Become our Member : JOIN SFPMA TODAY   LogIn / Register: LOGIN/REGISTER

SFPMA Industry Articles | news, legal updates, events & education! 

Find Blog Articles for Florida’s Condo, HOA and the Management Industry. 

Local Condos Failing to Comply with New Milestone Inspections Law

Local Condos Failing to Comply with New Milestone Inspections Law

Recent reporting by the Sun Sentinel chronicled how 124 condominium buildings, representing approximately 25,000 residences in unincorporated Palm Beach County, failed to submit their milestone inspection reports by the end of 2024 as required under the new Florida law.

The circumstances described in the article are possibly playing out in other jurisdictions throughout the state in light of the recent passing of the December 31, 2024, deadline by which many residential condominium and cooperative buildings of three stories or more throughout the state were required to have completed their milestone inspections and reports. The article indicated that Palm Beach County officials are now strongly urging the representatives of those communities to submit the required inspection paperwork as soon as possible.

The Florida law, which was enacted in response to the 2021 tragedy of the building collapse in Surfside, required associations for many residential condominium and cooperative buildings 30 years or older and with three or more stories to have filed an inspection report detailing necessary structural building maintenance and required repairs by December 31, 2024 (with the balance of such buildings having to do so by December 31, 2025, depending upon when they reached 30 years of age). During the first phase of the required milestone inspection, a state-licensed architect or engineer must examine the building to assess the condition of its main structural elements. If no repairs are needed and the building passes, the next milestone inspection is due in 10 years.  For buildings in which deterioration is detected, a second phase of inspections is subsequently required to take place within the ensuing 180 days, but that timeframe can be extended if extra time is deemed necessary.

Unfortunately, some condominium and cooperative associations required to have complied failed to do so, citing factors which include a lack of funds to perform such inspections, unavailability of qualified professionals to timely perform the inspections and reports, or a general misunderstanding as to the need to comply with the required inspections. Elected and other governmental officials seem to be struggling with the best approach to compel compliance, given that stakeholders in many communities are complaining about the burdens being imposed upon them due to the inspection requirements as well as the newly enacted structural integrity reserve funding obligations, installation or upgrades of bi-directional amplification systems for emergency responders, and the need to fund costly property insurance premiums also required by state law.

The newspaper quotes Palm Beach County officials illustrating that their objective is to make sure buildings are maintained and repaired, and indicating they are neither looking to “kick people out of their houses” nor “to basically knock down buildings.”

The story indicates that in unincorporated Palm Beach County, more than 500 buildings were supposed to have filed their milestone inspection, but almost a quarter of them failed to do so. The recent reporting found that more than 100 buildings in the county have entered into the second phase of inspections, and more than 200 remain under review under the first phase.  For the 124 properties that have not yet provided any milestone-inspection information, county officials say they remain in the dark about the state of those buildings.

As we continue to move past the inspection and reporting deadline, and approach the deadline for the remainder of buildings required to comply, local governmental officials will wrestle with the best approaches to enforce compliance with the requirements.  Some authorities may opt to begin enforcement with a notice being sent out to remind association registered agents and directors that they are not yet in compliance, steering clear of immediately imposing fines or other penalties. However, other authorities may feel that optimal compliance with the inspection and reporting requirements may not be likely to be achieved without the threat of fines or similar measures.

The recent article further mentioned that along with potential fines, the commissioners and other officials also discussed the use of new signage to be posted at the buildings alerting residents to the fact that the structure has not yet been inspected, as well as the issuance of noncompliance notices to be distributed to all the board members.

For residential condominiums and cooperatives that do not undergo the required inspection, the potential consequences could include difficulty in obtaining insurance renewals along with increased premiums. They could also face potential legal action from their owners, who could find themselves unable to sell their residences and seeking remedies for any decreases in property values that may ensue. Ultimately, the associations for such communities may be forced to increase their assessments in response to these repercussions and any fines that may be imposed.

Our firm strongly recommends that all the associations for residential condominium and cooperative communities that have not already complied with these new requirements for milestone inspections make them an immediate priority and take all reasonable actions necessary to complete the initial phase and file the necessary report to their corresponding building department as soon as possible.

by ROBERTO BLANCH, SIEGFRIED RIVERA

Find engineers for your Inspections.

Tags:
The Florida Legislature just passed a 191-page bill that brings major changes for condo associations—especially when it comes to reserve funding.

The Florida Legislature just passed a 191-page bill that brings major changes for condo associations—especially when it comes to reserve funding.

FLORIDA LEGISLATURE GOES OUT WITH ONE BIG BILL FOR CONDOS

by Eric M. Glazer

The Florida Legislature ended in a real blockbuster way in regards to new condo legislation.  In the end The Florida House and The Florida Senate agreed on ONE BIG BILL that is 191 pages long.  It passed the Senate unanimously and in the House there were only 2 opposed.  Obviously, we can’t talk about the entire contents of the bill in one blog.  It will take several, but today let’s discuss the big RESERVE FUND CHANGES.

