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. 

Rental Restrictions in Homeowners’ Associations by Robert L. Kaye – KBRLegal.com

Rental Restrictions in Homeowners’ Associations by Robert L. Kaye – KBRLegal.com

  • Posted: Apr 24, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Rental Restrictions in Homeowners’ Associations by Robert L. Kaye – KBRLegal.com
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.
Robert L. Kaye, Esq. is a Board Certified Specialist in Condominium and Planned Development Law. Mr. Kaye serves on the Florida Bar’s Grievance Committee, the Committee on the Unlicensed Practice of Law and is a member of the Condominium Committee of the Real Property Section of The Florida Bar. He also lectures on Community Association law and is regularly published on the subject. Mr. Kaye hosts KBR’s appearances on the radio show, ‘Ask the Experts’, from 6pm to 7pm, the first Thursday of each month. See his full bio HERE.
Tell Governor DeSantis DO NOT Sign SB 518!

Tell Governor DeSantis DO NOT Sign SB 518!

  • Posted: Apr 19, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Tell Governor DeSantis DO NOT Sign SB 518!

I am informed that the Community Associations In Florida Legislative Alliance needs YOUR help and Rembaum’s Association Roundup agrees that they absolutely do. Please urge Governor DeSantis to WITHOLD his approval of SB 518 Private Property Rights to Prune, Trim, and Remove Trees, as it is bad for Homeowners’ and Condominium Associations.

This bill, if passed into law, DOES NOT allow Homeowners’ and Condominium Associations to take advantage of the provisions of the bill as related to the removal of trees located in common areas and common elements. Therefore, if passed into law, your association will need to comply with local government red tape and associated expenses for what should be a very simple act; removing a nuisance tree.

The sponsors of the bill rejected the common sense suggestion to change the definition of “Residential Property” to include the common areas and common elements of community associations, so this means associations will not be able to avoid costly and time consuming local government requirements to remove trees!!!

Please help stop this bill from becoming law by telling Governor DeSantis to NOT SIGN SB 518.

Click the button below to send him your message:

 

Tags:
BOARD MEMBER to BOARD MEMBER EMAILS: ARE THEY OFFICIAL RECORDS?

BOARD MEMBER to BOARD MEMBER EMAILS: ARE THEY OFFICIAL RECORDS?

  • Posted: Apr 08, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on BOARD MEMBER to BOARD MEMBER EMAILS: ARE THEY OFFICIAL RECORDS?

BOARD MEMBER to BOARD MEMBER EMAILS: ARE THEY OFFICIAL RECORDS?

On January 6, 2022, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR), through the Division of Florida Condominiums, Timeshares, and Mobile Homes (Division), entered a Final Order Granting Petition for Declaratory Statement in the matter of In re: Petition for Declaratory Statement, James Hanseman, Petitioner (the Hanesman Declaratory Statement). In this Final Order, the Division Director (Chevonne Christian) stated that all board member to board member emails are official records of the association. Unfortunately, this Order was entered i) without regard to who owns the device from which the email was sent;

ii) without regard to whether the manager was included in the email chain; iii) without regard to whether the email was sent to a minority or majority of board members; and iv) without regard to the board members’ constitutional right of privacy. The decision does not consider the sacrosanct requirement that a quorum of board members is needed to conduct business. If a board member can enter into a conversation with a minority of the board without triggering a required meeting notice, then a board member should also be able to communicate, by any means, with a minority of the board, including email, without it rising to the level of being considered an official record of the association. However, given the scope of the Order, this will likely require an act of the Florida legislature to accomplish.

In general, a petition for declaratory statement may be used to resolve questions or doubts as to how the statutes, rules, or orders may apply to the petitioner’s particular circumstances. These statements are only binding upon the parties who join in the proceeding. The Division issues “declaratory statements” when requested by parties who are unclear about the applicability of portions of the Condominium Act, Chapter 718, Florida Statutes. Declaratory statements are formal written positions taken by the Division on the laws and rules the Division is authorized to enforce and interpret. Importantly, with regard to the Hanesman Declaratory Statement’s precedential value, it has none whatsoever. It only applies to the parties named in the Hanesman Declaratory Statement, which includes the petitioner, Mr. Hanseman, and the Wildewood Springs II-B Condominium Association Inc. This decision is merely persuasive authority, at best. In fact, the Division does not even have to follow their own written precedent. Yet, it is predictive as to how the Division will rule should a similar fact pattern be presented. So, beware!

The Hanesman Declaratory Statement could stand for the broader proposition that all director emails are official records of the association, or perhaps it stands for the narrower proposition that board member emails are not automatically excluded as an official association record merely because the emails were sent from a director’s private email address and privately owned computer. Time will tell, I hope. In the meantime, applying its broadest interpretation means that the Division has now opined that all director-to-director emails are official records. This broad interpretation means such emails must be produced in response to a member’s official records request, unless later excluded from production due to matters of privilege. This broad interpretation also means that for all requests to inspect the official records of the association, directors will have to search their own hard drives and provide copies to the manager or whoever is coordinating the inspection. If this broad interpretation is to be applied, it is yet another burdensome requirement for board members and could be viewed as an extreme overreach of a governmental administrative agency. In light of this possible interpretation and obligation to turn over board member to board member emails, who will want to serve on the board, now?

Let us examine the history of this important topic. On March 6, 2002, Sue Richardson, the Chief Assistant General Counsel of the DBPR, issued an opinion which provided that “[c]ondominium owners do have the right to inspect email 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…[The DBPR does not have] regulations expressly requiring archiving emails, but…if the email 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, March 30, 2009), the arbitrator of the Division ordered that

“…emails…existing…on the personal computers of individual directors…are not official records of the association…Even if directors communicate among themselves by email strings or chains, about the operation of the association, the status of the electronic communication on their personal computer would not change. Similarly, an email to an individual director or to all directors as a group, addressed only to their personal computers, is not a written communication to the association.”

The arbitrator reasoned that “[t]his must be so because there is no obligation to turn on [the] personal computer with any regularity, or to open and read emails before deleting them.”

Then, on July 1, 2014, the Florida Legislature amended s. 718.112(2)(c) to provide that board members may communicate via email. Just because the legislature clarified that directors may do so does not mean that such email communications should automatically be considered official records of the association. Board members are not publicly elected officials. Yet, the Division’s recent Hanseman Declaratory Statement creates a basis to conclude that the Division desires to hold a director’s email communications to the same standards.

