified U.S. mail to create the rebuttable presumption the association willfully failed to respond. There is no similar requirement for a condominium association. Every community association should adopt specific rules governing official records requests, how often they can be made, and where they must be delivered. If your association has not done so, you are urged to discuss this with the association‘s lawyer.

 

Quorums: A quorum of the membership for a homeowners association membership meeting consists of 30 percent of the entire membership unless a lower number is provided for in the bylaws. A quorum for a condominium association membership meeting occurs when there is a majority of the voting interests present unless a lower number is provided for in the bylaws.

 

Reserve Accounts: A homeowners association only has restricted reserve accounts if initially created by the developer or voted on and approved by a majority of the entire membership. In a condominium association, 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. Condominium boards and homeowners association boards with restricted reserves may propose lower or no reserves to the membership which is subject to approval by a majority of a quorum of the members. However, neither board is obligated to propose lower reserves. A condominium association board and a homeowners association board with restricted reserves must fully fund those reserves in the budget each year as must homeowners association boards whose association has adopted restricted reserves.

 

Transfer Fees: As per §689.28, Fla. Stat., transfer fees when buying and leasing a home in the state of Florida are prohibited. But, there are exceptions for both homeowners and condominium associations with this caveat. There is no cap, per se, that a homeowners association can charge a prospective member as a part of acquiring their property, but such fee must be authorized in the declaration (or other recorded document). However, as per §718.112 Fla. Stat., a condominium association can only charge up to $150 per applicant. A husband/wife or parent/dependent child are considered one applicant. A condominium association can only charge a transfer fee if it has the authority to approve transfers, and the authority for the transfer fee, specifically, must be set out in the declaration or bylaws (and as set forth above, as of July 1, 2021 it is presently limited to a maximum $150.00).

 

Warranties: A developer and general contractor of a condominium provides statutory warranties to buyers of units as further detailed in Chapter 718, Fla. Stat. There are no similar statutory warranties set out in Chapter 720, Fla. Stat., for buyers of a home within a homeowners association. A developer of a condominium, pursuant to relevant law, also provides an implied warranty of habitability. As to a homeowners association, §553.835, Fla. Stat., provides in relevant part that there is no such warranty for off-site improvements (i.e., the common areas) with a small exception for the shared components of a townhome type community.

 

Websites: A condominium association that has a condominium with 150 or more units must host an association website and post certain official records to it. Homeowners associations have no similar requirement.

 

If you have any questions in regard to these matters be sure to discuss them with an attorney of your choosing.

(Reprinted with permission from the April 2021 edition of the Florida Community Association Journal and updated to reflect  recent legislation effective July 1, 2021)

 

Tags: , ,
Selective Enforcement: A Grossly Misunderstood Concept in the entire body of community association law.

Selective Enforcement: A Grossly Misunderstood Concept in the entire body of community association law.

  • Posted: Jul 14, 2021
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Selective Enforcement: A Grossly Misunderstood Concept in the entire body of community association law.

Selective Enforcement: A Grossly Misunderstood Concept in the entire body of community association law.

by https://kbrlegal.com/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From these important cases, it can be gleaned that

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

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

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

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

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

 

If a 2008 Florida law that required condos to plan for repairs had still been in place, “this never would have happened,” said the legislator who sponsored the law.

If a 2008 Florida law that required condos to plan for repairs had still been in place, “this never would have happened,” said the legislator who sponsored the law.

  • Posted: Jul 08, 2021
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on If a 2008 Florida law that required condos to plan for repairs had still been in place, “this never would have happened,” said the legislator who sponsored the law.

If a 2008 Florida law that required condos to plan for repairs had still been in place, “this never would have happened,” said the legislator who sponsored the law.

 

SURFSIDE, Fla. — Late last year, after years of delays and disputes, the Champlain Towers South Condominium Association began a desperate search for $16.2 million to fix major structural damage that was slowly threatening the Surfside high-rise — and that may have contributed to the building’s partial collapse June 24.

