Become a Member: JOIN SFPMA TODAY LogIn / Register: LOGIN/REGISTER
Find Blog Articles for Florida’s Condo, HOA and the Management Industry.
As a trusted partner for over 22 years, Scratch Removal Specialists is dedicated to providing the finest customer service and most cost-effective solutions for your glass restoration needs.
The “state of emergency” that had been imposed by Governor DeSantis in light of the COVID-19 pandemic expired on June 26, 2021. As a result, the “emergency powers” given to condominium, cooperatives, and homeowners’ associations in Sections 718.1265, 719.128, and 720.316, Florida Statutes, respectively, are no longer in effect. The emergency powers that were in effect during the COVID-19 state of emergency included conducting board meetings and membership meetings with notice given as is practicable, but did not specifically give associations the authority to conduct meetings remotely. Nevertheless, many associations did hold meetings remotely in an effort to slow the spread of the virus and to protect its residents and employees. (NOTE: The emergency powers statutes were amended effective July 1, 2021, and now specifically provide that during a declared state of emergency, the association may conduct board meetings, committee meetings, elections, and membership meetings, in whole or in part, by telephone, real-time videoconferencing, or similar real-time electronic or video communication.)
Now that the state of emergency has expired, what meetings can associations hold remotely, either in whole or in part?
With regard to board meetings, the statutes specifically address the board members’ participation by telephone or videoconferencing, but do not address whether owners may participate remotely or whether the owners can be required to participate remotely. The statutes do provide that meetings of the board must be “open” to all owners. If your board wishes to hold remote board meetings, the board can allow owners to also participate remotely in the same manner as the board members by giving the owners the call-in number or videoconference link. The law is unsettled as to whether a remote only meeting is valid, as some owners may not have the capability or desire to participate remotely.
With regard to owner meetings, the statute governing corporations not-for-profit, Section 617.0721(3), Florida Statutes, provides that owners and proxyholders may participate remotely and can also vote remotely if authorized by the board of directors, and subject to such guidelines and procedures as the board may adopt. But as with Board meetings, none of the statutes indicate whether “remote only” meetings, which require the owners to participate remotely, are valid. (Note that this type of “remote voting” contemplated by Section 617.0721(3) is different than the electronic/online voting that is permitted by Sections 718.128, 719.129, and 720.317, Florida Statutes).
For owner meetings at which an election will be held, the issue is more difficult. The Condominium and Cooperative Acts require owners to vote by “secret ballot” and many homeowners’ associations governing documents also have a secret ballot requirement. In that case, an owner participating remotely would be unable to vote on the election of directors unless the owner voted in advance of the meeting or unless the association had authorized electronic/online voting pursuant to Sections 718.128, 719.129, and 720.317, Florida Statutes). Further, in condominium and cooperative associations, the “election committee” that opens and counts the election ballots must be physically together, and owners are entitled to observe the ballot counting process in the owners’ “presence”.
Because of these legal issues, a “hybrid” approach where owners are given the option to participate remotely, but are not required to participate remotely, is the best approach. Some meetings lend themselves to remote participate more than others. For instance, board meetings and non-election owners’ meetings are the types of meetings that can be managed remotely. However, if there is an election, there will need to be additional considerations.
Boards should discuss these issues with the association’s attorney so that all of the necessary board authorizations can be prepared and approved by the board.
Tags: Board of Directors, Condo and HOA, Law and Legal
‘Homestead’ (or perhaps ‘homesteading’) is a word you’ve probably heard, but aren’t clear on what it is or means. So when we talk about homestead exemptions for housing, there can be some confusion. A “homestead” is defined as a house, or more specifically a farmhouse, and “homesteading” is defined as, “a lifestyle of self-sufficiency.” Homestead law allows an individual to register a portion of their primary residence (and only their primary residence) as “homestead” to reduce the taxes paid on it. The original goal was to preserve the family farm, home, or other assets in the face of severe economic conditions. See how it all connects?
Homestead exemptions exclude a portion of a home’s value from taxation, so they lower the taxes. For example, if a home is appraised at $100,000, and the owner qualifies for a $25,000 exemption (this is the amount mandated for school districts), they will pay school taxes on the home as if it was worth only $75,000. It also makes that portion of the individual’s estate off-limits to most creditors and protects that value from financial situations that arise due to the death of the homeowner’s spouse (to guarantee that the surviving spouse has shelter).
Now the real disconnect between the homestead exemption and homestead/homesteading is that the only requirement needed to get a homestead exemption is that the home is the owner’s primary residence–no farming necessary.
Homestead, homestead exemptions, and homesteading are all a little confusing. So at some point, you start to wonder how the exemption might impact your community funds or a future collections process. Here’s what you should know:
Luckily, there are some exceptions to the homestead exemption: taxing authorities (state and federal), mortgage lenders, and the community association where the property is located (that’s you!) all have the ability to foreclose and collect if payments are missed.