As we know………….In 2021, The Champlain Towers collapsed in Surfside, killing 98 innocent men, women and children.  After that collapse The Florida Legislature did the right thing and for the first time, mandated that Florida condominium owners contribute toward funding a reserve account each year.  The vote was 110-0. 

Well…..that vote didn’t hold up to some extent.  Now, you can pay reserve funds by taking out loans, and in some circumstances you don’t have to pay reserves at all.  Let’s explain.

RESERVES BEING PAID BY LINES OF CREDIT

The Bill will allow funding reserves by using lines of credit. 

So year one you take out a line of credit to fund reserves.  You have to start paying it back with interest immediately, over a few years.

Year two you take out another line of credit to fund reserves……NOW YOU HAVE 2 LOANS WITH INTEREST

Year three you take out another line of credit to fund reserves…….NOW YOU HAVE 3 LOANS WITH INTEREST.

And this would now be allowed to go on year after year after year. 

As I previously wrote,  THIS IS LIKE PAYING YOUR MONTHLY CONDOMINIUM ASSESSMENTS BY USING A CREDIT CARD. 

AND………………….The money in reserves will eventually be used to pay for repairs, but all of these lines of credit  still need to be repaid each month.  It will be a never-ending process.  A never ending loan that all of the owners will have to re-pay with interest.  Eventually, the monthly payments will far exceed what the payments would have been if everyone was simply required to pay what the reserves required in the first place.   This is playing with fire and condominium owners will forever be in debt.  Count on it.

INVESTMENT OF RESERVE FUNDS

The Florida Legislature did agree with a blog we posted two weeks ago and which would have allowed reserve funds to be invested anywhere.  But as we stated – that was a bad idea and would have required an investment committee as well.

So the new law states:

A board shall, in fulfilling its duty to manage operating and reserve funds of its association, use best efforts to make prudent investment decisions that carefully consider risk and return in an effort to maximize returns on invested  funds.

(b) an association, including a multicondominium association, may invest reserve funds in one or any combination of certificates of deposit or in depository accounts at a community bank, savings bank, commercial bank, savings and loan association, or credit union without a vote of the unit owners.

A good bill – but it does leave open the question…..Suppose you do get the vote of the owners……can the owners vote to put the reserves in the stock market?   I don’t know.

AND HERE IS THE OTHER MASSIVE SURPRISE WHEN IT COMES TO RESERVE FUNDS

The new bill states:

For a budget adopted on or before December 31, 2028, (so this includes the association’s 2029 budget) if the association has completed a milestone inspection within the previous 2 calendar years, the board, upon the approval of a majority of the total voting interests of the  association, may temporarily pause, for a period of no more than two consecutive annual budgets, reserve fund contributions or reduce the amount of reserve funding for the purpose of funding repairs recommended by the milestone inspection. An association that has paused reserve contributions under this subparagraph must have a structural integrity reserve study performed before the continuation of reserve contributions in order to determine the association’s reserve funding needs and to recommend a reserve funding plan.

SO TO BE VERY CLEAR HERE……….THIS ONLY APPLIES TO ASSOCIATIONS THAT HAVE HAD THEIR MILESTONE INSPECTION, MEANING THEIR 25, 30, 35, 40, 45 OR 50 YEAR INSPECTION) WITHIN THE PREVIOUS 2 CALENDAR YEARS.  THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT STARTING IMMEDIATELY, EVERY CONDO GETS TO PAUSE RESERVE FUND CONTRIBUTIONS FOR TWO YEARS.  THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS NEW LAW IS SAYING……. YOU ONLY GET TO PAUSE RESERVE FUND CONTRIBUTIONS FOR UP TO TWO YEARS, IF YOU HAD YOUR MILESTONE INSPECTION WITHIN THE LAST TWO YEARS.

AND THIS IS BEING ALLOWED IN ORDER THAT YOU HAVE THE FUNDS AVAILABLE TO MAKE THE REPAIRS REQUIRED BY THE MILESTONE INSPECTION.

In all honesty, this is not as bad as I originally thought it to be.  It gives owners the ability to make and pay for the necessary repairs while not simultaneously paying reserves —– but only for a two year period.

BUT I’M GOING TO GET A MILLION CALLS AND E-MAILS ASKING ME IF IT’S TRUE THAT WE DON’T HAVE TO PAY RESERVES IN OUR CONDOMIINIUM FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS…….AND MY ANSWER IS GOING TO BE………..

ONLY IF YOU HAD YOUR MILESTONE INSPECTION WITHIN THE LAST TWO YEARS.

Again, this bill is massive.  We only scratched the surface.  Over the next few weeks, we’ll let you know what else is in the bill and we’ll let you know if Governor DeSantis signs it into law.

