Become our Member : JOIN SFPMA TODAY LogIn / Register: LOGIN/REGISTER
Find Blog Articles for Florida’s Condo, HOA and the Management Industry.
|
||||||||||
Hosted by the Business Waste Assessments Section
Thursday, Nov. 2, 2023
11 a.m. to 1 p.m.
Hosted on Zoom – link available when you register.
The Department of Solid Waste is hosting a free solid and hazardous waste management webinar for property managers and waste haulers. Learn what your roles and responsibilities are for managing other people’s waste and wastes generated at your properties. You will have the opportunity to ask the Business Waste Assessments team questions. The webinar will give an overview of solid, hazardous and universal waste regulations and management practices including:
Who should attend?
The webinar will not be recorded.
Use our Where Does It Go? Search Tool to help determine what wastes are hazardous and what to do with them. Find local resources for reuse, recycling and disposal. To be directed to the proper information, first select “For Businesses.”
Making floors slip-resistant requires a clear understanding of what you are working with. These are the factors that impact whether a floor is slippery or not:
In this post, we’ll cover several slippery floor types… and show you how to reduce the possibility of slip and fall accidents on your premises. Whether you’re at home or on business premises, we’ve got you covered.
I feel like I handled a thousand annual meetings in the last month, flying from one to the other. When running the meetings, and depending upon whether the association is a condominium or HOA, it is important to know if the person running for the board, or even the winner of the election, is eligible to serve because they owe money to the association.
Let’s start with condominiums first, Florida Statute 718.112 (2)(d) states:
A person who has been suspended or removed by the division under this chapter, or who is delinquent in the payment of any assessment due to the association, is not eligible to be a candidate for board membership and may not be listed on the ballot.
So, in a condominium, the person’s eligibility to run and initially serve on the board is decided when the owner submits their notice to be a candidate, and that is no less than 40 days before the election. If at that time, the owner is delinquent in any assessment their name cannot be printed on the ballot and sent to the unit owners. On the night of the election the association need not worry if anyone is delinquent and cannot serve because their name was already excluded from the ballot.
The law in a Florida HOA is much different. Florida Statute 720.306(9)(b) states:
A person who is delinquent in the payment of any fee, fine, or other monetary obligation to the association on the day that he or she could last nominate himself or herself or be nominated for the board may not seek election to the board, and his or her name shall not be listed on the ballot.
Lots of differences between the two statutes here. In a condominium, you can only be prevented from being placed on the ballot if you owe an assessment. In an HOA, your name can be prevented from being placed on the ballot if you owe any fee, fine or other monetary obligation to the association; a far more restrictive provision in an HOA.
In addition, remember that in most HOAs, nominations are taken from the floor on the night of the election. That is the “day that he or she could last nominate himself or herself or be nominated for the board.” Therefore, on the night of the election, we need to know if any of the proposed nominees owe any fee, fine or other monetary obligation. If so, their name cannot be accepted into nomination. They cannot run.
ONCE A DIRECTOR BECOMES 90 DAYS DELINQUENT
The Condominium Act states:
718.112: Director or officer delinquencies.—A director or officer more than 90 days delinquent in the payment of any monetary obligation due the association shall be deemed to have abandoned the office, creating a vacancy in the office to be filled according to law.
The Homeowners Association Act states:
720.306(9)(b) A person serving as a board member who becomes more than 90 days delinquent in the payment of any fee, fine, or other monetary obligation to the association shall be deemed to have abandoned his or her seat on the board, creating a vacancy on the board to be filled according to law.
Tags: Condo and HOA Law, Management News, Members Articles
In the In re Adam case, the Association previously obtained a judgment of foreclosure for over $76,000, which was considered as a secured interest by the Court. The Association was also claiming an additional $36,558 which came due after the judgment was entered. The owners were asking the Court to decide that the $36,000 was not secured and therefore uncollectible in the bankruptcy (or at least not fully collectible).
In deciding whether certain association claims were secured and collectible in the bankruptcy setting, the Court undertook an analysis of Florida law on the subject. The Court noted that both the Florida Condominium Act (Chapter 718 F.S.) and the Homeowner’s Association Act (Chapter 720 F.S.) currently contain express provisions that identify that the lien of the association is effective from the original recording of the declaration (with the added requirement in HOA’s that the declaration specifically expresses this lien right). However, the Court also points out that the Condominium Act was amended in 1992 to provide for this effective date. (The Homeowner’s Association Act was amended to provide for it in 2008.) Prior to these amendments, these Statutes provided for the effective date of the lien to be when it was recorded in the public records of the county. The analysis of the Court required it to consider whether the current version of the Statute applies to the situation or whether an earlier version of the Statute is the controlling authority. (This case involved a condominium so only the Condominium Act was considered in the decision.)