So if one of your homeowners is behind on their assessment fees and all efforts to collect the debt have failed and the next step for your community is to foreclose, even if they have a homestead exemption, your community association is legally one of the only entities able to go to foreclosure.
Even though “homestead,” “homestead exemption,” and “homesteading” all call back to farming in some way, the homeowner doesn’t have to have a farm, product, or any other traditional ‘homestead’ good or service to take advantage of the homestead law–they just have to own the property it’s being applied to.
That said, there has been a massive resurgence of homesteading in the millennial generation–sort of. Thousands of influencers across social media document their zero-waste lives that use composting, in-home gardening, and reusable items (like fabric grocery bags, beeswax wrappings, and mason jars) to show that they can successfully and beautifully live off of only what they sustain and grow. Some even make their own products to sell like all-natural candles or deodorants.
Depending on the location and size of your community, you may have a few homesteading homeowners yourself. Maybe they’re growing fresh habaneros and cilantro in their garden for homemade salsa, or knitting sweaters out of thread they made from their pet cat Fluffy’s fur (yes that’s a real thing–a real weird thing in my opinion but to each their own).
Whatever they’re doing, they still have to follow the HOA or condo association’s community guidelines. A homestead exemption does not give any homeowner the right to ignore community rules, even if those rules might clash with their new homesteading lifestyle. If they want to raise chickens to have fresh eggs in the morning and so they don’t have to go out and buy eggs from the grocery store, more power to them, but they probably can’t do it in an HOA, and they definitely can’t have chickens in a condo building.
It’s important to know that the homestead exemption varies widely between each state. Some states like New Jersey don’t even have the exemption at all. So for some HOA or condo associations, foreclosing on a home with a homestead exemption might ever happen. If it does happen in your community, remember that the community association has every right to foreclose and collect on a property even if it has a homestead exemption, but working with a specialized collection agency will help make the process that much smoother.
What you need is a specialized community association collection agency that will work with your owners and recover the past due amounts at no cost and no risk to the association. Give Axela Technologies a call today and receive a no-cost analysis and review of a collections process that will fit your community association delinquency problem.
Tags: Board of Directors, Collections, Management News
To function as intended, a homeowners’ association (HOA) must rely on assessment revenue from its members. Most communities calculate assessments, at least in part, based on an annual budget of anticipated expenses. These typically include the costs involved in performing all of the HOA’s maintenance duties, procuring necessary insurance, and covering overhead, along with any other fixed or reasonably foreseeable outlays. The resulting gross budget is then divided among the members of the association, and homeowners are assessed accordingly.
When creating an annual budget in this manner, it’s generally a good idea to be as precise, analytical, and transparent as practically possible. However, a budgeting approach that relies exclusively on predetermined, repeating, line-item expenses doesn’t leave much room for error. After all, what if an essential common element is unforeseeably damaged—resulting in significant repair or replacement costs—and there’s no money in the budget or insurance to cover the loss? Or it may be that the association has some legal issues arise and incurs attorney’s fees much higher than could have been reasonably anticipated. And, of course, some common elements don’t need maintenance every year, but, when maintenance time comes, it’s costly.
Rather than get caught scrambling for cash when an unexpected contingency or major maintenance need arises, many communities maintain “reserve accounts” or “reserve funds,” as a sort of back-up savings slated for emergencies, long-term upkeep costs, and irregular expenditures. Although reserve funds are often not mandatory, an ample reserve can play a big role in protecting a community’s long-term financial health.
We’re all familiar with the differences between checking and savings accounts. Aside from cash itself, a checking account is as liquid as assets get. You use it to pay bills, buy groceries—the sort of everyday expenditures it takes to run a household. A savings account, on the other hand, serves as a rainy-day fund you can tap when something unexpected arises—like, say, your vehicle needs a new catalytic converter.
Most homeowners’ associations have an operating account or similarly designated checking account to cover the routine expenses. Office supplies and regular maintenance of common elements, for instance, are typically paid from the operating fund.
An HOA’s reserve fund, in contrast, is an account dedicated to unanticipated and deferred expenditures, particularly large ones. The association allocates money toward its reserve account over time so that, when a costly repair or comparable outlay becomes necessary, cash reserves are available to handle the expense without sacrificing day-to-day functions.
By way of example, an HOA might pay out the costs of routine snow removal from its operating account. If the community expects to need plowing a few times each winter, the board will build the costs into the annual budget. But when all the plowing over the years leaves a significant portion of the development’s roads in need of repaving, the money is more likely to come from a reserve fund.