The obvious place to look was the building’s reserve fund — extra money socked away to cover the cost of future repairs. But the account held just $777,000, according to condo board documents — nowhere near enough to soften the blow.

The collapse, which killed at least 64 people and left 76 others missing, occurred before the condo board could collect the needed money from residents and begin repairs. The cause of the collapse is unknown, and investigators, experts and advocates are trying to determine whether the uncompleted repairs played a role, whether the board could have seen the problem coming earlier — and whether a Florida law regulating condo repairs that was repealed a decade ago could have made a difference.

 

One way to keep track of needed repairs is a “reserve study,” in which condo boards bring in experts like engineers or certified specialists every few years to inspect buildings and estimate how much the boards should collect from residents to prepare for future fixes. The building’s financial documents, obtained by NBC News and NBC 6 South Florida, show that Champlain Towers South had not done a professional reserve study since at least 2016. That decision was legal, but it meant that planning was left to the board, a shifting group of volunteers with little training in building maintenance.

“If the owners would have had a reserve study, if the board was proactive and had funded its reserves, this never would have happened,” said Julio Robaina, a former Republican state legislator.

Robaina sponsored a 2008 law requiring condo associations to hire engineers or architects to submit reports every five years about how much it would cost to keep up with repairs.

The law lasted just two years before it was repealed in 2010, after Robaina left office. Robaina blamed pushback from real estate lawyers and property managers, who he said claimed that the law was too burdensome for condo owners. The legislator who sponsored the repeal, former state Rep. Gary Aubuchon, a Republican real estate broker and homebuilder, did not reply to messages seeking comment.

 

The repeal left Florida’s condo residents less protected than those in nine states that legally require reserve studies, according to the Community Associations Institute, a nonprofit organization that advocates for condo associations. Thirty-one other states, including Florida, regulate reserves in some way — although Florida is one of three states with loopholes that enable owners to opt out of requirements, the nonprofit said. Ten states have no regulations about reserves at all.

“One of the steps that should be taken by a building, especially an aging building, is having adequate funds available so that when you have to face significant cost challenges there’s an appropriate amount of money available,” said Gary Mars, a South Florida lawyer who represents condo associations.

A survey last year by the Community Associations Institute found that most homeowners associations are hesitant to increase residents’ fees, anticipating opposition, and therefore fail to plan for long-term infrastructure fixes.

“In postponing inspections, reserve studies, and — ultimately — complete repairs or renovations, boards often end up facing an exponentially more comprehensive and expensive project in the long run,” the report said.

 

Maxwell Marcucci, a spokesman for the Champlain Towers South Condominium Association, declined to comment on reserve studies. In a previous statement to NBC News, he said the condo board was doing its best to ensure the building was safe. “They are not engineers and not building safety experts,” Marcucci said. “They hired experts, trusted experts, and at no point did the experts indicate that there was a threat of imminent collapse.”

The lack of a professional reserve study is a departure from what many experts say is best practice for condominiums, particularly older ones on the coast — like Champlain Towers South, built in 1981 — that have been exposed for decades to corrosive salt and water.

Robaina, who co-owns a property management company, said maintaining healthy reserves “is the single most important action that a condominium board needs to take.”

Florida law requires condo boards to maintain reserves for repairs over $10,000, but it does not say exactly how much to set aside. That means condo boards have some flexibility in avoiding saving for repairs that do not need to be made right away.

In addition, the law allows condo buildings to waive the reserve requirement altogether. Once it has passed its annual budget, a condo board can give residents the opportunity to opt out of collecting reserves by a vote of a majority of unit owners. The votes are common in Florida condo buildings, condo lawyers say.

That is what it appears Champlain Towers South did, lawyers and reserve experts said.