To make that determination, the Court applied the principles of the seminal case of Kaufman v. Shere, 347 So.2d 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), which require declarations to contain the specific phrase “as amended from time to time” when identifying the Statute that governs the documents in order for the current version of the Statute to apply. This is because Statutes are not retroactive in their application unless the legislature expressly makes them so in the Statute itself. Both the U.S. and Florida Constitutions do not allow for the State to make a law that infringes upon the vested rights in an existing contract (which would be the declaration). As a result, the contract (declaration) would need to have the specific “as amended from time to time” language (often called “Kaufman” language) to automatically incorporate changes to the Statute that is not otherwise retroactive.
When the Court reviewed the governing documents, it noted that they were from 1987 and did not have the Kaufman language. As such, the Court held that the provisions of the declaration were the same as the Statute in 1987, which provided that the lien was effective only upon being recorded in the public records of the county. Since the Association did not file another lien for the amount being claimed subsequent to the foreclosure judgment, the Court concluded that this portion was not secured. In the bankruptcy setting, this meant that the Association would likely be unable to recover most, if not all of this claim from the Debtors, Mr. and Ms. Adam.
While this issue may be most relevant to associations when dealing with a case in bankruptcy, it is possible that it could also be raised in state court foreclosure cases under certain circumstances. It is also important to note that this Bankruptcy Court did not include a significant issue in the analysis regarding the Statute at issue, that being whether or not the statutory provision was “substantive” or “procedural”, as those terms apply to this situation, which could have led to a different result. (This portion of the legal analysis is quite technical and beyond the scope of this article.)
For communities whose declarations were recorded prior to the statutory changes described above, the first step in protecting the interests of the association is to review the documents to determine whether Kaufman language is already in them. If not, the board may wish to consider proposing an amendment to the owners to change the documents to include this language, if not for the entire declaration, then at least for the timing of the effectiveness of the lien of the association. Having qualified legal counsel review these issues in the documents is a strong business practice.
Kaye Bender Rembaum is a full service commercial law firm devoted to the representation of community associations throughout Florida. Under the direction of attorneys Robert L. Kaye, Esq., Michael S. Bender, Esq., and Jeffrey A. Rembaum, Esq. Kaye Bender Rembaum is dedicated to providing clients with an unparalleled level of personalized and professional service regardless of their size and takes into account their individual needs and financial concerns. Most of our attorneys are Board Certified in Condominium and Planned Development Law. The associates of Kaye Bender Rembaum establish relationships with clients to understand their needs and goals. Kaye Bender Rembaum assists clients in all matters of Association representation including, but not limited to, collection of assessments, contract negotiation, covenant review and amendment, covenant enforcement and construction defect claims. Kaye Bender Rembaum also keeps clients up-to-date on new developments in the law and how they are personally affected by them. Kaye Bender Rembaum provides prompt, effective, high quality, cost-efficient and understandable legal advice and services to a diverse client base. Associates strive to help clients operate and administer their communities better and to educate them on their responsibilities and duties under Florida law and their governing community documents. Robert Kaye, Michael Bender and Jeff Rembaum are industry leaders who are often sought out by public policy makers and the media for advice and commentary on community association law. Offices in Broward, Palm Beach, Orange and Hillsborough Counties, as well as Miami-Dade by appointment. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation. Thank you for your interest in Kaye Bender Rembaum.
The Florida hurricane season runs from June 1 through November 30. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOOA), this year is predicted to be another above-normal season.
The Hurricane season starts on June 1 but it’s never too early to prepare. Damage from a hurricane can be costly for all businesses and can pose hazards for you and your employees. Fortunately, there are ways that you can fortify your business against a hurricane to minimize losses and reduce risks for workers.
As part of “Planning Ahead” for a Disaster, the SBA encourages you to consider taking these simple steps to prepare: Assess your risk; Create a plan, Execute your plan. Statistics show that 25% of small businesses don’t re-open after a disaster. Visit the SBA’s Prepare for Emergencies website to learn more about how to prepare and recover if a disaster strikes.
NOOA officials also encourage consumers to take the following steps:
Visit the National Hurricane Center’s website at hurricanes.gov throughout the season to stay current on watches and warnings.
Insurers often engage in strategies meant to challenge the patience of the policyholder and thereby force the policyholder to accept a lower payout, or to simply resign themselves to no payout. For example, an insurer may excessively delay the processing of the claim, arguing that the delays are due to ongoing investigation of the damage. By doing so, they hope that you — under pressure to fix the roof and no doubt overwhelmed by the proceedings— will simply move forward without waiting for the insurer and potentially give up on dealing with the hassle they created.