Reserve requirements are not addressed under every state’s HOA laws. And some states that do address them, leave a lot to the board’s discretion. More commonly, reserve account standards are found in a community’s declaration or bylaws. Statutes governing condominiums are usually more explicit in setting forth precisely what is required of an association with regard to reserves.
An association’s annual budget takes into account reasonably foreseeable expenses like landscaping, equipment upkeep, and payroll if the HOA has employees. But when an association-owned building needs a new roof, the community pool requires a major repair, or all the equipment in the fitness center starts breaking down, the unbudgeted costs will need to be paid from reserves.
A reserve fund can also be used to cover expenses that are not necessarily unforeseen, but arise infrequently enough that it wouldn’t make sense to include them within annual budgets. If the community’s tennis courts need to be resurfaced every ten years, the board might hold back in reserve around ten percent of the cost each year so that, when the time comes, the resurfacing costs can be paid outright. Of course, it’s not always so easy to predict precisely how much money will be needed.
For the most part, deciding just how much cash a community needs to hold in reserve is the responsibility of an association’s board. Under state HOA and condominium statutes, board members owe a “fiduciary duty” to the association. See, e.g., Fla. Stat. §§720.303(1), 718.111(1); 765 ILCS 605/18.4. The obligations of a fiduciary are among the highest recognized by the law. In carrying out their responsibilities, a board and its members must act in good-faith, prudently and loyally, and always in furtherance of the association’s best interests. Id.
“Board members must avoid conflicts of interest when budgeting and allocating reserves.”
The duty of good-faith loyalty includes not wasting or misappropriating an association’s money, including reserves. HOA funds should only be used for their intended purposes and in the best interests of the community. Anything less potentially breaches the board’s fiduciary obligation. Condo associations in Florida, for instance, can only expend reserve funds for authorized reserve expenditures or if a specific outlay is approved in advance by majority vote of the association. Fla. Stat. §718.112(2)(f)(3).
In furtherance of their fiduciary duties, board members must avoid conflicts of interest when budgeting and allocating reserves. If a board member, family member, or related business could potentially bid on or otherwise benefit from an association contract, that board member should recuse him or herself from any discussion or voting related to that contract. See, Tex. Prop. Code § 209.0052.
The duty of prudence means taking reasonable steps to avoid a scenario where a cash-strapped HOA is unprepared for a major expense it should have seen coming. This means budgeting realistically and ensuring the association has sufficient reserves. Deciding what is “sufficient,” though, can be difficult because, by definition, reserves pay for expenses that are irregular and not reasonably foreseeable. Even a board making a good-faith effort to act prudently might not recognize all potential expenses a reserve fund needs to cover.
When setting reserve requirements, the key questions board members need to ask are (1) what unbudgeted expenses are likely to arise over an extended timeline; (2) how much are those expenses likely to cost; and (3) how much additional savings will that necessitate per year. Most board members are volunteers just trying to help keep their communities running on all cylinders, so it’s probably unrealistic to expect them to know the answers without some professional assistance—especially in large communities with substantial common elements. Fortunately, though, there are accounting professionals who specialize in “reserve studies” designed to calculate the cash-reserve needs of HOAs and similarly situated organizations.
Reserve funds present something of a conundrum for HOA boards. If you maintain reserves for the express purpose of paying expenses that are unanticipated and infrequent, then how does the board decide how much it needs to hold in reserve? If the association holds back too much, it is essentially over-taxing its members. But if reserves are inadequate, then the HOA might find itself insufficiently liquid to meet its obligations without imposing a costly special assessment or taking out a loan—neither of which is likely to be popular with homeowners.
Reserve studies are intended to help Goldilocks (i.e., the HOA board) find the porridge (i.e., the reserve amount) that’s just right. A reserve study is an examination conducted by a consultant or accounting firm for the purpose of analyzing probable long-term expenses. The idea is to use the analysis to estimate the community’s reserve needs as scientifically as possible.
Along with reviewing the association’s assets (including current reserves), budget, and anticipated revenue, the auditor will survey community equipment, buildings, and other common elements. Based on all available information, the auditor comes up with a long-term schedule of expected repairs, replacements, major maintenance, and any other relevant liabilities likely to affect the HOA’s bottom line.
Once the study is concluded, the board uses the estimates to calculate the level of regular homeowner assessments needed to maintain the optimal reserve account balance. For instance, if the study estimates that a parking lot within the community will need new asphalt in ten years, and that the cost will be around $20,000, the board might adjust the budget and assessments to hold back $2,000 in additional reserves each year. That additional $2,000 is divided among all members’ annual dues so that, when the time comes for new asphalt, the funds are already available in the reserve account.
Of course, a study will in all likelihood identify numerous potential expenditures over the relevant period, and the reserve recommendation will be based on the aggregate anticipated long-term cash needs—not just any single item. But the principle is still the same.
