Become our Member : JOIN SFPMA TODAY LogIn / Register: LOGIN/REGISTER
Find Blog Articles for Florida’s Condo, HOA and the Management Industry.
sfpma want to thank Geri Bell for always providing us with the top Articles for our Industry.
Becker’s Lawyers are members of sfpma, can be found on our Directory, Sponsors many events and is one of the top firms for Condo, Hoa and Management professionals for our industry.
Thank You from all of us at SFPMA.Org
|
We are encouraging all members, Property Managers, Board Members for Condo and HOA’s and the industry in general to follow:
We understand that everyone has questions:
It is important to recognize we are not health care professionals. We have been looking to the experts. The CDC and other qualified health officials should continue to be the primary source of current information and guidance. Were offering general, precautionary guidance from officials and adding some common-sense guidelines for our industry.
Mask Mandates are changing!
Many States have already set as requirements for businesses, schools and Offices all over the US. The reversal of wearing Masks. This is great news for many, now you do not have to put on the masks if you dont wish to. As we go forward some that are at risk still will protect themselves, while others wont put them on. Dont get mad at them or start a problem…. You dont know what they are doing in Their Live! they might have a lower immune system in their bodies? they might take the stand that masks dont work? they even may believe in the Science or lack of?
Every person has the right to keep wearing a mask or not! so work with your group, community and management to find a solution you can adapt to keep everyone in your buildings safe. this could mean, in the common areas, with visitors and guests inside and outside your buildings. its best to have an open discussion with a group. find out what they think? and put in place rules to keep everyone safe.
Thank You, Be Safe. SFPMA
We know it’s a balancing act for community association leaders— and the desire to keep residents and guests safe as the face mask debate continues— even for the fully vaccinated. ( Part of this article copied from: Covid Masks) We are all working together for the safety for all.
As some local jurisdictions and/or states lift and others reinforce mask mandates, what does this mean for homeowners associations and condominium communities with shared spaces including—fitness centers, clubhouses, lobby areas, and mailrooms? We contacted CAI members, practicing common-interest law to share an update on face masks in common areas. From the outset of the pandemic, Edmund Allcock, a partner with Marcus, Errico, Emmer & Brooks in Braintree, Mass., and a fellow in CAI’s College of Community Association Lawyers (CCAL), encouraged community associations to follow recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as state and local guidelines, to mitigate the spread of COVID-19.
“At the beginning of the pandemic, we recommended closure of (common areas),” says Allcock. “Since the development of the vaccine, everything seems to have reopened, so I do not see why the clubhouse, or the gym should be any different.”
In Washington, application of state and local health mandates to community associations have been inconsistent, notes Anthony L. Rafel, managing partner at Rafel Law Group in Seattle, and a CCAL fellow. “The governor’s proclamations and the state secretary of health’s orders requiring masks in indoor congregate spaces make no exception for community associations,” he explains. “We’ve advised our community association clients that the requirements are applicable to common areas.”
Meanwhile, the California Department of Public Health has clarified that “indoor public settings” applies to board and commission meetings, but there is some disagreement as to whether community associations have to follow the state’s mask mandate, says Nathan R. McGuire, managing partner at Adams Stirling in Northern California, and a CCAL fellow. McGuire notes that his firm is advising that community associations are not public. Therefore, the guidance does not technically apply to them.
When it comes to guidelines community associations should follow to minimize the spread of COVID-19, Rafel says to lean on the side of greater protection for residents and guests. “Masks should be worn in lobbies, hallways, gyms, clubhouses, and meeting spaces if required or recommended by federal, state, or local health officials,” he says.
McGuire also believes masks should be required in indoor common areas to mitigate the spread of the disease. “Another option is to require only those who are unvaccinated to mask indoors and allow them to self-attest to their vaccination status. Meaning that, if someone enters the indoor setting without a mask, the resident or guest is self-attesting that they are vaccinated,” he notes.
Find out more on our Industry Web Pages for Condo, HOA and Property Management.
Tags: Common Area Issues, Condo and HOA Law, Management News, SFPMA Articles
Those of who have taken the Board Certification Class know that the answer to this question is that as long as the e-mails were on the private e-mail accounts of the Board members, they are not “official records” and therefore the unit owners cannot obtain copies of them. Well….that was all changed in one full swoop.
By Eric Glazer, Esq.
Florida Statute states:
120.565 Declaratory statement by agencies.—
(1) Any substantially affected person may seek a declaratory statement regarding an agency’s opinion as to the applicability of a statutory provision, or of any rule or order of the agency, as it applies to the petitioner’s particular set of circumstances.
A man by the name of James Hanseman recently sought a declaratory statement from The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Condominiums, Timeshares, and Mobile Homes regarding whether e-mail communications between and among board members are “official records” within the meaning of Florida Statute 718.111(12), where such records relate to the Association’s operations but are sent to and/or from personal computers and devices rather than Association owned computers and devices.
Those of who have taken my Board Certification Class know that the answer to this question is that as long as the e-mails were on the private e-mail accounts of the Board members, they are not “official records” and therefore the unit owners cannot obtain copies of them. Well….that was all changed in one full swoop.
In this declaratory statement, Chevonne Christian the Division Director opined that:
The .. official records of the association” include .. all other written records of the association not specifically included in the foregoing which are related to the operation of the association.”§ 718.111 (12)(a) l8., Fla. Stat. Nothing in this provision exempts such records when created or transmitted with a board member-owned device rather than an Association owned device.