A condominium association is a privately owned entity whose members elect representatives to effectuate the orderly operations of the association. Serving as a board member of a condominium association is not at all akin to holding public office, and in our opinion, board members should not be held to the same standard as that of elected officials. The last thing a community association board member needs is to be micromanaged by one or more cantankerous owners and the vocal minority.

In the Hanesman Declaratory Statement, Ms. Christian takes the position that because §718.111(12)(a), Fla. Stat., provides, in relevant part, that the “official records of the association” include “all of the written records of the association not specifically included in the foregoing which are related to the operation of the association,”

that nothing exempts records when created or transmitted with a board member owned device rather than association owned device.

She then applied what she referred to as the plain meaning of the term “writing,” referring to the definition of the term from Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ED. 2019), which provided “emails constitute a form of writing.”

In fact, had the Florida Legislature intended for emails from one board member to another to be considered official records subject to inspection, then when it amended Chapter 718.112, eff. July 1, 2018, to provide that “members of the board of administration may use email as a means of communication but may not cast a vote on an association matter via email,” the legislature could have clarified that such emails were considered a part of the official records. Obviously, the legislature did not do so. This can only mean that the legislature had no intent whatsoever for a director’s email sent from their personal computer to a minority of other board members to be considered an official record.

What is the end game of the Hanesman Declaratory Statement? The implications are far-reaching, indeed. Does this mean that text messages must be disclosed? What about communications on messaging apps such as WhatsApp and Signal? If not, why not? The logic is arguably the same. What about conversations held with a board member outside of a meeting—must the board member make a disclosure he or she had such conversation at the next noticed meeting? Where does it end?

It is rather common knowledge that there is already a mechanism in the law to acquire documents of every kind. It is called a “subpoena duces tecum” and is used in active litigation to compel production of documents. In this author’s opinion, that is the only circumstance in which a board member’s private emails must be produced, unless and until the Florida Legislature or an appellate court squarely addresses this issue.

As the phrase goes, “one step forward and two steps back.” In other words, while a board member can use email to communicate with a fellow board member, it may come with the steep price of later required disclosure. So, if you want to avoid email disclosure, you may want to consider using a phone to discuss matters. If you want to play it really safe, then be sure to only chat to a minority of board members, too. Until there is an appellate court decision or statutory law that squarely addresses email disclosure, please be sure to discuss these matters with your association’s attorney. In the meantime, perhaps consider using dedicated association-hosted email addresses for association-related emails.
Tags: , ,
LAST SURFSIDE-INSPIRED BILL FAILS – A Perfect Opportunity Lost

LAST SURFSIDE-INSPIRED BILL FAILS – A Perfect Opportunity Lost

  • Posted: Mar 24, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on LAST SURFSIDE-INSPIRED BILL FAILS – A Perfect Opportunity Lost

As a result of the 2022 Florida legislative session, there will be no new statutes requiring mandated building/engineering inspections, no statutory changes to budgeting procedures, no mandated reserve study requirements, and no statutory changes to required disclosures.

While only a very few Florida counties have mandated in their code of ordinances that older condominium buildings have life-safety inspections, that does not mean required maintenance and proper planning can be otherwise avoided elsewhere. Board members must exercise their fiduciary duties with due care and due diligence. Voluntary engineering inspections and professional reserve studies should be considered to take place on a regular schedule. Maintenance, repairs, and replacements should be budgeted and funding sources properly identified.

As often explained by Board Certified attorney Lisa Magill, “is the law the only reason you stop at a red light? Probably not. You stop because there’s a likelihood a truck will smash into you from the side.” In other words, common sense should prevail. All condominium unit owners know that one day the roof, air conditioners, and water and cooling towers will need to replaced, the building will need to painted to ensure a water tight seal remains intact, the pool will need re-surfacing, and the parking areas and asphalt will need attention, too. Perhaps one of most expensive repairs, which is rarely discussed, let alone planned for and budgeted in advance, that even the Florida Statutes do not specifically mention it by name, is concrete restoration, which can cost tens of thousands of dollars, and often such repairs cost millions of dollars depending on the extent of the repairs. But, such repairs are a given. It is not a matter of “if” but rather only a matter of “when” these repairs will be required.

The only way to avoid a revolt of the membership when explaining the upcoming multi-million dollar assessment is to lessen the blow by having some, if not all, of the needed monies already saved in a reserve account. Section 718. 112(1)(f)(2)(a) provides that, “[i]n addition to annual operating expenses, the budget must include reserve accounts for capital expenditures and deferred maintenance. These accounts must include, but are not limited to, roof replacement, building painting, and pavement resurfacing, regardless of the amount of deferred maintenance expense or replacement cost, and any other item that has a deferred maintenance expense or replacement cost that exceeds $10,000. The amount to be reserved must be computed using a formula based upon estimated remaining useful life and estimated replacement cost or deferred maintenance expense of each reserve item. The association may adjust replacement reserve assessments annually to take into account any changes in estimates or extension of the useful life of a reserve item caused by deferred maintenance.”

While a majority of the quorum of the membership can vote to waive or reduce reserves, this can only occur if the board of directors provides the membership such opportunity. For example, when voting to reduce reserves the percentage by which the required reserve can be reduced is decided in advance by the board and then presented to the membership for the vote. In light of the Champlain Towers South disaster, boards of directors should put considerable thought into these decisions.

On March 12, Ann Greggis of Florida Politics reported that “the Legislature’s inability to pass any legislation updating condo regulations in the wake of last summer’s disaster that killed 98 people stunned observers…For this Session, nine bills sought to change rules regarding condominium associations…An estimated two million people live in 912,000 Florida condo units that are 30-years or older. Another 131,773 units are 20 to 30 years old, according to the Florida Engineering Society & American Council of Engineering Companies of Florida….The executive director of the engineering society and council called the failure to pass any legislation this year a ‘missed opportunity,’ according to a news release.”

On March 11, Jon Schuppe and Phil Prazan, NBC 6 South Florida reported that, “[i]n the nine months since 98 people died in the collapse of a Surfside, Florida, condominium, state lawmakers have pledged to pass measures that could help avoid a similar disaster.

On Friday, they failed.

Negotiations between the Florida Senate and House of Representatives, both controlled by Republicans, broke down, with the two sides unable to agree on a bill that would require inspections of aging condo buildings and mandate that condo boards conduct studies to determine how much they need to set aside for repairs. The talks were undone by a disagreement over how much flexibility to give condo owners in the funding of those reserves.”