Reserve studies cost money, so they don’t make sense in every situation. In a small association with only minimal commons and simple maintenance duties, a reserve study would probably cost more than the value it could reasonably be expected to provide. At the same time, a large association with elaborate commons and extensive duties would be imprudent not to use a reserve study or other means of scientifically calculating reserve needs.
The appropriate dollar balance for any given community’s reserve fund depends in large part on the size of the association, the nature of the common elements, and the extent of the HOA’s obligations. Some state HOA and condo laws establish specific reserve requirements, but funding needs are more commonly set by the board in accordance with standards detailed in the association’s governing documents. A reserve account is “fully funded” if it covers 100% of the community’s reasonably foreseeable expenses. Many communities choose to set reserve requirements at a percentage of anticipated expenses, as estimated by the board or identified in a reserve study. So, for example, an association might require the board to hold in reserve at least 75% of anticipated expenses at any given time, adjusted based on the schedule for deferred maintenance.
A few states establish specific funding requirements for reserves stated as a percentage of the association’s overall budget. See, e.g., Ohio Rev. Code §5311.081(A)(1) (requiring annual reserve contributions of at least 10% of budget, but allowing waiver by majority vote). More commonly, states adopt statutory principles for reserves but leave the specifics to the discretion of the board or community as a whole. Generally, condo laws go into much more detail when it comes to reserve requirements.
Florida’s condo statute requires an association’s annual budget to include reserves for “capital expenditures and deferred maintenance … [including but not limited to] roof replacement, building painting, and pavement resurfacing,” and any other deferred maintenance or replacement cost exceeding $10,000. Fla. Stat. §718.112(f)2a. For each included item, the calculation must be based on the “estimated remaining useful life and estimated replacement cost or deferred maintenance expense.” Id.
Though Florida’s condo statute requires reserves by default, it also allows a condo association to waive reserve requirements, or require a lesser amount, by majority vote. Id. Florida’s HOA statute likewise makes reserves optional. If a community opts for reserves, the reserve account funding must be calculated based on each asset’s estimated deferred maintenance or replacement cost divided by its predicted useful life remaining. Fla. Stat. §720.303(6)(g).
California requires associations to maintain reserve balances based on reserve studies conducted at least once every three years and including diligent, on-site inspections. Civil Code §5550. The study must, at a minimum, identify all major components the HOA is obligated to maintain, the estimated costs and useful life associated with each, and the annual reserve contribution necessary to defray the costs. Id.
Similarly, Washington requires calculation of reserve contributions in communities with “significant assets” (defined as assets valued at 50% or more of the association’s gross budget) based on regular reserve studies. Wash. Code §64.34.020. At least every three years, the study must be conducted by an independent professional who visually inspects the relevant assets. Notably, though, the Washington statute merely “encourage[s]” HOAs “to establish a reserve account… to fund major maintenance, repair, and replacement of common elements.” Wash. Code §64.34.380.
State legislation routinely recognizes the importance of reserve funds to homeowners’ associations but doesn’t make them mandatory. However, deferred maintenance, repair and replacement of major elements, and surprise expenses will inevitably come up. When adequate reserves aren’t available, a community will need to employ alternate means of paying for these significant costs.
Boards often face a temptation to underfund reserves—or even dip into reserves to pay for what would normally be regular operating expenses—to cover increasing operating costs without raising assessments. Homeowners often object to additional assessments or reject them altogether. But paying a little extra up front to make sure sufficient cash-flow is available for adequate reserves can actually save money over time. And, the alternatives—special assessments, loans, and putting off repairs and replacements—are not particularly attractive options.
“The duty of prudence means taking reasonable steps to avoid a scenario where a cash-strapped HOA is unprepared for a major expense it should have seen coming.”
With a special assessment, the community is paying all-at-once what it could have paid over time. In effect, current owners are footing the bill for costs that were rightfully the responsibility of prior owners. And, of course, special assessments often require member approval. A rejected special assessment is just as helpful to a board facing a major expense as an unfunded reserve account.
If an HOA can’t cover unexpected expenses and long-term maintenance directly from member assessments, there’s also the option of taking out a loan in the name of the HOA. Obtaining a loan probably won’t be too difficult for an association with regular revenue and relatively little debt, but it may require the use of community assets as collateral. And, just as significantly, loans require interest.
Even assuming the HOA can secure a loan with a competitive interest rate, the cost of repaying the loan still ultimately comes from assessments, but members end up paying a lot more than the actual expense cost due to interest and transaction costs. By contrast, an adequately funded reserve account itself earns interest, leading to the opposite result—members pay less out of pocket because money applied to reserves is earning interest up until the expenses become necessary.