Tags:
Not all Expenditures Can Be Collected from Delinquent Owners as Part of the Collection/Foreclosure Process – Why Not?

Not all Expenditures Can Be Collected from Delinquent Owners as Part of the Collection/Foreclosure Process – Why Not?

Not all Expenditures Can Be Collected from Delinquent Owners as Part of the Collection/Foreclosure Process – Why Not?

It is clear that Florida’s community association collection/foreclosure legislation allows associations to foreclose an owner’s home for nonpayment of assessments. However, not all of the monies expended by an association fit into the definition of an assessment. For example, let’s say that an association has a right to correct a deficiency on an owner’s lot, but the declaration of covenants at issue does not support converting the money spent into an assessment. In that event, the monies expended by the association would have to be recovered as part of a breach of contract action rather than as part of an assessment/foreclosure action. Sometimes, however, the declaration will provide that the monies expended can be treated as an assessment. If that is the case, then before those expenditures can be included as a part of the collection/foreclosure process, the board would need to convert the expenditure into an assessment against the noncomplying owner. (As to how that is done, you can discuss it with your community association’s attorney.) Florida’s collection/foreclosure legislation also provides for recovery of certain costs incidental to the collection/foreclosure process, but recovery of such cost must be rooted in a statute or by contract (i.e., the declaration of covenants).

Let’s look at the fee charged by a management company for sending the notice of late assessment letter, often referred as a NOLA letter, as required by Florida Statute, and determine whether it is a recoverable cost in an association’s collection/foreclosure action and whether including the NOLA fee as a part of the association’s collection/foreclosure proceedings violates the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the Act).

The Act was passed into law because of abundant evidence of the use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices. It does not matter whether a debt collector used their best efforts to comply with the Act. Only strict compliance matters when it comes to the enforceability of the Act against a debt collector. Clearly, the association is not considered a “debt collector” pursuant to the Act and, for the most part, neither are management companies, with this caveat: the pendulum may swing in the future to the notion that management companies are, in fact, debt collectors. It seems that at least for the time being they are shielded from the Act. However, what is patently clear is that an attorney who provides collection/foreclosure services to assist their association clients with delinquent assessments is certainly considered a “debt collector.” Therefore, the attorney must be vigilant when reviewing the delinquent owner’s account ledger to ensure that the items set out in the ledger can lawfully be included in the association’s collection/foreclosure action. A recent case reminds us of this fact.

On February 4, 2025, in Glover v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, Case no. 23-12578 & 12579 (11th Cir. Fla. 2025), the 11th Circuit of the Federal Court of Appeals found that Ocwen as a debt collector violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act when it charged consumers an optional fee when making expedited mortgage payments because the loan servicer charged an amount that was not expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law. The takeaway from this case is that a debt collector can only collect debts that are authorized by law or by contract with the debtor.

It was only several years ago that the Florida legislature enacted into law the requirement that an association assessment debtor must be provided the NOLA correspondence from the association providing the debtor a final opportunity to pay their delinquent assessment debt prior to turning the matter over to the association’s legal counsel to commence collection/foreclosure proceedings where fees and costs accrue against the debtor. See S. 718.121 and S. 720.3085, Fla. Stat.

Management companies are typically tasked with preparing and sending the NOLA letter on behalf of the associations they manage before turning the file over for collections to the association’s attorney. In this regard, a management company that is charging such a fee but has not amended its contract with the association to provide for charging the fee for the notice of late assessment would be wise to consider amending its contract with the association they represent to provide for this charge. Doing so would ensure that the management company, even though it may not be considered a “debt collector,” would have a solid basis for charging the fee because it would be based on a contractual obligation charged to the association. This is important because the NOLA, as mandated by Florida Statutes, does not at all provide for the recovery of a fee in regard to sending such a letter. So, while management companies may not be considered a “debt collector” today, this could change in any new case at any time. Why take the chance?

Now, let’s analyze whether the attorney who is collecting the past due assessment debts for the association can include the management company’s NOLA fee paid by the association to the management company in the collection/foreclosure action against a delinquent owner. Keep in mind, as we go through the analysis, that the “debt collector” (in this case, the attorney) can only collect debts authorized by contract or by law, and also remember that the relevant laws governing the NOLA letter do not provide for a specific cost recovery for the management company sending of the notice of late assessment letter. Thus, at a minimum, there should at least be a contractual obligation that the association pay the management company for sending the NOLA letter. But that may not always be the case even though it is the better practice.

Part and parcel with the collection/foreclosure process is the recording of an association assessment lien. To be valid, such a claim of lien must state the description of the parcel, the name of the record owner, the name and address of the association, the assessment amount due, and the due date. The claim of lien secures all unpaid assessments that are due and that may accrue subsequent to the recording of the claim of lien and before entry of a certificate of title, as well as interest, late charges, and reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees incurred by the association incident to the collection process.