The experts pointed to the board’s reliance on special assessments — additional fees on top of residents’ normal monthly payments — to fund needed repairs. The board imposed a $1 million special assessment in 2016 for hallway renovations and a $350,000 special assessment in 2019 for work on a generator, a fuel pump and a fuel tank. Such lump-sum levies are indicative of a building whose owners have decided not to set aside enough reserves through regular monthly fees, choosing instead to wait until a big-ticket repair is needed to ask residents to pay for it, experts said. Many associations make that choice by repeatedly voting to waive or reduce the funding of their reserves.

“I can’t help but think that the building did that for years and years, which is why there was not enough funds available,” said Matthew Kuisle, Southeast regional director for Reserve Advisors, which prepares reserve studies. “Why would they do that? So they have lower fees. But in the long run, the fees are a small price to pay.”

The shortcomings of that approach started to become clear in 2018, when the board began inspecting the building before a checkup mandated by Miami-Dade County for buildings that reach 40 years old. In an October 2018 report, engineer Frank Morabito alerted the board to “major structural damage” to concrete slabs underneath the building’s pool deck and its entrance drive. He blamed a “major error” in the building’s construction and years of corrosion. He estimated the cost of repairs at $9 million.

Reeling from sticker shock, the board invited a Surfside building official to its November 2018 meeting. The official told the board that the building was “in very good shape,” according to minutes of the meeting. Some residents have said that led them to believe the situation was not dire.

Even so, the board began trying to find a way to repair the damage — and to pay for it.

Disagreements over the costs frustrated board members. Five members quit over two weeks in fall 2019. The condo association has had four presidents since 2018.

 

By late last year, the board had accepted that there was no safe way forward without doing the massive reconstruction Morabito recommended, along with repairs to a deteriorating roof. Morabito began preliminary work and found that the damage discovered in 2018 had gotten worse. The bill rose to more than $16 million.

The board scrambled for money. It found $707,000 left over from the previous special assessments and $777,000 more in reserves. But a quarter of the reserves were designated for insurance deductibles, leaving $556,000. The board chose not to tap the reserves just in case there was another emergency. That meant the building was short by $15.5 million, which the board voted in April to raise through a special assessment. The cost to residents would be $80,000 to $360,000 per unit.

“A lot of this work could have been done or planned for in years gone by. But this is where we are now,” board President Jean Wodnicki wrote to residents before the vote.

By last month, the board had started work on the roof, and it put other repairs out for bid. Responses were due July 7. Two weeks before the deadline, the building partly collapsed.

The board’s nearly three-year struggle to start work on the concrete replacement project has loomed over the catastrophe’s aftermath. Investigators have not determined what caused the failure; the deteriorating supports are among the possibilities.

Experts say the extent of disrepair documented in the 2018 report raises questions about how the damage went unnoticed previously.

“I read the report, and I wondered how long the building looked that way,” said Robert Nordlund, founder and CEO of Association Reserves, a reserve study firm based in California. “Did it look that way in 1998? 2008? Because clearly there was some significant deterioration in that 2018 report.”

 

Documents reviewed by NBC News and NBC 6 South Florida, including audits, budgets, financial statements and board meeting minutes, do not indicate when the structural issues noted by Morabito started, though the board did pay to replace leaking pipes in the building’s parking garage in 2016. But the documents do show that the board did not perform professional reserve studies and instead relied on board members to determine how much to set aside for repairs. In 2016, an accountant performing a year-end audit noted that “an independent study has not been conducted to determine the adequacy of the current funding” and that “the estimates for future replacement costs are based upon estimates provided by the budget committee.”

Audits conducted by the same accountant in 2017, 2018 and 2019 included the same language. Last year, a different accountant provided a similar disclaimer.

Mars, the lawyer who represents condo associations, said he believes that the note was “the CPA saying, ‘We don’t have any official documentation to rely on.'”

The accountants who conducted the audits did not respond to messages seeking comment.