And there’s also the option of simply not paying for maintenance, repairs, and replacements that aren’t included in the annual budget. In this scenario, homeowners lose access to benefits of the community. If the pool needs an overhaul, but there’s no money to pay for it, members and their families no longer have a neighborhood pool to swim in. Not to mention, property values may decrease, as the allure of living in a community with a pool is reduced when the pool is inaccessible.
Kicking the can down the road by underfunding reserves almost always leads to losses in the end. With this in mind, Florida’s HOA statute requires associations without reserves to notify members annually that no reserves are held and that special assessments may be enacted to pay for capital expenditures and deferred maintenance. Fla. Stat. §720.303(6)(c).
Inadequate funding can lead to safety concerns as well. Association-owned equipment or facilities that are not receiving scheduled maintenance due to insufficient reserve funding can increase the risk of injury and create unnecessary liability exposure.
Under the right circumstances, insurance coverage can help defray some of the costs caused by underfunded reserves. Many states mandate that HOAs carry insurance coverage. Arizona requires property damage coverage for at least 80% of the value of common elements and liability insurance with coverage limits decided by the board. A.R.S. §33-1253A(1) – (2). Eight states (Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Minnesota, Nevada, Vermont, and West Virginia) have adopted the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act (“UCIOA”), which has requirements similar to Arizona’s, along with mandatory fidelity insurance. See, e.g., Conn. Gen. Stat. §47-255.
Insurance, though, isn’t foolproof. A policy won’t cover every major expense that comes up. A property policy might cover losses due to accident but not if damage results from inadequate maintenance. A major expense like a new roof might be needed as a result or ordinary wear and tear that a regular property damage policy excludes from coverage.
And for insurance to help, you have to actually procure a policy. State condo association laws often require insurance, but it’s frequently optional for HOAs. Even in states that ostensibly require insurance like Arizona and the eight UCIOA states, there’s a limitation—a policy must be obtained “to the extent reasonably available.” Id.
HOA insurance is generally a good thing to have; it’s just not a foolproof substitute for reserves. Ideally, it’s more of a supplement, avoiding a scenario in which a catastrophe like a fire or major storm completely saps a community’s reserve funds or forces the association to write off common elements that were once valuable community resources.
Most state HOA laws require associations to make regular budgetary disclosures to members, usually including the status of reserve funding. Florida HOAs, for instance, must prepare yearly budgets estimating anticipated expenses and revenue and identifying any reserve accounts or funds set aside for deferred expenditures. Fla. Stat. §702.303(6)
In Washington, the statutorily mandated annual budget report must state amounts currently held in reserve, estimate year-end reserve balances, propose a plan for funding reserves, and project future reserve balances if the plan is adopted. Wash. Code. §64.38.025. Colorado requires a similar disclosure of present reserve balances, along with the board’s proposal to ensure the community’s reserve needs are adequately funded. Col. Rev. Stat. §38-33.3-209.5.
California requires a detailed reserve report based on the most recent reserve study, including the remaining useful life of each major component, estimated repair or replacement costs, and the amount of reserve money held by the HOA. Civil Code §5565. California HOA members also have a right to notice of “the mechanism or mechanisms by which the board of directors will fund reserves … including assessments, borrowing, use of other assets, deferral of selected replacements or repairs, or alternative mechanism.” Civil Code §5300.
Particularly in condo associations, prospective purchasers often have a right to receive notice of current reserve balances. Tex. Prop. Code § 82.157; A.R.S. §33-1260. Absent an affirmative disclosure requirement, homeowners have a right to request inspection of association records. See, e.g., Fla. Code §720.303(4). Records subject to an inspection typically include financial records and budgets.
A homeowner who believes an association’s board is mishandling or underfunding reserves has a few options. First, the homeowner can bring up reserve issues at the next homeowners’ or open board meeting, or informally discuss concerns with a board member. A formal records request can also help provide detailed information about how reserves are being maintained and used and whether there is in fact a problem.
Because of the democratic character of community associations, there’s also the option of running for the board in the next election or organizing a campaign to amend the association’s declaration to include more stringent or specific reserve requirements. If misconduct or fiduciary lapses are involved, an individual homeowner or group of homeowners usually have standing to pursue legal claims against the board or its members, depending upon the specifics of the situation and whether actual damages have been incurred. It’s almost always a good idea to consult with an experienced attorney before asserting or pursuing legal claims.
In situations involving outright fraud or embezzlement, homeowners should bring the matter to the attention of local law enforcement agencies. Misappropriation of funds entrusted to an individual is criminal conduct in every state, though, of course, the precise standards vary by jurisdiction.
Tags: Assessments, Board of Directors, Budgets, Condo and HOA, Law and Legal, Management News
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.