So, while the relevant statutes do not provide for the association to be able to recover a fee for the sending of the NOLA letter, it certainly should be considered a “reasonable cost incurred by the association incident to the collection process,” most especially when the fee charged for sending the NOLA letter is a contractual obligation between the association and the management company.

There even exists an argument that, even if the management contract between the association and the management company does not provide that the association is responsible to pay the management company for the preparation and sending of the notice of late assessment, it is still considered a “reasonable cost”; but when you plug in the holding of the aforementioned case, the collection of the cost associated with the NOLA letter by the debt collector (i.e., the attorney representing the association), the better practice is to ensure that the contract between the management company and the association contains a provision that the association is responsible to pay the management company a reasonable fee for each such notice of late assessment letter sent.

Perhaps now you have a better understanding of why, at times, the association’s collection/foreclosure attorney cannot include a particular line item on the delinquent owner’s account ledger in the collection/foreclosure action. If you have any questions regarding the collection/foreclosure process, most especially which charges can and cannot be included, please be sure to discuss them with your association’s attorney.

 

Tags: , , ,
HOUSE BILL 913 – Part Three

HOUSE BILL 913 – Part Three

HOUSE BILL 913 – Part Three by Eric Glazer

This bill, filed by Representative Vicki Lopez is even bigger than I originally thought and is going to take up more than 3 blogs.  It is packed with many potential changes to Florida Statute 718.  It already has passed one House Committee and there may be no stopping it.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

It is a conflict of interest for any person who performs a structural integrity reserve study or a milestone inspection to provide or contract to provide services for the repair or replacement of the condominium property that was the subject of such structural integrity reserve study or milestone inspection, or to have a financial interest with the person or entity providing the repair or replacement services.

RECALLS

Rejection of a unit owner’s recall agreement under this section applies when the recall agreement:

a. was improperly served;

b. was executed by a person who was not a unit’s record  owner or designated voter;

c. was previously marked for the removal of any board member;

d. does not contain any markings that indicate the selection by a unit owner to either remove or retain a board member; or 

e. does not contain the signature of the unit owner.

3. there is a rebuttable presumption that a unit owner executing the recall agreement is the designated voter for the unit.

An association may not enforce a voting certificate requirement if the association has not enforced such requirement in all matters requiring the use of voting certificates in the year immediately preceding service of the recall agreement.

4. A rescission or revocation of a unit owner’s recall  agreement must be in writing and delivered to the association before the association is served with the written recall agreement. this subparagraph must be liberally construed to ensure a unit owner is not disenfranchised by an association in a recall and to prevent an association from failing to certify a recall agreement on a technical omission which is not a part in the discharge of the unit owner’s voting rights.

Even if your right to vote was suspended — you still have the right to vote in a recall.

HURRICANE PROTECTION

Unless otherwise provided in the declaration as originally recorded, or as amended, a unit owner is not responsible for the cost of any removal or reinstallation of hurricane protection, including exterior windows, doors, or other apertures, if its removal is necessary for the maintenance, repair, or replacement of other condominium property or association property for which the association is responsible.

The board shall determine if the removal or reinstallation of hurricane protection must be completed by the unit owner or the association if the declaration as originally recorded, or as amended, does not specify who is responsible for such costs. if such removal or reinstallation is completed by the association, the costs incurred by the association may not be charged to the unit owner. if such removal or reinstallation is completed by the unit owner, the association must reimburse the unit owner for the cost of the removal or reinstallation or the association must apply a credit toward future assessments in the amount of the unit owner’s cost to remove or reinstall the hurricane protection.

Tags: ,
HOUSE BILL 913 – Part Two

HOUSE BILL 913 – Part Two

HOUSE BILL 913 – Part Two by Eric Glazer

As we said last week, it should come as no surprise that Representative Vicki Lopez came right out of the gate this year and filed a massive condo bill with House Bill 913. The bill covers many categories and we’ll break the bill down over the next few issues. It already has passed one House Committee and there may be no stopping it.

BOARD MEETINGS

Board of administration meetings.—in a residential condominium association of more than 10 units, the board of administration shall meet at least once each quarter. At least four times each year, the meeting agenda must include an opportunity for members to ask questions of the board, including questions relating to the status of any construction or repair projects, the status of all revenue and expenditures during the current fiscal year, and any other issues affecting the condominium..

RIGHT TO OBTAIN A LINE OF CREDIT

For an annual budget adopted on or before December 31, 2027, the members of a unit-owner-controlled association may approve, by a majority vote of the total voting interests of the association, the provision of a secured line of credit for up to 35 percent of the amount of the reserves required to meet the reserve funding schedule recommended by a structural integrity reserve study with respect to items with an estimated remaining useful life of greater than 10 years.