Partial payouts — in which the policyholder is offered an inadequate sum, but a sum nonetheless — are another way in which insurers try to goad policyholders into accepting less than what they’re owed under the policy at issue.
It’s worth noting that Florida law may entitle policyholders to bring an independent “bad faith” action against the insurer (which could even lead to punitive damages) if the insurer failed to investigate and pay the claim in a timely manner, or failed to evaluate the claim fairly under the circumstances. Simply put, if there was no valid justification for the denial, then our Fort Lauderdale roof damage attorneys may be able to sue and recover damages pursuant to a bad faith claim.
In homeowner’s insurance policies, payouts for roof damage may be limited due to coverage exclusions.
For example, a roof damage claim may be covered if it is caused by a thunderstorm, but not if it is caused by a hurricane.
Such strict categorization for roof damage coverage often leads to a dispute, particularly if the event leading up to the roof damage at-issue is somewhat muddled — if your roof is damaged in a hurricane (which is covered by the policy), the insurer might claim that it was not actually the wind force of the hurricane itself, but a falling tree that caused the roof damage. You can successfully counter this argument by showing how the hurricane directly caused the tree to fall on your roof.
Here at Maus Law Firm, our South Florida property damage attorneys have decades of experience representing the interests of policyholders whose real estate property has been harmed, whether due to a storm, fire, or some other unexpected event — including those which cause damage to the roof structure.
We understand the unique challenges that are faced by policyholders who are attempting to secure an adequate payout through submitting a roof damage claim, and are standing by to assist such policyholders in pursuing litigation against their insurers.
Ready to speak to a property damage lawyer at our firm? Call us at 1-855-999-5297 or complete an intake form through our website to schedule a free and confidential consultation today.
SFPMA & Members are ready to Handle Storm Damage & Claims for Condo and HOA Properties!
SFPMA has a team of Legal Experts, adjusters, estimators and claim specialists for the benefit of the Condo and HOA’s who sustained damage from the storms and fire, water or mold.
With the know-how and experience to analyze, evaluate, and negotiate the best settlement for your Insurance Claim!
Jeffrey Rembaum, Esq. is a Board Certified Specialist in Condominium and Planned Development Law and a community association lawyer with the law firm Kaye Bender Rembaum, in its Palm Beach Gardens office. His law practice consists of representing condominium, homeowners, and cooperative associations, developers and unit owners throughout Florida. He can be reached by email at JRembaum@KBRLegal.com or by calling 561-241-4462.
The right of the people to carry and bear arms without governmental infringement is a right which stems from both the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Florida. The State of Florida recently adopted new gun legislation, effective July 1, 2023, which allows the everyday citizen to carry a concealed weapon without first obtaining a concealed weapons permit. This raises interesting questions for community associations such as, is the right to carry a concealed weapon absolute? Can a community association adopt a rule that prohibits the carrying of concealed weapons in the clubhouse or other common area facilities?
Before we get too far in our analysis, it is important to point out that the intent of this article is not to advocate for gun control or the right to carry. Rather, the intent of this article is to examine the rulemaking authority of a board of directors of a community association to prohibit concealed weapons in the clubhouse and other common areas. In short, is it possible for a community association to adopt such a rule? Yes, subject to the cautions and explanations explained below. Is the adoption of such a rule risk free? No!
As the starting point, in order for a board-made rule of this nature to have validity, we must examine whether it violates either the United States Constitution or the Constitution of the State of Florida. As to when constitutional protections apply within a community association, this is an interesting question. In prior cases, courts have found that recorded covenants restricting home ownership based on race will subject the covenants to a constitutional examination, and in the end, such covenants were deemed to violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Another method by which courts may find application of constitutional protections to community associations is if there is significant governmental action associated with the community association. For example, an argument would exist that if a community association were built with federal monies, the covenants of such a community association would be subject to all the protections afforded by both the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Florida. Often, multiple community associations that exist within a sprawling master association are built in community development districts (CDD). The CDD is a quasi-governmental entity established to govern and control what would otherwise be the common areas of the master association. The creation of the CDD allows many of the hard costs associated with the community’s build-out, such as the roads and drainage systems, to be immediately passed on to the first-time home buyers. By utilizing a CDD, long-term bonds can be issued, which are paid back through ad valorem tax obligations allowing the costs to spread out over a significantly longer period of time. As quasi-governmental entities, constitutional protections which limit powers of government would likely apply to CDDs. Therefore, should a CDD adopt rules to prohibit concealed weapons in the common areas, such a rule would likely be found to violate constitutional protections. However, the same analysis is not applicable if the community association itself adopted such a rule.