 

Jeffrey Rembaum, another lawyer for condo associations, pointed to figures in the audits that showed that from 2016 to 2020, the board did not update the amount of money needed to replace balconies and concrete. Each year, the board estimated needing $320,000 for the work, even after Morabito’s report found that much more extensive and costly repairs were needed.

“We know the building had millions in concrete repairs on the horizon,” Rembaum said. “So how did it come up with $320,000 for their current needs? If they’d had a reserve study and an engineer looked at what they had, they would have come up with a higher number. That suggests the board wasn’t regularly updating it.”

He added: “This is the effect of the Florida Legislature not requiring a reserve study by qualified people.”

More than a decade since his short-lived law on reserve studies was repealed, Robaina said he hopes lawmakers will change course and reimpose the mandate.

“This is a window of opportunity,” he said, “and unfortunately it took a tragedy that could have been prevented.”

Jon Schuppe reported from New York; Phil Prazan reported from Surfside, Florida

By Jon Schuppe and Phil Prazan, NBC 6 South Florida

 

Tags: ,
New Requirements for Collection of Delinquent Assessments

New Requirements for Collection of Delinquent Assessments

  • Posted: Jul 07, 2021
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on New Requirements for Collection of Delinquent Assessments

New Requirements for Collection of Delinquent Assessments

Robert Kaye, Managing member of Kaye Bender Rembaum, recently wrote an informative and telling article explaining the new collection procedures mandated to be in effect July 1, as a result of  the 2021 legislation. Every board member, manager, and developer needs to be aware of these important changes.

———————————–

The Florida Legislature has revised the procedures for collecting delinquent assessments, which add additional steps and delays for the owner to pay before legal action can commence and/or attorney’s fees can be recovered. Senate Bill 56 has revised Sections 718.116 and 718.121 for condominiums; 719.108 for cooperatives; and, Section 720.3085 for homeowners’ associations. With these changes, the collection procedures for all of these types of communities will be substantially the same. The new laws are effective July 1, 2021.

Initially, the new provisions have revised the time for the notices sent by the association attorney for condominiums and cooperatives to 45 days for both the pre-lien first letter and the post-lien notice of intent to foreclose. (Homeowners’ associations were already at 45 days).

The most important and significant addition to this statutory change is the addition of a new notice requirement by associations before they may refer a matter to the association attorney for collection and recover the attorney’s fees involved. This written notice is required to be mailed by first class mail to the address of the owner on file with the association. If the address on file is not the unit or parcel address, a copy must be sent there as well. The association is also required to keep in its records a sworn affidavit attesting to the mailing. The new statute contains a form for that notice which is required to be substantially followed.

As the respective statutory provisions now indicate, associations must incur a minimum of 120 days of collection efforts before a foreclosure action can begin, with a total of three (3) separate required statutory notices. This includes the: (i) initial 30 day notice of the intent to refer the matter to the association attorney (for which no attorney’s fees can be charged to the owner); (ii) 45 days for the pre-lien notice period; and, (iii) 45 days for the pre-foreclosure lien period. As such, in order to best protect the interests of the association, it is recommended that the first 30-day notice be sent at the earliest possible date in the association collection process. This will typically be when the governing documents indicate the assessment to be “late”. Careful review of the governing documents by legal counsel should be undertaken to determine whether there is a specific “grace period” indicated in the documents before the assessment is considered late. Once that determination is made, the board should adopt a formal collection policy that incorporates these new statutory requirements, which will also need to be mailed to all owners. A new provision has also been added that begins with “If an association sends out an invoice for assessments. . .” to unit or parcel owners, such notice is to be sent by first class mail or electronic transmission (email) to the respective addresses for the owners that are in the association official records.