The plain meaning of the statute is always the starting point in statutory interpretation.”
GTC, Inc. v. Edgar, 961 So. 2d 781, 785 (Fla. 2007). Dictionaries can be used to determine the meaning of words. Metro. Dade County v. Milton, 707 So. 2d 913, 915 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).
Emails constitute a form of writing. Writing, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019).
Consequently, emails are “written records,” and their existence as such does not depend on the ownership of the device through which the emails are transmitted.
Accordingly, emails that otherwise constitute “official records” are not excluded from thestatutory definition of “official records” merely because they are created or transmitted with board members’ personal devices.
Wow! If e-mails constitute a form of writing, no doubt text messages also constitute a form of writing. So how is this going to work? Let’s say a unit owner makes a records request for e-mails between board members during the month of February, 2022. Do all of the Board members now have an obligation to look through their e-mails and texts for the past month, print them out and hand them in to the association? Suppose each director simply says that we don’t communicate by e-mail or texts, even though they do? What remedy does the unit owner have?
While the decision is debatable as to whether or not these e-mails are “official records” it is undeniable, that it is simply unenforceable. It will be interesting to see the first arbitration case that relies on this declaratory statement. It will be even more interesting if that arbitration case gets appealed and we ultimately get a decision of the courts. Will a director ever be required to physically turn over their phone or computer by a court? Who knows? But I think we will either have a legislative fix or a court opinion within a year. In the interim, keep in mind that before you hit the SEND button on an e-mail, think about the fact that said e-mail may one day be seen by everyone in the condominium, or even a judge or jury.
The roles, responsibilities, and differences between these two jobs Key takeaways:
Find Property Managers
The terms property manager and community association manager are sometimes used interchangeably, but there are important differences.
Each job has its own responsibilities and functions. Property managers primarily work with tenants and oversee individual apartment units or homes.
A property manager’s typical responsibilities include collecting rent, showing vacant units to prospective tenants, and handling maintenance and repairs for individual apartments or homes.
Community association managers typically work with the board of directors of an HOA or COA.
A community association manager’s usual duties include preparing budgets, collecting bids from vendors, and overseeing repairs and maintenance of amenity spaces or common areas.
A property manager deals with the day-to-day operations of a property or an association, whereas a community association manager is more likely to be involved in large-scale or big-picture projects that affect the community as a whole.
It is important to know the differences between a property manager and a community association manager to hire the right professional for the task and contact the right person with your question or concern.
You may have heard the terms property manager and community association manager used interchangeably. While the two job titles have similarities, there are also key differences between them. If you’re a real estate or property management professional – or a vendor who serves these industries – it is important to understand that property managers and community association managers have different responsibilities and job functions. We will outline them below.
Property managers oversee the physical property itself and generally respond to tenant inquiries about their particular unit. They are usually the ones who manage leases, collect rent or Condo/HOA payments, handle maintenance and repairs for units or homes, and address tenant complaints and concerns.
The core responsibilities of a property manager include:
Rent or HOA payment collection
Repair management and maintenance for each unit or home
Vacant unit showings to prospective tenants
Responding to tenant complaints
Inspecting units after tenants move out
Handling an eviction process
Community association managers
Community Association Managers (CAMs) are usually in charge of budgets, record-keeping, and managing community spaces such as a clubhouse, pool, or community landscape features. They’re involved in all aspects of running the HOA (if there is one) or the community and thus have extensive knowledge of HOA governing rules and local applicable laws.
The Core responsibilities of a CAM include:
Supervision of community maintenance, such as common areas, pool cleaning, landscaping, etc.
Creation and overseeing of budgets.
Site inspections.
Negotiation of contracts for common property repairs or enhancements.
Assisting the board in selecting vendors; collection and presentation of bids for projects.
Both property managers and CAMs might handle tasks such as pool maintenance or trash collection, but in general the former takes on the responsibilities of a landlord while the latter oversees larger-scale projects and activities that have implications for the entire community. You can think of property managers as dealing primarily with individual tenant needs and CAMs as handling the needs of the entire building, neighborhood, or association.
Most states require property managers to obtain a real estate license, but this isn’t the case for CAMs. They may or may not have a real estate license, but they should be well-versed in local housing laws and know the rules of the owner’s association that hired them. It is important to properly vet prospective candidates whether you’re seeking a property manager or a CAM.
Why the differences matter
It is important to know the differences between a LCAM and a property manager so that you can hire the right professional for the tasks at hand. From a tenant, unit owner, or vendor perspective, knowing the differences between these two roles can help you determine which person to address with a specific questions or problem.
Do you want to become a Property Manager? SFPMA and our Education Partners Provide State Approved – Online and In classroom courses for Licensing, Educational and instructive information through the association. Find out more about Licensing & Advancement Courses for the property management industry. Get your License Today! Become a Licensed Property Manager
Tags: Board of Directors, Management News, Members ArticlesFor 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: Condo and HOA LawCome meet with the top Industry Professionals and Companies serving Condo and HOA’s.
SFPMA has so many of our members that take part in the Expos and Events for our Industry.
Learn how our members can help you with your Buildings.
Kaye Bender Rembaum will also be in attendance and offering seminars at the following Expos in February:
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.
Tags: Board of Directors, Common Area Issues, Condo and HOA Laws