Never has the term “sausage factory” been more appropriate to describe the 2022 team of Florida legislators who failed to pass meaningful legislation that could have helped thwart another Champlain Towers South disaster. But, just because the legislature failed in doing so (for this year), that does not mean, as a board member, that you can fail, too. Make a commitment to your condominium community to plan for the future. Adopt a board resolution, or even amend the condominium declaration, to have required building inspections and reserve studies. In addition, if your association is waiving reserves year after year, stop it and start saving for the future. You will be glad you did.

 

Tags:
BORROWING TO BUY A CONDOMINIUM UNIT? Freddie Mac’s & Fannie Mae’s New Lending Requirements

BORROWING TO BUY A CONDOMINIUM UNIT? Freddie Mac’s & Fannie Mae’s New Lending Requirements

  • Posted: Mar 06, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on BORROWING TO BUY A CONDOMINIUM UNIT? Freddie Mac’s & Fannie Mae’s New Lending Requirements

BORROWING TO BUY A CONDOMINIUM UNIT?

Freddie Mac’s & Fannie Mae’s New Lending Requirements

by KBR Legal / RembaumsAssociationRoundup

Buying a bundle of home loans to later sell on the secondary market can be risky business. A lot can go wrong in the process. For example, the economy could tank, causing massive defaults; or even worse, as occurred recently in the case of Champlain Towers South, the building could collapse—where not only did many residents die, but also insurance proceeds are unlikely to be sufficient to satisfy all of the outstanding mortgage debt. This reality has a ripple effect on the mortgage-backed security, ultimately causing financial harm to the investors buying the bundled mortgages.

    The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, commonly referred to as “Freddie Mac,” and the Federal National Mortgage Association, commonly referred to as “Fannie Mae,” both compete on the secondary mortgage market, which is the market for the sale of securities or bonds collateralized by the value of mortgage loans. In short, they both package mortgages into mortgage-backed securities for sale to investors on the secondary mortgage market. Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have requirements which must be met before they will buy a mortgage from a local lender, which they appropriately refer to as the “seller.” The Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac requirements placed on the seller (meaning, the local lender) trickle down to and then must be met by the association. The association’s compliance with these requirements is then analyzed by the local lender and likely further analyzed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac as a part of its bundled loan purchase.

    The mortgages they purchase help ensure that home buyers and investors who purchase property have a steady and stable supply of mortgage money. They broaden the likelihood of funds being made available for housing by attracting new secondary mortgage market investors through offering packaged mortgage-backed securities and guaranteeing the timely payment of principal and interest on the underlying mortgages. This makes secondary mortgage markets more liquid and can help lower interest rates paid by the actual mortgage borrowers (i.e., the property purchasers). It is reported that at times, together they finance up to 90 percent of all residential mortgages. Without Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae buying mortgages from lenders, the lenders would not be in a position to continue to offer loans. They need the funds from the Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae purchase to have available funds to make new loans. The bottom line is that if you expect purchasers in your condominium to be able to obtain a loan, then ultimately your association will have to abide by their requirements, including their demand for information about your condominium building’s condition and the condominium association’s finances, which are set out in their similar questionnaires.

    Congress created Fannie Mae in 1938 to provide accessible funding and more affordable housing. Freddie Mac, alternatively, started in 1970 as a public enterprise to further expand the secondary mortgage market. While there are many similarities between Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, there are some key distinctions. The significant difference between Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae is where they acquire their mortgages. Fannie Mae purchases mortgages from larger, commercial banks, while Freddie Mac buys them from much smaller banks. While Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac programs have some differences in lending requirements, these requirements also appear more similar than different in so far as they assure the lender they will buy the loan.

    As a result of the Champlain Towers South collapse, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have imposed new temporary, additional requirements for mortgages obtained for condominiums and cooperative residential units. These new additional requirements will make it harder for existing condominium unit owners to refinance and for new buyers of condominium units to obtain mortgages.

    On October 13, 2021, Fannie Mae issued Lender Letter LL-2021-14 entitled “Temporary Requirements for Condo and Co-op Projects,” resulting with a new questionnaire effective January 1, 2022. In so doing, Fannie Mae suspended flexibility that allowed a lender to obtain a reserve study in lieu of meeting the 10 percent budget reserve requirement. Simply put, this means that if an association does not reserve at least 10 percent of its total annual budget for reserves, then any lender working with Fannie Mae will not be in a position to issue a loan to anyone purchasing a unit in that association’s condominium because doing so would make that loan ineligible for purchase by Fannie Mae, which ultimately hurts the local lender because it will have less funds to loan.

    Moreover, Fannie Mae will no longer issue project eligibility waivers for significant deferred maintenance or for projects subject to large special assessments. In other words, if the condominium association is not contributing at least 10 percent of its annual budget into the reserves, then Fannie Mae will not buy the loan from the local lender, meaning that the local lender will most likely not issue the loan to the buyer. In addition, and as part of its 10 percent reserve requirement, Fannie Mae no longer allows a borrower to rely on a reserve contribution provided in a reserve study in lieu of meeting the requirement that 10 percent of the annual assessments be contributed to reserves. Therefore, Freddie Mac-backed loans will become even more important to purchasers of condominium units and the developers who build them.

    Then, on December 15, 2021, Freddie Mac issued Bulletin 2021–38 entitled “Temporary Condominium and Cooperative Project Requirements and Topic 5600 Reorganization,” effective February 28, 2022 (the “Bulletin”). While Freddie Mac has strict requirements, too, it is not strictly requiring that 10 percent of the association’s budget be allocated to the association’s reserves.  The Bulletin begins with the following statement of fact:

In the aftermath of the collapse of the Champlain Towers South in Surfside, Florida, the risks of residential buildings with aging infrastructure and in need of Critical Repairs have been brought to the forefront of discussion throughout the nation.

    Regarding reserves, local lenders may continue to rely on a working capital fund for new condominium projects or a reserve study for both established and new condominium projects when the project’s budget provides less than 10 percent replacement reserves. In other words, as so succinctly explained by a regular reader of Rembaum’s Association Roundup, Barry Subkow, Esq.,

Unlike Fannie Mae, if the contribution to reserves is less than 10% of the total annual assessments (e.g., 8%) and is based on the reserve contribution amount that is provided in a reserve study, Freddie Mac will allow the loan.

    These newest Freddie Mac temporary requirements apply to all mortgages secured by units in projects with five or more attached units and are in addition to, and do not supersede, any of the other existing current applicable requirements. As such, there are terms which every board member and manager should become familiar with as they are needed to complete the required questionnaires. For example, a loan given by a local lender to a buyer for a project in need of “critical repairs” (as defined below) is not eligible for sale to Freddie Mac. As a result, the local lender will not be inclined to make the loan if a governmental program entity, such as Freddie Mac, is not willing to buy the loan.