So if in the 2026 budget you have to reserve $200,000 for items with an estimated useful life of greater than 10 years —- the association can take out a $70,000.00 line of credit.

POOLING RESERVES

An association’s structural integrity reserves may be pooled for two or more required components. But may only be pooled with other components in the structural integrity reserve study. 

So what do you think?

Tags: ,
HOUSE BILL 913 – Part One

HOUSE BILL 913 – Part One

HOUSE BILL 913 – Part One by

It should come as no surprise that Representative Vicki Lopez came right out of the gate this year and filed a massive condo bill.  House Bill 913 covers many categories and we’ll break the bill down over the next few issues.  It already has passed one House Committee and there may be no stopping it.

INSURANCE

Citizens Insurance (the state’s insurance provider and the insurance company of last resort) may not issue or renew an insurance policy for a condominium unit owner or a condominium association unless the condominium association has complied with the inspection requirements in ss. 553.899 (milestone inspections) (and 718.112(2)(g) (structural integrity reserve study).

If you’re an advocate of safety you can’t disagree with this bill.

SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND LOANS FOR MAINTENANCE

In the interest of public safety and allowing the board members to meet its’ fiduciary duty that the board members owe to the owners – notwithstanding any provision to the contrary contained in an association’s declaration, articles of incorporation, or bylaws, the board of administration of an association may levy special assessments and obtain a loan to perform necessary maintenance, repair, or replacement of the condominium property as required by the milestone inspection report and structural integrity reserve study report without the approval of the membership in order to protect the health and safety of the unit owners and tenants of the property.

The courts were going in this direction already.  Let’s face it.  If the Board had to wait until the owners approved assessments and loans, neither would ever happen.

THE ASSOCIATION’S WEBSITE

The adopted minutes of all meetings of the association, the board of administration, and the unit owners over the preceding 7 years must now be on the association’s website.

Makes total sense.  The more transparency, the better.

So what do you think about HB 913?

Tags: ,
FIDUCIARY DUTY: What it Means to Your Community Association. by REMBAUM’S ASSOCIATION ROUNDUP

FIDUCIARY DUTY: What it Means to Your Community Association. by REMBAUM’S ASSOCIATION ROUNDUP

  • Posted: May 11, 2025
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on FIDUCIARY DUTY: What it Means to Your Community Association. by REMBAUM’S ASSOCIATION ROUNDUP

What duty does a community association board member owe to their association? What happens if that duty is breached? During the legislative session, legislation was proposed that would have made directors criminally liable for failure to timely respond to official record requests, among other provisions.

The legislation in House Bill 919 was proposed by Representative Porras in response to the alleged $3.4 million dollar embezzlement scheme that took place at the Hammocks Community Association, located in Miami-Dade County. Parts of this proposed bill were well-intentioned; however, several provisions were commonly viewed as too broad and expansive.

On November 15, 2022, the Miami-Dade State Attorney’s Office announced charges related to the Hammocks’ criminal case, including racketeering, organized scheme to defraud, money laundering, grand theft, and fabricating physical evidence against five board members. These board members have been accused of the following:

i) running a scheme in which they used HOA checks and HOA credit cards from 55 bank accounts to pay for “no-show” work by shell companies or vendors, who would funnel money back to the directors for their personal use;

ii) withholding official records from members; and,

iii) failure to hold valid elections, among other bad acts.

If found guilty these board members overtly breached their fiduciary duty to their association.

During the 2023 legislative session, House Bill 919 initially contained significant criminal penalties to punish board members who failed to provide official records when they otherwise should have, criminal penalties for kickbacks, and criminal penalties for improper election interference, among other provisions. Such laws, while well intended, went overboard as evidenced by the creation of criminal penalties for failure to provide official records, as such severe criminal penalties for operational matters would likely only deter good people from running for the board. Recognizing this potential issue, parts of HB 919 were tempered a bit prior to it becoming law. That said, in the opinion of this author, new laws with new criminal penalties are not the answer. Bad people do bad things, and no amount of laws will likely significantly change that. So, what is the answer?

One answer is to shore up the educational and certification requirements for board members. At present, there are two ways to be certified as a board member. One method is to take a State-approved class, which provides an overview of the voluminous information board members need to know in order to perform their duties. The other method is to sign a piece of paper that the board member has read the governing documents, will abide by them, and will faithfully discharge their duties. This second method should be eliminated as there is no method to confirm compliance, and this method does not have any educational component. In addition, continuing education requirements should be required for any board member serving consecutive years.

During a board certification class, time should be spent discussing the term “fiduciary duty.” While the term is repeatedly used in Chapters 718 and 720 of the Florida Statutes, it is not expressly defined in these statutes. Section 718.111, Florida Statutes, makes reference to Section 617.0830, Florida Statutes, which provides for general standards for directors of not-for-profit corporations, such as community associations.