Moreover, if the association wishes to change the method of delivery of an invoice, the new Statute creates specific steps that must be followed precisely in order for the change to be effective. Specifically, a written notice must be delivered to the owner not less than 30 days before the change of delivery method will be implemented. The notice must be sent by first class mail to the address on file with the association. If the address on file is not the unit or parcel address, a copy must be sent there as well. In addition to the notice requirement, the owner must “affirmatively acknowledge” his or her understanding of the new delivery method. The written acknowledgment can be sent electronically or by mail, and must be maintained in the Official Records (although it is not available for inspection by other owners). However, without this acknowledgment, the association may not change the method of delivery. The Statute does not presently include a time frame for the owner to provide that acknowledgment or offer any remedy to the association if none is forthcoming. This can be particularly daunting or problematic when the association changes management companies, when the new company’s procedures differ from the prior company.Before the association attorney can commence any collection work for an association, it will be necessary for the association to provide all of the backup documentation of the compliance with each of these new statutory requirements, as well as the information previously required (such as a current account ledger). If any of the documentation is missing with the initial turnover information, there will be delays in the collection process, which can be detrimental to the association operation. It is therefore imperative that these new procedures are fully integrated into the association operation without delay. We recommend that you contact your Association counsel with any questions on the new procedural requirements to ensure compliance.

Jeffrey Rembaum’s, 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: , ,
Should Emails Between Board Members & Managers Be Considered Official Records Subject to Member Inspection?

Should Emails Between Board Members & Managers Be Considered Official Records Subject to Member Inspection?

  • Posted: Jun 28, 2021
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Should Emails Between Board Members & Managers Be Considered Official Records Subject to Member Inspection?

Should Emails Between Board Members & Managers Be Considered Official Records Subject to Member Inspection?

 

In today’s instant world, email allows us to express our thoughts anytime, anywhere. So often, emails serve as a substitute for making phone calls. If a phone call is made from a board member to a manager, absent a deposition of either party or a

contemporaneous note documenting the conversation, the content of the communication remains private. But, if the board member sends an email rather than calling the manager, that email is considered a written record of the association and is required to be produced as a part of a member’s official record request, with limited exception as discussed below.

 

With the sheer volume of emails received by a manager from owners, board members, purchasers, contractors, and lawyers, etc., there is no practical method of separating the emails which must remain confidential. This includes emails with respect to attorney-client privileged matters, personnel matters, information obtained in connection with a sale or lease, social security numbers, and medical information, etc., and separating these emails cannot occur without the manager or hired professional spending hours and hours and hours preparing such records for a member’s requested official record inspection primarily at the association’s expense. Moreover, if an outside professional is needed to prepare the emails for inspection, then the association will not be able to recoup the expenditure. While a condominium association cannot charge any amount to prepare for the inspection, a homeowners’ association is limited to $20.00 per hour for administrative time expended to retrieve requested records. Clearly, this needs a legislative remedy!

 

Generally speaking, for an association’s needs to be met, there must be solid communication between the board and the manager. However, requiring all but privileged and confidential emails to be official records subject to membership inspection stifles that free flow of communication. That said, it is understandable that some emails should be subject to a member’s inspection request, such as with regards to a bid package or contract.

 

More often than not, the emails to and from the manager are actually the property of the management company by whom the manager is employed. Absent discovery that takes place during litigation, typically a company’s emails are the private property of the company. A shareholder of General Mills’ stock cannot demand to see the president’s emails to its manager, so why should the community association president’s email to the manager be required to be produced? After all, overwhelmingly, community associations are “not-for-profit” corporations. At the end of the day, the need for transparency needs to be balanced against the practicality and costs of producing the emails.

 

There is limited guidance from the State of Florida Office of the Attorney General and the Division of Florida Condominiums, Timeshares, and Mobile Homes regarding the production of such emails. Let’s take a look at the limited guidance we do have.

 

On March 6, 2002, the then-Chief Assistant General Counsel of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (“DBPR”) issued an opinion that “ondominium owners do have the right to inspect e-mail correspondences between the board of directors and the property manager as long as the correspondence is related to the operation of the association and does not fall within the… statutorily protected exceptions… regulations expressly requiring archiving e-mails, but… if the e-mail correspondence relates to the operation of the association property, it is required to be maintained by the association, whether on paper or electronically, under Chapter 718, Florida Statutes.”