    Because Freddie Mac secured mortgages are likely to become even more important in today’s economy, there are four terms with which every board member and manager should be familiar:

  • Critical repairs
  • Material deficiencies
  • Significant deferred maintenance
  • Routine repairs and maintenance

    The term “critical repairs” refers to repairs and replacements that significantly impact the safety, soundness, structural integrity, or habitability of the project’s building(s) and/or that impact unit values, financial viability, or marketability of the project. These repairs and replacements include the following:

  • All life safety hazards
  • Violations of federal, state, or local law, ordinance, or code relating to zoning, subdivision and use, building, housing accessibility, health matters, or fire safety
  • Material deficiencies (see below for definition)
  • Significant deferred maintenance (see below for definition)

    The term “material deficiencies” is defined as unresolved problems that cannot reasonably be addressed by normal operation or routine maintenance and which include the following:

  • Deficiencies which, if left uncorrected, have the potential to result in or contribute to critical element or system failure within one year
  • Deficiencies that will likely result in a significant escalation of remedial cost related to any material building components that are approaching, have reached, or have exceeded their typical expected useful life or whose remaining useful life should not be relied upon in view of actual or effective age, abuse, excessive wear and tear, poor maintenance, and/or exposure to the elements
  • Any mold, water intrusions, or leaks that are potentially damaging to the project’s building(s)

    The term “significant deferred maintenance” is defined as the postponement of normal maintenance, which cannot reasonably be resolved by normal operations or routine maintenance, and which may result in any of the following:

  • Advanced physical deterioration
  • Lack of full operation or efficiency
  • Increased operating costs
  • Decline in property value

    The term “routine repairs and maintenance” is defined as repairs and maintenance that are expected to be completed by the project in the normal course of business and are nominal in cost. These repairs are not considered to be critical and include the following types of work:

  • Often preventive in nature
  • Accomplished within the project’s normal operating budget
  • Typically completed by onsite staff
  • Focused on keeping the project fully functioning and serviceable
  • Minor deficiencies with a cost of $3,000 or less per repair item that do not warrant immediate attention but that require repairs or replacements that should be undertaken within the next 12 months
  • Scheduled repairs and maintenance that are fully funded, may have a cost greater than $3,000, and will be undertaken within the next 12 months

    Any documentation used by the local lender to determine the eligibility of projects in need of critical repairs must be retained and provided to Freddie Mac upon request. Violations of state or local law, ordinance, or code, as referenced in the critical repairs definition, include failure by the association to schedule an inspection required by the applicable jurisdiction and any directive from a regulatory authority or inspection agency to make critical repairs. Projects in need of critical repairs remain ineligible until the required repairs and/or inspection report have been completed and documented. Sellers of the proposed loan (i.e., the local lender) must review an engineer’s report, or substantially similar document, to determine that the repairs resolved the building’s safety, soundness, structural integrity, or habitability concerns. Acceptable sources of documentation to determine if a project is in need of critical repairs may include but are not limited to the following:

  • Board meeting minutes
  • Engineer’s reports
  • Reserve studies
  • List of necessary repairs
  • Other substantially similar documentation

    The Freddie Mac restrictions on the purchase of loans from lenders does not apply to the following:

  • Routine repairs and maintenance, (as defined above) or
  • Damage or deferred maintenance to one or a few units in the project, provided that there is no impact to the overall safety, soundness, structural integrity, or habitability of the improvements

    When determining if a repair is a routine repair or maintenance, Freddie Mac reminds the local lender that its condominium project budget requirements include determining that appropriate assessments are established to manage the project and that there are appropriate allocations for line items pertinent to the type and status of the condominium project. Sellers (meaning, the local lender) should evaluate the line items on the budget, especially those for repairs and maintenance, and the amounts associated with those line items as part of the seller’s project review process.

    Regarding any current special assessment, even if paid in full for the subject unit, such special assessment must be reviewed to determine eligibility. This includes any special assessment that the board approved and, if required, owners approved, but the board has not initiated collection yet (e.g., a planned special assessment). The local lender must determine the following:

  • The reason for the special assessment
  • The total amount assessed
  • For current special assessments, that the total amount is an appropriate allocation or, for planned special assessments, there is adequate cash flow to fund the reason for the special assessment, and
  • For current special assessments, that the amount budgeted to be collected year-to-date has been collected

    To determine that the amount budgeted to be collected year-to-date (YTD) has been collected, the following criteria apply:

  • The seller must review an income statement or a substantially similar document which has YTD budgeted and actual amounts for the special assessment,
  • The document should be dated within 90 days of the project review date, and
  • Any shortfall between the budgeted and actual YTD amounts for the special assessment must not be more than five percent.

    Any documentation used to determine the eligibility of the special assessment, such as the income statement referenced above, must be retained by the local lender and provided to Freddie Mac upon request. In addition, special assessments with more than 10 monthly payments remaining must be included in the calculation of the monthly housing expense-to-income ratio and must be documented.

If a seller (the local lender) relies on a reserve study, then the seller must ensure the reserve study meets certain requirements, which include, but are not limited to the following:

  • A reserve study’s financial analysis must validate that the project has appropriately allocated the recommended reserve funds to provide the condominium project with sufficient financial protection comparable to Freddie Mac’s standard budget requirements for replacement reserves. (Note—This requirement must be discussed and is required as a part of any professional’s reserve report.)
  • The reserve study’s annual reserve funding plan, which details total costs identified for replacement components, must meet or exceed the study’s recommendation and conclusion.
  • The most current reserve study (or update) must be dated within 36 months of the seller’s determination that a condominium project is eligible.
  • The reserve study must be prepared by an independent expert skilled in performing such studies (such as a reserve study professional, a construction engineer, a certified public accountant who specializes in reserve studies, or any professional with demonstrated experience and knowledge in completing reserve studies).

    Freddie Mac advises its sellers (the local lender) to evaluate the reserve study’s financial analysis. Sellers should compare, for the current fiscal year, the estimated beginning of the year (BOY) reserve fund balance in the reserve study to the actual BOY reserve fund balance. The reserve study’s recommended reserve allocation for the current fiscal year correlates to the project starting the year with that estimated reserve fund balance. If the project started the year with significantly less than what was estimated, then the project has likely failed to appropriately allocate the recommended reserve funds to provide the condominium project with sufficient financial protection.

    If your association is not Freddie Mac eligible under these terms, then a local lender can submit a project waiver request (PWR), which, however, has many other strict requirements that are not further discussed herein.