Condo regulations in Florida have come under close scrutiny since the tragedy in Surfside on June 24, with at least 46 people confirmed dead and 94 still unaccounted for as of midday Wednesday. While investigators warn it could be months before a cause of the collapse is known, attention has turned to the decisions made — or not made — by city officials, consultants, developers and the residents and board members of Champlain Towers South.
“What we’re looking at are specific changes to prevent that from happening again,” William Sklar, an adjunct faculty member of the University of Miami’s law school and task force chair told The Post. “We also want to be realistic relative to the needs of unit owners, and we don’t want to dissuade [board members] from service.” Navigating those competing interests, Sklar and others acknowledged, is a complex mission. What lures many to condos in the first place is precisely what can eventually undermine them: Shared responsibility for maintenance with the perks of private ownership.
Despite the detailed, extensive condo laws in Florida, several real estate experts said the rules are often easy to manipulate or have toothless enforcement.
“Condos are so critical to our local economy, but the state does nothing to bring clarity to it because it’s a cash cow,” said Peter Zalewski, a Florida condo industry analyst. “No one wants to kill the market prices.”
Condo owners and developers aren’t the only ones who may be skittish of changes: Politicians eager to enact tougher oversight in the wake of Surfside are still responsive to the will of voters, said Peggy Rolando, a Miami-based real estate lawyer and co-chair of the Florida Bar Association’s Condominium and Planned Development Committee.
“In Florida, condo owners are a hugely powerful political force,” Rolando said. Board meetings of well-heeled condo associations warrant campaign stops, and some buildings are even large enough to be their own voting precinct, she said.
Even tightening regulations in the name of building safety is likely to face resistance. Experts agreed the current rules that give condo owners significant leeway to defer costly maintenance can lead to a worst-case scenario in which a building becomes too unsafe to inhabit and too expensive to repair.
At the same time, they recognized putting off pricey fixes is sometimes a matter of short-term economic survival. In a place like South Florida, affordable housing is scarce, and many residents are fixed-income retirees who can’t easily absorb sudden spikes in homeowner fees.
“I anticipate a lot of push-pull,” Rolando said. “There’s an expression in South Florida that ‘you’re throwing grandma off the balcony’: If you’re passing laws saying ‘you must fully fund reserves for the entire building’ and price people out of their homes, you’re going to have a very unhappy constituency.”
After the collapse in Surfside, attention — and blame — quickly settled on the Champlain Towers South Condominium Association.
The association is the subject of at least 10 lawsuits filed since the building fell. In each of the complaints, residents detail what they say are oversights and failures of the condo board to act on crucial maintenance they argue contributed to the building’s structural instability.
But a Washington Post investigation found that while plans for repairs dragged on for years even as the building’s 40-year safety certification was coming due, dozens of unit owners in the condo balked at the estimated repair costs, which eventually tallied $15 million. In April 2019, dozens of owners signed a letter raising last-minute objections to the repair plans and asked for a lower assessment. A few months later, five of the seven board members quit.
The tension exhibited by the fallen tower’s condo association underscores why a condo building’s troubles don’t start and end with its board of directors, said Peter M. Dunbar, a longtime legal expert in Florida real estate who has written several reference books on Florida condominium law and management used by the state.
Florida condo board seats are volunteer roles in which elected members are not required to have any specialized training or vetting, even in buildings where board members are responsible for reserve accounts worth hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars and approve maintenance for complex amenities like elevators and swimming pools.
New board members have 90 days to take an elective course approved by the Division of Florida Condominiums, Timeshares, and Mobile Homes Complaints/Investigations or simply file a statement saying they have read the condominium’s rules and legal documents and understand their duties as a board member, Dunbar said.
“The lack of knowledge is not often where I find the biggest concerns,” Dunbar said. “You may know what you’re supposed to be doing, but are you doing it in a timely fashion, and are you doing it to the extent it’s required? To me, that’s a bigger issue.”
Anyone who serves as a director of an association has what Florida law states is a “fiduciary duty” to the association, or an obligation to act in the association’s best interests where maintenance, finances, quality of life and property value are concerned. In other words, Dunbar said, board members don’t have to know how to fix everything; they just need to hire the right people to assess what needs fixing and then act on those recommendations.
“But because they’re elected, they also have the pressures of their constituents,” Dunbar said. “The difference for the volunteer board is, you can do your best, and a resident can still say, ‘I don’t want to pay,’ and recall you.”
Condo board members face personal liability if they’re found to have acted negligently or criminally in an individual capacity. But most problems that befall condo associations are not from nefarious board members or tightfisted unit owners, said Rolando, the Florida Bar Association’s Condominium and Planned Development Committee co-chair.
More often, personal circumstances or simple human nature cloud decision-making.