Section 617.0830, Florida Statutes, provides the following:

      1. A director shall discharge his or her duties as a director, including his or her duties as a member of a committee i) in good faith; ii) with the care an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would exercise under similar circumstances; and iii) in a manner he or she reasonably believes to be in the best interests of the corporation.
      2. In discharging his or her duties, a director may rely on information, opinions, reports, or statements, including financial statements and other financial data, if prepared or presented by: i) One or more officers or employees of the corporation whom the director reasonably believes to be reliable and competent in the matters presented; ii) legal counsel, public accountants, or other persons as to matters the director reasonably believes are within the persons’ professional or expert competence; or iii) a committee of the board of directors of which he or she is not a member if the director reasonably believes the committee merits confidence.
      3. A director is not acting in good faith if he or she has knowledge concerning the matter in question that makes reliance otherwise permitted by subsection (2) unwarranted.
      4. A director is not liable for any action taken as a director, or any failure to take any action, if he or she performed the duties of his or her office in compliance with this section.

Still, though, there is no express definition of the term “fiduciary duty.” The purpose of studying fiduciary relationships is to identify the areas where it exists and gain an insight into the duties of a fiduciary. After all, every board member is a fiduciary for their community association. Common definitions of the term “fiduciary” include:

      • A fiduciary relationship is a relation between two parties wherein one party (fiduciary) has the duty to act in the best interest of the other party (beneficiary or principal).
      • A fiduciary is a person who holds a legal or ethical relationship of trust with one or more other parties. Typically, a fiduciary prudently takes care of money or other assets for another person.
      • A fiduciary duty is a relationship in which one party places special trust, confidence, and reliance in and is influenced by another who has a fiduciary duty to act for the benefit of the party.
      • Most importantly, and germane to this discussion, a fiduciary is a person or organization that acts on behalf of another person or persons, putting their clients’ interests ahead of their own, with a duty to preserve good faith and trust.

In other words, a good community association board member puts the interest of their association above their own personal interests. Thus, while we may not be able to stop bad people from doing bad things, through continuing education we can help good people do better.

To recap, there are three things that can be readily accomplished that would make a positive difference for Florida’s community associations.

      1. Remove the ability of a board member to be “certified” by signature alone.
      2. Require continuing education for board members serving continuous years.
      3. Amend Florida Statutes, Chapters 718 and 720, to include express definitions of fiduciary duty so that it is made patently clear that every board member must put their community association above and ahead of their own personal interests.

 

 

Tags: , ,
2025 –THE BEGINNING OF MASSIVE CHANGES TO OUR CONDO COMMUNITIES

2025 –THE BEGINNING OF MASSIVE CHANGES TO OUR CONDO COMMUNITIES

 

There are certain years that are more defining than others. Certain years that stand out. Well, if you live in a Florida condominium, 2025 will be that year. To understand why, we have to pay respect to another year that stands out more than any other ever will, and that is 2021, the year the Champlain Towers collapsed in Surfside, Florida killing 98 innocent men, women and children.

 

As a result of 2021, and The Florida Legislature’s promise to Floridians that another Surfside will never happen again, massive legislation was passed requiring mandatory inspections, mandatory repairs, mandatory education for Board members and perhaps the most important and controversial new law, the requirement to fund reserves for your condominium that is 3 stories or taller, based upon a Structural Integrity Reserve Study that needed to be prepared by an architect, engineer or someone with CAI credentials and completed by December 31st, 2024.

 

If you didn’t do it yet —– you’re late and in violation of Florida law.

 

Think about this…….any condominium budget you will ever pass again must include mandatory reserves based upon the results of that structural integrity reserve study. Here’s the new law:

 

For a budget adopted on or after December 31, 2024, the members of a unit-owner-controlled association that must obtain a structural integrity reserve study may not determine to provide no reserves or less reserves than required by Your Structural Integrity Reserve Study.

 

Here’s what a structural integrity reserve study is and how often it must be performed:

 

(g) Structural integrity reserve study.—

1. A residential condominium association must have a structural integrity reserve study completed at least every 10 years after the condominium’s creation for each building on the condominium property that is three stories or higher in height, as determined by the Florida Building Code, which includes, at a minimum, a study of the following items as related to the structural integrity and safety of the building:

 

a. Roof.

b. Structure, including load-bearing walls and other

primary structural members and primary structural

systems as those terms are defined in s. 627.706.

c. Fireproofing and fire protection systems.

d. Plumbing.

e. Electrical systems.

f.  Waterproofing and exterior painting.

g. Windows and exterior doors.

h. Any other item that has a deferred maintenance

expense or replacement cost that exceeds $10,000

and the failure to replace or maintain such item

negatively affects the above items as determined

by the visual inspection portion of the structural

integrity reserve study.

 

Yes – for those condo associations that have ignored funding reserves for years or decades — your bill has come due. And it’s going to be expensive. For those of you who thought it was a bad idea to put away money for a rainy day because you might not be alive at that time —- I guess the bad news is —–YOU LIVED!