The Freddie Mac Bulletin can be found at:

https://guide.freddiemac.com/app/guide/bulletin/2021-38

The Fannie Mae Bulletin can be found at:

https://singlefamily.fanniemae.com/media/29411/display

    Each association will need to coordinate completion of the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae questionnaires with its board members, manager, and, importantly, the association’s attorney. Practically speaking, the questionnaires will need to be updated as the scenario at your association changes. Just because an association is not eligible this year does not mean circumstances will not change leading to a later acceptance. As to the costs associated with the completion of the questionnaires (and while arguments may exist for the buyer who caused the need for the completion of the questionnaire to pay for it), since the questionnaire benefits the entire association by providing for a viable market for all new purchasers to acquire loans to purchase a unit, the expense should be deemed a common expense shared by all members of the association.

    Be sure to reach out to your association’s attorney to answer any questions you may have regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac questionnaires and their local lender requirements because, remember, if Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac will not buy the loan from the local lender, the lender is not likely to make the loan.

Reprinted with permission from KBR Legal members of SFPMA.

 

Tags: ,
Will The Association’s Denial Of An Architectural Request Withstand Challenge? Many Won’t—Find Out Why

Will The Association’s Denial Of An Architectural Request Withstand Challenge? Many Won’t—Find Out Why

  • Posted: Mar 03, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Will The Association’s Denial Of An Architectural Request Withstand Challenge? Many Won’t—Find Out Why

For many homeowners associations, a top priority is ensuring that the homes in the community are maintained in conformity with the “community-wide standard.” But, what is this subjective standard? How is compliance measured? What is the process to be judged when a request to the association’s architectural review committee (ARC) is made? The ARC is instrumental in ensuring that the community-wide standard is met. However, your association may run into a problem if the ARC denies a request from a homeowner if the association has not adopted specific, objective criteria and guidelines on which the ARC can rely.

Sometimes applications to the ARC are denied because the proposed modifications were not “in harmony” with the other homes in the community or did not conform with the “community-wide standard.” However, such a limitation is vague, and a denial based on whether a particular modification is “harmonious” is subjective. Thus, the members are entitled to specific guidelines regarding what is allowed and what is not allowed, and in fact, this is required by law.

The association’s ARC can only be as effective as the objective guidelines and standards drafted into the declaration and board-adopted rules. If your ARC is relying on aesthetics or other subjective criteria that are simply “personal preferences” rather than written, adopted, and published objective standards and guidelines, any disapproval is vulnerable to a successful challenge. In fact, in the seminal case regarding approval of architectural modifications, Young v. Tortoise Island Homeowner’s Ass’n, Inc., 511 So.2d 381 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), the court held that where the governing documents were silent as to the modification at issue, a denial could not be based on the architectural control board’s opinion regarding “aesthetics, harmony and balance—admittedly very personal and vague concepts.”

In Young, the owners submitted an application to build a flat roof on their home. The homes immediately surrounding the home were all peaked roofs. Nothing in the governing documents prohibited an owner from building a flat roof, and the requested roof complied with all of the specific requirements set out in the governing documents. However, the architectural control board denied the owners’ request because there was a “very strong feeling” that the flat roof would not be “architecturally compatible with the other homes.” In the end, the Youngs built the flat roof despite the association’s disapproval, arguing that the architectural control board had no authority to impose a prohibition against flat roofs. The court agreed with the Youngs, holding that

“In the absence of an existing pattern or scheme of type of architecture which puts a prospective purchaser on notice that only one kind of style is allowed, either in the recorded restrictions or de facto from the unified building scheme built on the subdivision, such a board does not have the power or discretion to impose only one style over another based purely on ‘aesthetic concepts.’”

The flat roof violated no recorded restrictions, no objective rule adopted by the association, and no de facto common existing building style in the community. Therefore, the court held that it was beyond the power of the architectural review board to prohibit the flat roof.

The concept in Young was further codified in 2007 in §720.3035(1), Florida Statutes, which provides that an association or the ARC has the authority to review and approve plans and specifications only to the extent that the authority is specifically stated or reasonably inferred as to location, size, type, or appearance in the declaration or other published guidelines and standards. More specifically §720.3035(1), Florida Statutes, provides that the authority of an association or any architectural, construction improvement, or other such similar committee of an association to review and approve plans and specifications for the location, size, type, or appearance of any structure or other improvement on a parcel, or to enforce standards for the external appearance of any structure or improvement located on a parcel, shall be permitted only to the extent that the authority is specifically stated or reasonably inferred as to such location, size, type, or appearance in the declaration of covenants or other published guidelines and standards authorized by the declaration of covenants.

In other words, the ARC can only approve or deny requested modifications based on objective standards with specificity as to location, size, type, or appearance that are set out in the declaration or other published guidelines and standards. Without specific, objective standards to rely upon, the ARC is at risk of making arbitrary decisions regarding approval. Basing ARC denials on concepts like “aesthetics, harmony, and balance” will land the association in hot water if an owner challenges such denial. It is far safer to base approval or denial on objective standards as set out in the declaration or as adopted by the board.

Creative drafting by an association’s attorney is critical in order to capture those ARC applications where a member may request a modification that is not squarely addressed by the governing documents. In plain English, a “catchall” amendment to the declaration can be artfully drafted that stands for the proposition that, if such a request is made, then the existing state of the community is the applicable standard by which the application is to be judged. For example, if the Tortoise Island Homeowner’s Association had had such a provision in its declaration, then given that there were no flat roofs in the community, the existing state of the community may have provided a lawful basis for the ARC to deny the request, thus possibly leading to a whole different result in the case.

On a related note, there are strict procedural requirements that your association must follow, most especially if the ARC intends to deny an ARC request. It is likely many ARCs do not conduct their activities in conformity with Florida law such that a denial could withstand judicial scrutiny. Pursuant to §720.303(2), Florida Statutes, a meeting of the ARC is required to be open and noticed in the same manner as a board meeting. In other words, notice of the ARC meeting must be posted in a conspicuous place in the community at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting, and the meeting must be open for the members to attend. In addition, pursuant to §720.303(2)(c)3., members of the ARC are not permitted to vote by proxy or secret ballot. Bare bone minutes should be taken as well to create a record of ARC committee decisions, most especially denials.

We hear from many associations that the ARC does not meet openly or notice their meetings. This leaves any decision made by the ARC vulnerable to challenge. If the ARC denies an application but fails to do so at a properly noticed meeting, the owner can challenge the denial claiming that it is not valid as the ARC did not follow proper procedures. Many declarations contain language which provides that if an ARC application is not approved or denied within a certain period of time, the application is deemed approved. In that case, if the ARC’s denial of an application is not valid because the ARC failed to comply with the procedural requirements for the meeting, an application which violates the declaration or the ARC standards may be deemed approved by operation of the declaration! By complying with the provisions of Chapter 720, Florida Statues, your association can avoid that disaster.