“There are very, very few associations that have really extensive, comprehensive reserve structures,” she said. “But if you know your neighbor just lost their job, or just sent their kid off to college, what are you going to do? You have an obligation to do the right thing for the association. But you have people who don’t want to or can’t afford to do the right thing.”
Documents from the Champlain Towers South Condo Association revealed infighting among neighbors as building repairs grew more urgent and more costly; one neighbor recounted toxic board meetings that would devolve into “screaming and yelling.”
The tension can erode the quality of life in a building where board members and condo owners pass one another every day in the lobby, by the pool or walking the dog, Rolando said.
“I have a lot of sympathy for board members because I think it’s rewarding that you can do something that improves your community and has a direct impact,” she added. “But it’s also enormously demanding, unpaid and thankless. I guess it’s like being a mom or something.”
The Florida legislature requires condo associations to have financial reserves for painting, roof repair, paving and any item of deferred maintenance that exceeds $10,000, Rolando said.
Rolando said she sympathizes with unit owners who face unmanageable costs that can balloon from years of neglected or delayed maintenance.
“Mandatory reserves are probably the right thing to do fiscally. But when you’re dealing with human beings with myriad financial issues, do you want to force people into a situation where they can’t afford to pay and will have to sell their unit?” Rolando said. “There are no good answers.”
Members of the new safety task force hinted that changes to safety certifications and inspection schedules are likely to meet the least resistance.
Sklar, the task force co-chair, suggested that South Florida’s 40-year safety recertification program could be significantly narrowed to 10, 25 or 30 years and that it could be applied uniformly statewide; right now, it applies only to Miami-Dade and Broward counties.
Other considerations include expanding inspections to include geological and hydrological factors affecting building stability and structure, and periodic and comprehensive reviews of specific building elements such as concrete, rebar and electrical.
Sklar said the law allowing condo owners to hold an annual vote and waive fully funding the association’s reserves will need to be re-examined as well.
The task force will also consider ways the government can help residents who can’t afford the reserves or maybe bought into a lower-cost building or live on a fixed income.
“We may review if there’s a low-cost, government-backed, subsidized financing available,” he told The Post.
Zalewski, the condo industry analyst, said he hopes the task force also considers making real estate transactions more transparent and favorable to buyers. Under Florida law, a prospective condo buyer has a 15-day right of rescission, or ability to pull out of a pending condo purchase, if they are buying directly from a developer; if the purchase is made from an existing condo owner, the period shrinks to three days.
Zalewski, who is critical of the three-day rescission period, said that amount of time does not give a prospective buyer an adequate period to do the research and inspections that could prevent them from buying into a condo building that has hidden costs lurking down the road.
“The three days doesn’t make sense if you’re worried about the buyer,” he said. “It would change the market overnight because it would force everyone to be on the up and up.”
Tags: Board of Directors, Management News, Reserves
/ Becker
Does your Declaration of Condominium still refer to Chapter 711 as the Florida Condominium Act? Well, maybe it is not that old, but perhaps it has been a decade since it has been revised. If that is the case, then it may be time to amend the governing documents to ensure that they include the most recent amendments to the Condominium Act and address changes in your community’s needs which have developed over time.
Section 718.110(1)(a), Florida Statute, provides that if a declaration fails to provide a method of amending the document, it may be amended, as to most matters, if the amendment is approved by owners of not less than two-thirds (2/3rd) of the units. There are two major exceptions, however. First, changing any appurtenances to the unit or changing an owner’s percentage share in the common expenses requires the approval of all owners and all lienholders, unless the original declaration provides otherwise. Second, an association cannot amend a declaration to create timeshares without the approval of the all owners and all lienholders, unless the original declaration provides otherwise.
Now that you know the basics of an amendment, lets discuss “why” in terms of a growing issue in Florida (i.e., short term rentals). If the goal is to amend the declaration to address the onslaught of short term rentals popping up with more and more frequency in condominiums, Section 718.110(13) must be considered. This statute provides that any amendment prohibiting owners from renting their units, altering the duration of the rental term, or limiting the number of times owners are entitled to rent will only apply to owners who agree to the amendment and to owners who purchase their unit after the effective date of the amendment. The amendment however limited it seems now, may be prudent today nonetheless. Why? Because it may take a bit for the new restrictions to apply to all owners and those short term rental investors while gaining momentum are still in the minority.
Amendments should not be taken lightly. If an amendment is done incorrectly, it will be deemed void or invalid. Once you have ideas as to what your Association needs in light of what the governing documents provide, it is important to meet with the Association’s attorney to discuss these. The attorney can then advise of those changes which would be permitted and craft language aimed at meeting the Association’s needs harmonizing those with the Condominium Act.