 

2025 Sales for Members: Advertising in our Magazine and in the News Blast and on our website.

2025 Sales for Members: Advertising in our Magazine and in the News Blast and on our website.

  • Posted: Apr 23, 2025
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on 2025 Sales for Members: Advertising in our Magazine and in the News Blast and on our website.

Take advantage of our Advertising Sale Today.

We have Advertising in our magazine and in the News Blast Avail for 2025

  • News blast: Your company will show as a sponsor for the full year, we publish over 3 blasts per week, M,W,F  We also have a special Engineering every Thursday on that your logo is on that page with a link to our Directory, ( only 10 spaces @ 400.00 for the year )

 

  • Magazine Advertising Sponsorship’s, Full Pages, Half Pages and other. This sale is buy 3 months we match it with the same amount of months. (buy 3 get 3 months free)

 

 

ADVERTISING SALES

1-  We are running this sale for all members become a featured sponsor of our Email News Blast

  • We publish our Email Blast filled with News, Articles, Member Information, This is sent 3 days every week. Mon, Wed and Friday at 9am
  • Your company has a 300px by 300px logo picture linked to your website
  • Be seen as supporting sfpma 156 days for the year.  52weeks @3x every week

Special Price of 400.00 for the entire year

This is limited there are only 10 spots ( 8 remaining ) Act now. we are getting ready for 2025

Write articles we will publish.

 

2- Take out Advertising in our Publication – FLORIDA RISING MAGAZINE

  • Take out half and full pages 12 months of company advertising
  • take advantage of this special pricing

  • See our Advertising FLAT Rates: This Special ends FEB 2025

    Quarter Page: (3 months/300.00)

    Half Page*: (3 months/600.00)

    Full Page*: (3 months/750.00) Special Pricing

*You can write articles every month we will publish. Each month we have the ability to publish member companies articles, promotions used to educate readers on what you do and how you can help. (min 3 months)

Call us today and lock your Spaces or Fill out the Form We will call you!

    Main Contact Form SFPMA

    Your Name (required)

    Your Email (required)

    Phone: We will call you back (required)

    Your Website URL

    Subject

    Your Message

     

     

    Tags: ,
    THE RETURN OF THE CORPORATE TRANSPARENCY ACT INJUNCTION

    THE RETURN OF THE CORPORATE TRANSPARENCY ACT INJUNCTION

    • Posted: Jan 26, 2025
    • By:
    • Comments: Comments Off on THE RETURN OF THE CORPORATE TRANSPARENCY ACT INJUNCTION

    THE RETURN OF THE CORPORATE TRANSPARENCY ACT INJUNCTION

    by Rembaum’s Association Roundup

    Recently we reported to you that a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated (reversed) the Texas District Court’s previously enacted injunction that had the effect of making the Corporate Transparency Act’s registration requirements applicable once again.

    Guess What? On December 30th, 2024 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit again reinstated the nationwide injunction. FinCen’s website provides that, “in light of a recent federal court order, reporting companies [which includes Florida’s condominium, homeowners’, and cooperative associations] are not currently required to file beneficial ownership information with FinCEN and are not subject to liability if they fail to do so while the order remains in force. However, reporting companies may continue to voluntarily submit beneficial ownership information reports.

    The FinCen website provides a procedural history that further explains the current situation as follows:

    On Tuesday, December 3, 2024, in the case of Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., et al. v. Garland, et al., No. 4:24-cv-00478 (E.D. Tex.), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, issued an order granting a nationwide preliminary injunction. The Department of Justice, on behalf of the Department of the Treasury (Treasury), filed a Notice of Appeal on December 5, 2024 and separately sought of stay of the injunction pending that appeal.

    On December 23, 2024, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted a stay of the district court’s preliminary injunction entered in Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., pending the outcome of Treasury’s ongoing appeal of the district court’s order. Treasury immediately issued an alert notifying the public of this ruling and recognizing that reporting companies may have needed additional time to comply with beneficial ownership reporting requirements, Treasury extended reporting deadlines. However, on December 26, 2024, a different panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an order vacating the Court’s December 23, 2024 order granting a stay of the preliminary injunction. On December 31, 2024, the Department of Justice, on behalf of Treasury, sought a stay of the injunction pending the ongoing appeal from the Supreme Court of the United States.

    In the meantime, as of December 26, 2024, the injunction issued by the District Court in Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. is once again in effect. FinCEN is complying with—and will continue to comply with—the District Court’s order for as long as it remains in effect. As a result, reporting companies are not currently required to file beneficial ownership information with FinCEN. Reporting companies may continue to voluntarily submit beneficial ownership information reports.

    As new information is obtained we will share it with you, our readers. For those who are interested, our prior Association RoundUp articles regarding the Corporate Transparency Act debacle follow below.