It should be remembered that courts have long held that owners give up certain individual rights and liberties when living in a community controlled by a community association. In 2002 the Florida Supreme Court held, in Woodside Village v. Jahren, 806 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 2002), that certain individual rights must be compromised when one chooses to live in a condominium association (and by analogy, in a homeowners’ association, too). But, on occasion courts have found that certain constitutional protections apply within a community association; however, such application is somewhat rare.
Thankfully, we do have some limited guidance. In 1989 the Florida Supreme Court held, in Quail Creek POA v. Hunter, 538 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), that neither a homeowners’ association’s recording of its covenants in the public records, nor the enforcement of its covenants in state court, created a sufficient nexus to evidence “state action” such that the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution would apply. By analogy, such logic could be applied to defending the right of a community association to adopt a rule prohibiting concealed weapons in the clubhouse. Thus, there is no reason to believe that such arguments would not also apply to the application of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution within community associations. That said, it would not at all be surprising for an owner to challenge such a rule; so, any association that adopts such a rule should be prepared to be a possible test case, which could have national implications associated with it.
Let us assume that the board understands and accepts such a risk and is ready to move forward to adopt a rule prohibiting the carry of concealed weapons in the clubhouse. Certainly, we recommend that counsel for the association be consulted prior to adopting these types of rules. For the purposes of our analysis, let us also assume that the community association at issue does not have a sufficient nexus to the federal or state governments that would, in and of itself, render such a rule unconstitutional. Under these circumstances, the analysis can then shift to the ordinary rulemaking criteria necessary to withstand judicial challenge, as follows:
Of course, even if the association adopts such a rule, enforceability is an entirely different issue. Assuming the association is not using some type of full body scanner, then so long as the possessor of the concealed weapon does not brandish the weapon, and thus it remains fully concealed, no one will be the wiser. In addition, such a rule would not apply to certain individuals who have an absolute right to carry a concealed weapon, subject to very few limitations, such as an off-duty police officer.
As an aside, just because a person may not need to have a concealed weapon permit to carry a concealed weapon, this does not mean that the still-available concealed weapon permit does not have value. It certainly does when it comes to traveling outside the State of Florida to one of the many states, over 26, that have reciprocity with Florida, meaning that the other states recognize Florida’s concealed weapons permit. With that in mind, obtaining a concealed weapons permit may still make sense.
While a properly drafted rule prohibiting guns in the clubhouse stands a decent chance of validity, remember that even if your association
i) fully analyzes whether it has any type of federal governmental nexus which would provide for clear application of constitutional protections and such analysis is answered in the negative, ii) meets the rule adoption criteria listed above, and iii) consults with the association’s lawyer who helps draft such a rule, the association could still find itself as a defendant in a lawsuit seeking to have such a rule invalidated by the court.
Last week was a primer on how foreclosures generally work and how banks get off the hook when they get back a unit when they foreclose on an owner’s unit or home. We learned that the banks are protected by the law because they only owe a few bucks to the association when they get title to the unit or home despite the fact that the owner owes a fortune to the association. That’s called a “safe harbor” and it’s provided to the banks because the banks claim that if you make them responsible for paying unpaid assessments, they simply won’t loan money to buy a condo or a home in an HOA.
But there is some good news……….suppose the bank does not buy the unit at their foreclosure sale and a third party winds up becoming the successful bidder and the owner? What does that new owner owe the association if that unit owes thousands to the association in unpaid assessments? And the answer under the law is EVERYTHING! They owe it all. Florida Statute 718.116 states:
Additionally, a unit owner is jointly and severally liable with the previous owner for all unpaid assessments that came due up to the time of transfer of title.
So, when a bank forecloses on a unit, or when the association forecloses on a unit, the association hopes and prays that a third party purchases the property at foreclosure sale because that guy owes everything to the association. UNLESS………………….
Remember last week that I said that some of you have language in your governing documents that allows the bank to get off the hook even though they would owe money to the association if they wind up foreclosing and owning the property? Well…..some of you have language in your governing documents that allow third party purchasers off the hook if they buy the property at a foreclosure sale. So…..even though the association gets lucky and a third party purchases the property at foreclosure sale, your own docs kill you and lets the third party purchaser off the hook. They owe nothing. Disaster.
So……over the past two weeks we learned that it is vital for the board to check their governing documents to make sure that neither the bank nor a third party purchaser is let off the hook should they purchase a unit or home in your community. Make sure your docs don’t kill you. If they do, amend them immediately!!!!!!
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.