 

In Humphrey v. Carriage Park Condominium Association, Inc., Arb. Case No. 2008-04-0230 (Final Order / Campbell / March 30, 2009), an arbitrator of the Division of Florida Condominiums, Timeshares, and Mobile Homes held that “…e-mails… existing… on the personal computers of individual directors… are not official records of the association… Even if directors communicate among themselves by e-mail strings or chains about the operation of the association, the status of the electronic communication on their personal computer would not change. Similarly, an e-mail to an individual director or to all directors as a group, addressed only to their personal computers, is not written communication to the association.” The arbitrator reasoned that “his must be so because there is no obligation to turn on personal computer with any regularity, or to open and read emails before deleting them.”

 

In Harbage v. Covered Bridge Condominium Association, Inc., Arb. Case No. 19-03-6413 (Emails Are Written Records of Association Order Re-Framing Affirmative Defenses / Simms / January 2, 2020), an owner challenged an association’s failure to provide records requested pursuant to §718.111(12), Florida Statutes. The owner requested to inspect emails between the association and its property manager from 2017–2019. The association refused to provide the records, arguing that the emails were not written records subject to disclosure nor were they written records that are printed in the ordinary course of business. The arbitrator in the case dismissed the association’s argument that the emails were not written records, citing Black’s Law Dictionary, 11th Edition (2019), which explicitly includes emails in the definition of a “writing.” Additionally, the arbitrator pointed to the fact that emails are accepted in litigation as records of regularly conducted business activity pursuant to §90.803(6)(a), Florida Statutes, to dismiss the association’s claim that the emails are not subject to inspection because they are not printed in the ordinary course of business. The arbitrator held that the association’s position was “untenable on both counts,” finding that “emails are a written record subject to disclosure to unit owners.”

 

Simply stated, if one were to rely on the guidance cited herein, then emails solely between board members, even a board majority, are not part of the official records, but emails between a board member(s) and the manager are part of the official records and subject to member inspection unless containing information that is otherwise privileged or confidential. All other emails not protected by privilege or other duty of confidentiality are also subject to member inspection.

 

Where does it end? What about text messages and WhatsApp? Will they, too, one day be subject to inspection? Why one without the other? Better still, if text messages are not subject to member inspection, why should emails be subject to inspection? If emails remain subject to inspection, should not phone calls between board members and managers be statutorily required to be recorded? Why not? Because such a requirement is absurd.

 

In addition, what is missing from today’s legislation are laws protecting the free flow of communication between board members and the manager. Also patently missing from today’s legislation is the ability of the association to require the member requesting the record inspection to prepay for the actual time and cost necessary to prepare the records for inspection.

 

So, while it may make sense for certain vendor emails to remain as records of the association subject to member inspection, it is this author’s opinion that emails between the board and the association’s manager should remain private property of the sender and recipient, most especially if the manager’s computer is provided by the management company and not the association. However, if emails between board members and managers are going to remain as records which must be produced, absent privilege and confidentiality requirements, then at a minimum the association should at least be allowed to fully recover its expenses incurred in the record inspection. Perhaps a present or future Florida legislator will sponsor a long overdue bill to provide the association the lawful right to do so.  

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

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

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

Discriminatory Practices, Is Your Association Prepared?

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

Jeffrey Rembaum, Esq.

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

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

Financial Screening of Purchasers: How Far Is Too Far?

by Kaye Bender Rembaum / Rembaum’s Association Roundup

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

Jeffrey Rembaum, Esq.

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

Posted by   Kaye Bender Rembaum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

https://rembaumsassociationroundup.com/

 

 

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

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

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

Elections: Condominiums, Homeowners’ Associations and Cooperatives

by KBRLegal 

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

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

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

Register Now

 

Tags: , ,