    THE CORPORATE TRANSPARENCY ACT STRIKES BACK

    In the never ending saga regarding the applicability of the Corporate Transparency Act, there is yet another twist in that the judge in the Texas litigation, which we wrote about to you on December 14 and who issued the nationwide injunction, reversed course on December 23, when he lifted the court’s previously enacted injunction making the Corporate Transparency Act’s registration requirements applicable once again. However, FinCen, in light of the short notice, has extended the deadline in which to register to January 13, 2025 absent other deadline extensions.

    As reported in our prior article, a recent update from the United States Department of Treasury, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCen) provides an extension of time to comply with the requirements of the Corporate Transparency Act for the initial reporting deadlines, but there are strict requirements regarding the applicability of the extension as discussed below.

    FinCen, on October 29, 2024, extended the initial reporting deadlines to June 30, 2025, for associations in counties affected by Hurricane Milton where:

    (1) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) assistance is available for individual or public assistance; and

    (2)IRS tax filing deadlines have been extended.

    Associations in the following counties appear to be subject to the extension:

    Alachua, Baker, Bradford, Brevard, Broward, Charlotte, Citrus, Clay, Collier, Columbia, DeSoto, Dixie, Duval, Flagler, Gilchrist, Glades, Hamilton, Hardee, Hendry, Hernando, Highlands, Hillsborough, Indian River, Lafayette, Lake, Lee, Levy, Madison, Manatee, Marion, Martin, Miami-Dade, Monroe, Nassau, Okeechobee, Orange, Osceola, Palm Beach, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, Putman, Sarasota, Seminole, St. Johns, St. Lucie, Sumter, Suwannee, Taylor, Union, and Volusia.

    Of course, to be absolutely certain, please check with your association’s attorney.

    _________________________________________

    The December 23, 2024 email communication received from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network as reported on above follows:

    Updates to Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Deadlines – Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Requirements Now in Effect, with Deadline Extensions

    In light of a December 23, 2024, federal Court of Appeals decision, reporting companies, except as indicated below, are once again required to file beneficial ownership information with FinCEN. However, because the Department of the Treasury recognizes that reporting companies may need additional time to comply given the period when the preliminary injunction had been in effect, we have extended the reporting deadline as follows:

    • Reporting companies that were created or registered prior to January 1, 2024 have until January 13, 2025 to file their initial beneficial ownership information reports with FinCEN. (These companies would otherwise have been required to report by January 1, 2025)
    • Reporting companies created or registered in the United States on or after September 4, 2024 that had a filing deadline between December 3, 2024 and December 23, 2024 have until January 13, 2025 to file their initial beneficial ownership information reports with FinCEN.
    • Reporting companies created or registered in the United States on or after December 3, 2024 and on or before December 23, 2024 have an additional 21 days from their original filing deadline to file their initial beneficial ownership information reports with FinCEN.
    • Reporting companies that qualify for disaster relief may have extended deadlines that fall beyond January 13, 2025. These companies should abide by whichever deadline falls later.
    • Reporting companies that are created or registered in the United States on or after January 1, 2025 have 30 days to file their initial beneficial ownership information reports with FinCEN after receiving actual or public notice that their creation or registration is effective.
    • As indicated in the alert titled “Notice Regarding National Small Business United v. Yellen, No. 5:22-cv-01448 (N.D. Ala.)”, Plaintiffs in National Small Business United v. Yellen, No. 5:22-cv-01448 (N.D. Ala.)—namely, Isaac Winkles, reporting companies for which Isaac Winkles is the beneficial owner or applicant, the National Small Business Association, and members of the National Small Business Association (as of March 1, 2024)—are not currently required to report their beneficial ownership information to FinCEN at this time.

    On Tuesday, December 3, 2024, in the case of Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., et al. v. Garland, et al., No. 4:24-cv-00478 (E.D. Tex.), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, issued an order granting a nationwide preliminary injunction. On December 23, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted a stay of the district court’s preliminary injunction enjoining the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) entered in the case of Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. v. Garland, pending the outcome of the Department of the Treasury’s ongoing appeal of the district court’s order. Texas Top Cop Shop is only one of several cases that have challenged the CTA pending before courts around the country. Several district courts have denied requests to enjoin the CTA, ruling in favor of the Department of the Treasury. The government continues to believe—consistent with the conclusions of the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern District of Virginia and the District of Oregon—that the CTA is constitutional. For that reason, the Department of Justice, on behalf of the Department of the Treasury, filed a Notice of Appeal on December 5, 2024 and separately sought of stay of the injunction pending that appeal with the district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

    The Kaye Bender Rembaum Team Remains Available To You and Your Community Association

    Visit KBRLegal.com for awesome free resources, including news with Legal Morsels and Rembaum’s Association Roundup, and our Event Calendar, including upcoming free classes.