Practice tip: Remember that notice of any board meeting at which the board will consider a rule which restricts what an owner can do on their parcel must be mailed, delivered, or electronically transmitted to the members and posted conspicuously on the property not less than 14 days before the meeting.

If your association has not adopted objective ARC standards and guidelines including the “catchall” provision discussed above, now is the time to start! We recommend that you contact your association’s counsel prior to drafting such rules to ensure that the association is in compliance with the requirements of the governing documents and Chapter 720, Florida Statutes.

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

 

Tags:
Think Rules and Regulations Do Not Need To Be Recorded? Think Again!! by KBRLegal.com

Think Rules and Regulations Do Not Need To Be Recorded? Think Again!! by KBRLegal.com

  • Posted: Mar 02, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Think Rules and Regulations Do Not Need To Be Recorded? Think Again!! by KBRLegal.com

Think Rules and Regulations Do Not Need To Be Recorded? Think Again!! – by KbrLegal.com

Many Floridians live within a community operated by an association of some kind, be it a community of single-family homes under the jurisdiction of a homeowner’s or property owner’s association, or a condominium building maintained by a condominium association. These owners should be well-aware that many aspects of life within these communities are subject to restrictions outlined in a set of governing documents, which include a declaration, articles of incorporation, bylaws, and rules and regulations. While the declaration, articles of incorporation, and bylaws are typically recorded among the public records of the county in which the community is located, the rules and regulations are typically not recorded.

 

Because rules and regulations are usually amendable by the approval of the board of directors only (as opposed to the additional approval of the membership), allowing rules and regulations to be unrecorded provides the board of directors with the flexibility to amend the rules and regulations as the need arises without the added expense and time required to record these rule amendments among the county’s official records. However, this option has changed for homeowner’s associations as a result of recent legislative changes which took effect on July 1, 2018.

 

How has this changed? Pursuant to new provisions set out in Section 720.306(1)(e) of F.S., “[a]n amendment to a governing document is effective when recorded in the public records of the county in which the community is located.” While this has certainly always been the case for a declaration, articles of incorporation, and bylaws, this is new as to rules and regulations of a homeowner’s association because they were added to the definition of the term “governing documents” as set out in Section 720.301(8), F.S. when the Statute was amended in 2015, effective on July 1st of that year.

Due to the fact that many homeowner’s associations have not recorded their rules and regulations in the public records of the county, consideration should be given to record the all of the rules and regulations, particularly if there are plans to amend them. Failing to record the rules and regulations prior to (or at the same time as) recording an amendment will possibly create what is termed a “wild” amendment, which is not connected in the public records to the document it is trying to amend. Additionally, if an amendment to the rules and regulations must be recorded in order to be effective, it is logical to conclude that the initial rules and regulations must also be recorded in order to be effective. Under Section 720.303 F.S., all governing documents are required to be recorded in the public records. Therefore, a homeowner’s association should record its rules and regulations in the public records in order to avoid this possible claim against the legal effectiveness of the rules when it becomes necessary for the association to enforce its rules against an owner.

As with any other amendment to a homeowner’s association’s governing documents, within thirty (30) days after recording an amendment to the governing documents, the homeowner’s association must provide either a copy of the recorded amendment to the members or, if a copy of the amendment was provided to the members before they approved it (for those communities with owner approval requirements for rules) and the amendment was not changed before the vote, a notice providing that the amendment was adopted, identifying the official book and page number or instrument number of the recorded amendment, and that a copy of the amendment is available at no charge to the member upon written request to the association.

 

While the consequences of this new legislation may have been unintended, it is the law until amended otherwise or an appellate court makes a contrary ruling. Although this will likely result in some minor additional costs to homeowner’s associations, this is a good opportunity for a board of directors to examine their existing rules and regulations and update them prior to recording them among the public records.

 

 

Board members of an association subject to Chapter 720, Florida Statutes, should discuss the implications created by this recent legislative change with their association’s lawyer. It is recommended that you have experienced association counsel review any existing rules and regulations prior to recording them to ensure that they are enforceable and do not unnecessarily expose the association to liability (e.g., Fair Housing violations). As to any proposed rules not yet adopted the same holds true. Experienced association counsel should review them to both ensure enforceability and to steer clear of unintended negative consequences.

 

Jeffrey Rembaum, Esq. of Kaye, Bender, Rembaum attorneys at law, legal practice consists of representation of condominium, homeowner, commercial and mobile home park associations, as well as exclusive country club communities and the developers who build them. He is a regular columnist for The Condo News, a biweekly publication and was inducted into the 2012, 2013 & 2014 Florida Super Lawyers. He can be reached at 561-241-4462.

Re Published with Permission: JR / KBR Legal

 

Tags: , , ,
WILL THE ASSOCIATION’S DENIAL OF AN ARCHITECTURAL REQUEST WITHSTAND CHALLENGE? Many Won’t – Find Out Why

WILL THE ASSOCIATION’S DENIAL OF AN ARCHITECTURAL REQUEST WITHSTAND CHALLENGE? Many Won’t – Find Out Why

  • Posted: Feb 15, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on WILL THE ASSOCIATION’S DENIAL OF AN ARCHITECTURAL REQUEST WITHSTAND CHALLENGE? Many Won’t – Find Out Why

WILL THE ASSOCIATION’S DENIAL OF AN ARCHITECTURAL REQUEST WITHSTAND CHALLENGE?

Many Won’t – Find Out Why

For many homeowners associations, a top priority is ensuring that the homes in the community are maintained in conformity with the “community-wide standard.” But, what is this subjective standard? How is compliance measured? What is the process to be judged when a request to the association’s architectural review committee (ARC) is made? The ARC is instrumental in ensuring that the community-wide standard is met. However, your association may run into a problem if the ARC denies a request from a homeowner if the association has not adopted specific, objective criteria and guidelines on which the ARC can rely.

    Sometimes applications to the ARC are denied because the proposed modifications were not “in harmony” with the other homes in the community or did not conform with the “community-wide standard.” However, such a limitation is vague, and a denial based on whether a particular modification is “harmonious” is subjective. Thus, the members are entitled to specific guidelines regarding what is allowed and what is not allowed, and in fact, this is required by law.