Robyn M. SeversShareholder / Orlando
904.423.5372
RSEVERS@beckerlawyers.com
Tags: Board of Directors, Condo and HOA Laws, Management News
Robert Kaye, Managing member of Kaye Bender Rembaum, recently wrote an informative and telling article explaining the new collection procedures mandated to be in effect July 1, as a result of the 2021 legislation. Every board member, manager, and developer needs to be aware of these important changes.
———————————–
The Florida Legislature has revised the procedures for collecting delinquent assessments, which add additional steps and delays for the owner to pay before legal action can commence and/or attorney’s fees can be recovered. Senate Bill 56 has revised Sections 718.116 and 718.121 for condominiums; 719.108 for cooperatives; and, Section 720.3085 for homeowners’ associations. With these changes, the collection procedures for all of these types of communities will be substantially the same. The new laws are effective July 1, 2021.
Initially, the new provisions have revised the time for the notices sent by the association attorney for condominiums and cooperatives to 45 days for both the pre-lien first letter and the post-lien notice of intent to foreclose. (Homeowners’ associations were already at 45 days).
The most important and significant addition to this statutory change is the addition of a new notice requirement by associations before they may refer a matter to the association attorney for collection and recover the attorney’s fees involved. This written notice is required to be mailed by first class mail to the address of the owner on file with the association. If the address on file is not the unit or parcel address, a copy must be sent there as well. The association is also required to keep in its records a sworn affidavit attesting to the mailing. The new statute contains a form for that notice which is required to be substantially followed.
As the respective statutory provisions now indicate, associations must incur a minimum of 120 days of collection efforts before a foreclosure action can begin, with a total of three (3) separate required statutory notices. This includes the: (i) initial 30 day notice of the intent to refer the matter to the association attorney (for which no attorney’s fees can be charged to the owner); (ii) 45 days for the pre-lien notice period; and, (iii) 45 days for the pre-foreclosure lien period. As such, in order to best protect the interests of the association, it is recommended that the first 30-day notice be sent at the earliest possible date in the association collection process. This will typically be when the governing documents indicate the assessment to be “late”. Careful review of the governing documents by legal counsel should be undertaken to determine whether there is a specific “grace period” indicated in the documents before the assessment is considered late. Once that determination is made, the board should adopt a formal collection policy that incorporates these new statutory requirements, which will also need to be mailed to all owners. A new provision has also been added that begins with “If an association sends out an invoice for assessments. . .” to unit or parcel owners, such notice is to be sent by first class mail or electronic transmission (email) to the respective addresses for the owners that are in the association official records.
Moreover, if the association wishes to change the method of delivery of an invoice, the new Statute creates specific steps that must be followed precisely in order for the change to be effective. Specifically, a written notice must be delivered to the owner not less than 30 days before the change of delivery method will be implemented. The notice must be sent by first class mail to the address on file with the association. If the address on file is not the unit or parcel address, a copy must be sent there as well. In addition to the notice requirement, the owner must “affirmatively acknowledge” his or her understanding of the new delivery method. The written acknowledgment can be sent electronically or by mail, and must be maintained in the Official Records (although it is not available for inspection by other owners). However, without this acknowledgment, the association may not change the method of delivery. The Statute does not presently include a time frame for the owner to provide that acknowledgment or offer any remedy to the association if none is forthcoming. This can be particularly daunting or problematic when the association changes management companies, when the new company’s procedures differ from the prior company.Before the association attorney can commence any collection work for an association, it will be necessary for the association to provide all of the backup documentation of the compliance with each of these new statutory requirements, as well as the information previously required (such as a current account ledger). If any of the documentation is missing with the initial turnover information, there will be delays in the collection process, which can be detrimental to the association operation. It is therefore imperative that these new procedures are fully integrated into the association operation without delay. We recommend that you contact your Association counsel with any questions on the new procedural requirements to ensure compliance.
Jeffrey Rembaum’s, Esq. of Kaye, Bender, Rembaum attorneys at law, legal practice consists of representation of condominium, homeowner, commercial and mobile home park associations, as well as exclusive country club communities and the developers who build them. Mr. Rembaum is a Certified Specialist in Condominium and Planned Development Law. He is the creator of ‘Rembaum’s Association Roundup’, an e-magazine devoted to the education of community association board members, managers, developers and anyone involved with Florida’s community associations. His column appears monthly in the Florida Community Association Journal. Every year since 2012, Mr. Rembaum has been selected to the Florida Super Lawyers list and was also named Legal Elite by Florida Trends Magazine. He can be reached at 561-241-4462.
Tags: Collections, Law and Legal, Management News
SFPMA works throughout the State of Florida, we are a multi-member organization for the Condo, HOA and Property Management industry. Through knowledge based Articles, Events and our Members Directory, Clients find the right information to make an informed decisions for their Florida properties.