    The association’s ARC can only be as effective as the objective guidelines and standards drafted into the declaration and board-adopted rules. If your ARC is relying on aesthetics or other subjective criteria that are simply “personal preferences” rather than written, adopted, and published objective standards and guidelines, any disapproval is vulnerable to a successful challenge. In fact, in the seminal case regarding approval of architectural modifications, Young v. Tortoise Island Homeowner’s Ass’n, Inc., 511 So.2d 381 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), the court held that where the governing documents were silent as to the modification at issue, a denial could not be based on the architectural control board’s opinion regarding “aesthetics, harmony and balance—admittedly very personal and vague concepts.”

    In Young, the owners submitted an application to build a flat roof on their home. The homes immediately surrounding the home were all peaked roofs. Nothing in the governing documents prohibited an owner from building a flat roof, and the requested roof complied with all of the specific requirements set out in the governing documents. However, the architectural control board denied the owners’ request because there was a “very strong feeling” that the flat roof would not be “architecturally compatible with the other homes.” In the end, the Youngs built the flat roof despite the association’s disapproval, arguing that the architectural control board had no authority to impose a prohibition against flat roofs. The court agreed with the Youngs, holding that

            “In the absence of an existing pattern or scheme of type of architecture which puts a prospective purchaser on notice that only one kind of style is allowed, either in the recorded restrictions or de facto from the unified building scheme built on the subdivision, such a board does not have the power or discretion to impose only one style over another based purely on ‘aesthetic concepts.’”

    The flat roof violated no recorded restrictions, no objective rule adopted by the association, and no de facto common existing building style in the community. Therefore, the court held that it was beyond the power of the architectural review board to prohibit the flat roof.

    The concept in Young was further codified in 2007 in §720.3035(1), Florida Statutes, which provides that an association or the ARC has the authority to review and approve plans and specifications only to the extent that the authority is specifically stated or reasonably inferred as to location, size, type, or appearance in the declaration or other published guidelines and standards. More specifically §720.3035(1), Florida Statutes, provides that the authority of an association or any architectural, construction improvement, or other such similar committee of an association to review and approve plans and specifications for the location, size, type, or appearance of any structure or other improvement on a parcel, or to enforce standards for the external appearance of any structure or improvement located on a parcel, shall be permitted only to the extent that the authority is specifically stated or reasonably inferred as to such location, size, type, or appearance in the declaration of covenants or other published guidelines and standards authorized by the declaration of covenants.

    In other words, the ARC can only approve or deny requested modifications based on objective standards with specificity as to location, size, type, or appearance that are set out in the declaration or other published guidelines and standards. Without specific, objective standards to rely upon, the ARC is at risk of making arbitrary decisions regarding approval. Basing ARC denials on concepts like “aesthetics, harmony, and balance” will land the association in hot water if an owner challenges such denial. It is far safer to base approval or denial on objective standards as set out in the declaration or as adopted by the board.

    Creative drafting by an association’s attorney is critical in order to capture those ARC applications where a member may request a modification that is not squarely addressed by the governing documents. In plain English, a “catchall” amendment to the declaration can be artfully drafted that stands for the proposition that, if such a request is made, then the existing state of the community is the applicable standard by which the application is to be judged. For example, if the Tortoise Island Homeowner’s Association had had such a provision in its declaration, then given that there were no flat roofs in the community, the existing state of the community may have provided a lawful basis for the ARC to deny the request, thus possibly leading to a whole different result in the case.

    On a related note, there are strict procedural requirements that your association must follow, most especially if the ARC intends to deny an ARC request. It is likely many ARCs do not conduct their activities in conformity with Florida law such that a denial could withstand judicial scrutiny. Pursuant to §720.303(2), Florida Statutes, a meeting of the ARC is required to be open and noticed in the same manner as a board meeting. In other words, notice of the ARC meeting must be posted in a conspicuous place in the community at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting, and the meeting must be open for the members to attend. In addition, pursuant to §720.303(2)(c)3., members of the ARC are not permitted to vote by proxy or secret ballot. Bare bone minutes should be taken as well to create a record of ARC committee decisions, most especially denials.

    We hear from many associations that the ARC does not meet openly or notice their meetings. This leaves any decision made by the ARC vulnerable to challenge. If the ARC denies an application but fails to do so at a properly noticed meeting, the owner can challenge the denial claiming that it is not valid as the ARC did not follow proper procedures. Many declarations contain language which provides that if an ARC application is not approved or denied within a certain period of time, the application is deemed approved. In that case, if the ARC’s denial of an application is not valid because the ARC failed to comply with the procedural requirements for the meeting, an application which violates the declaration or the ARC standards may be deemed approved by operation of the declaration! By complying with the provisions of Chapter 720, Florida Statues, your association can avoid that disaster.

    Practice tip: Remember that notice of any board meeting at which the board will consider a rule which restricts what an owner can do on their parcel must be mailed, delivered, or electronically transmitted to the members and posted conspicuously on the property not less than 14 days before the meeting.

    If your association has not adopted objective ARC standards and guidelines including the “catchall” provision discussed above, now is the time to start! We recommend that you contact your association’s counsel prior to drafting such rules to ensure that the association is in compliance with the requirements of the governing documents and Chapter 720, Florida Statutes.

 

Jeffrey Rembaum’s, Esq.

legal practice consists of representation of condominium, homeowners, commercial and mobile home park associations, as well as exclusive country club communities and the developers who build them. Mr. Rembaum is a Board Certified Specialist in Condominium and Planned Development Law and is a Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Civil Mediator. 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:
KBR’s Seminar offerings at the Palm Beach Expo on February 1, 2022

KBR’s Seminar offerings at the Palm Beach Expo on February 1, 2022

  • Posted: Jan 25, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on KBR’s Seminar offerings at the Palm Beach Expo on February 1, 2022

KBR’s Seminar offerings at the Palm Beach Expo on February 1, 2022

9:30am-10:30am
JUMPING INTO THE PRESENT: WHY UPDATING YOUR GOVERNING DOCUMENTS IS IMPORTANT
Instructor: Allison L. Hertz, Esq., BCS
One CEU in OPP or ELE
2:30pm-4:30pm
2022 LEGAL UPDATE
Instructor: Peter C. Mollengarden, Esq., BCS
TWO CEUs in LU (Legal Update)

 

Kaye Bender Rembaum will also be in attendance and offering seminars at the following Expos in February:

February 4th – Miami Beach Convention Center – Miami Beach
February 10th – Tampa Convention Center – Tampa
February 15th – The Signature Grand – Davie
The Kaye Bender Rembaum Team Remains Available To You and Your Community Association
Visit KBRLegal.com for awesome free resources, including 2021 Legislation, news with Legal Morsels and Rembaum’s Association Roundup, and our Event Calendar, including upcoming free classes.
Tags: , ,
Why Condominium Associations Must Obtain Approval Before Work Begins and A Plea To The Florida Legislature For A Remedy by KBR Legal

Why Condominium Associations Must Obtain Approval Before Work Begins and A Plea To The Florida Legislature For A Remedy by KBR Legal

  • Posted: Jan 12, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Why Condominium Associations Must Obtain Approval Before Work Begins and A Plea To The Florida Legislature For A Remedy by KBR Legal

Why Condominium Associations Must Obtain Approval Before Work Begins and A Plea To The Florida Legislature For A Remedy

 

When it comes to material alterations, some might say that homeowner associations have it easy compared to condominium associations. For a homeowners association, because Chapter 720, Florida Statutes is silent on the issue, unless otherwise provided in the governing documents, decisions regarding material alterations are made by the board. But, as to condominium associations, and as their board members should know, §718.113(2), Florida Statutes, requires advance membership approval for material alterations to the common elements and association real property. In this regard, there is no parity between the Condominium Act versus the Homeowners Association Act.

Before explaining further, a reminder of the Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal  definition of what constitutes a “material alteration” from the seminal case Sterling Village Condominium, Inc. v. Breitenbach,  251 so.2d 685, 4th DCA (1971) is in order. As explained in Sterling,  “as applied to buildings the term ‘material alteration or addition’ means to palpably or perceptively vary or change the form, shape, elements or specifications of a building from its original design or plan, or existing condition, in such a manner as to appreciably affect or influence its function, use, or appearance.”

Prior to July 1, 2018, §718.113(2)(a), Florida Statutes, provided that no material alteration or substantial addition can be made to the common elements or association real property without the approval in the manner provided for in the declaration, or if the declaration is silent, then by 75 percent of the total voting interests of the association. As adopted by the 2018 Florida legislature, (effective July, 1, 2018), §718.113(2), Florida Statutes was amended to provide that approval of the material alteration or substantial addition must be obtained before the work commences.

 

The current language of §718.113(2)(a), Florida Statutes, provides as follows:

Except as otherwise provided in this section, there shall be no material alteration or substantial additions to the common elements or to real property which is association property, except in a manner provided in the declaration as originally recorded or as amended under the procedures provided therein. If the declaration as originally recorded or as amended under the procedures provided therein does not specify the procedure for approval of material alterations or substantial additions, 75 percent of the total voting interests of the association must approve the alterations or additions before the material alterations or substantial additions are commenced. This paragraph is intended to clarify existing law and applies to associations existing on July 1, 2018. [Emphasis added]

Prior to the 2018 amendment, §718.113(2), Florida Statutes, did not expressly provide that the approval must be obtained before the material alteration or substantial addition was commenced. However, in a recent decision by the Third District Court of Appeal, the Court held that approval was required before the material alteration or substantial additions were commenced even before the language of §718.113(2), Florida Statutes, was amended to include the advance approval requirement!

In Bailey v. Shelborne Ocean Beach Hotel Condominium Association, Inc., Nos. 3D17-559, 3D17-01767 (Fla. 3d DCA July 15, 2020), unit owners brought a claim against their association alleging that the association violated §718.113(2), Florida Statutes, by failing to obtain the approval of the membership before commencing a large construction project which, they argued, constituted a material alteration to the common elements. Later, both parties agreed that all but two of the alleged “material alterations” actually constituted necessary maintenance that the association was authorized to commence without a vote of the membership.

The association alleged that the remaining two construction items were also necessary maintenance, which was an allegation the unit owners disputed. The trial court held that the remaining two alleged material alterations were valid notwithstanding whether they were necessary maintenance or material alterations because the association eventually obtained the approval of the membership (presumably after the fact). Therefore, the trial court reasoned it did not need to make a determination as to whether the two items were material alterations since the membership approved them, albeit in a tardy fashion.

On appeal to the Third District Court of Appeal, the unit owners challenged the trial court’s decision arguing that the statute required the association to obtain approval for material alterations before it commenced the work. Therefore, the plaintiff unit owners argued that the membership could not provide their consent and approval posthumously. As the construction project at issue took place between 2010 and 2016, the applicable version of §718.113(2) did not include the express requirement that approval be obtained before material alterations are commenced. However, the Court still held that the portions of a construction project that do not constitute necessary maintenance must be approved prior to commencement.

The court explained that “based on the structure of the statute, the 75 percent approval requirement is a condition necessary to overcome the statute’s clear prohibition, insofar as any of the construction work amounts to material alteration or substantial additions.” However, because the trial court did not rule on whether the two items at issue were material alterations or necessary maintenance, the Court was unable to determine whether a vote of the members was pre-required and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceeding to determine the nature of the two construction items.

Because the Court did not make a final determination whether the two construction items constituted necessary maintenance, the Court did not address the remedy for the association’s failure to obtain the advance approval of the membership. Additionally, the law fails to address the remedy when an association does not obtain membership approval before commencing a project.

In cases of material alterations already completed which required the advance approval of the membership, the present version of §718.113(2), Florida Statutes leaves no room whatsoever for the court to order an association to posthumously acquire the membership vote or put things back the way they were. Rather, the only remedy that appears available to the court would be to restore the common elements to its pre-existing state (or as close as can be accomplished under the circumstances), which explains why a legislative fix to §718.113(2), Florida Statutes, to provide for additional remedy would be helpful.

There is a very important lesson to be gleaned from the Bailey case. If your association is considering a material alteration of any kind, then the association would be wise to attain the required approval before commencing the project to avoid a successful legal challenge. If the association fails to obtain the required approvals before commencement of the project, in the event of a legal challenge, the association may well be required to undo whatever alterations were made to the common elements as Bailey suggests this was the case even before the relevant statute was amended. This can result in significant expense to the association, not to mention having to explain what happened to many irate unit owners.

 

Remember, prior to commencing any material alteration or substantial addition, be sure to consult your association’s attorney to ensure you comply with the requirements of the Florida law and your association’s governing documents.

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

 

 

Tags: , ,
Selective Enforcement: A Grossly Misunderstood Concept by KBRLegal

Selective Enforcement: A Grossly Misunderstood Concept by KBRLegal

  • Posted: Jan 06, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Selective Enforcement: A Grossly Misunderstood Concept by KBRLegal

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.

 

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
Kaye Bender Rembaum is a full service commercial law firm devoted to the representation of more than 1000 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.your interest in Kaye Bender Rembaum.

 

Tags: