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. 

Attention to detail. A simple phrase that’s not always so simple to comply with, especially in a community association context.

Attention to detail. A simple phrase that’s not always so simple to comply with, especially in a community association context.

  • Posted: Feb 09, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Attention to detail. A simple phrase that’s not always so simple to comply with, especially in a community association context.

Attention to detail. A simple phrase that’s not always so simple to comply with, especially in a community association context.

by Howard J. Pearl / Becker

There are several technical provisions in the statutes governing community associations that
must be complied with. Chapters 607, 617, 718, 719, and 720, Florida Statutes have numerous
requirements that associations must adhere to. A few examples include meeting notice
requirements, board member eligibility requirements, record inspections, and others.
Associations must be cognizant of changes to the statutes regarding such requirements, some of
which pertain to regular or recurring events.
As associations go through the process of annual and election meeting notices, budget meeting
notices, etc., one cannot just blindly use the previous year’s notice as a template for the current
year’s notice. Associations must review any changes in the statutes to ensure this year’s notices
are still in compliance. Having your association attorney prepare, or at least review, all such
notices before they are sent out will help ensure the association is in compliance with the most
recently enacted statutes.
For example, Section 718.112(2)(d)(2.), Florida Statutes, previously provided that a person who
is delinquent in the payment of any monetary obligation due to the association, is not eligible to
be a candidate for board membership and may not be listed on the ballot. That provision was
changed in 2021 to now provide that a person 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. A small but significant difference. If your election meeting notice
includes any information about candidate eligibility, blindly copying the previous year’s notice
would have the association sending out inaccurate information regarding board member
eligibility. Attention to detail.
Another example pertains to a condominium unit owner’s suspension of voting rights due to a
delinquency. Section 718.303(5), Florida Statutes, previously provided an association may
suspend the voting rights of a unit or member due to nonpayment of any fee, fine, or other
monetary obligation due to the association which is more than 90-days delinquent. That
provision was changed in 2017 and now provides that an association may suspend the voting
rights of a unit owner or member because of nonpayment of any fee, fine, or other monetary
obligation due to the association which is more than $1,000 and more than 90-days delinquent.
While this change went into effect a few years ago, unfortunately I still run across associations
attempting to suspend voting rights of owners who are more than 90-days delinquent, but such
delinquency is not more than $1,000. Again, attention to detail.
Another area where attention to detail is necessary is the preparation of limited proxies. When
voting on a waiver of reserves in a condominium, Section 718.112(2)(f)(4), Florida Statutes,
provides that proxy questions relating to waiving or reducing the funding of reserves or using
existing reserve funds for purposes other than those for which the reserves were intended must
contain the following statement in capitalized, bold letters in a font size larger than any other
used on the face of the proxy ballot: “WAIVING OF RESERVES, IN WHOLE OR IN PART,
OR ALLOWING ALTERNATIVE USES OF EXISTING RESERVES MAY RESULT IN
UNIT OWNER LIABILITY FOR PAYMENT OF UNANTICIPATED SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS REGARDING THOSE ITEMS.” When reviewing limited proxies prepared by
associations for such votes, very frequently I notice that while the disclaimer language is in
capitalized, bold letters, it is not in a font size larger than any other used on the face of the proxy
ballot. Attention to detail.
Posting of meeting notices is required by the statutes. Forty-eight (48) hours’ notice for a regular
board meeting; fourteen (14) days for some board meetings; 60-days for election meetings, etc.
Only mailing, or emailing notices is not sufficient. Some meeting notices require an association
to execute a proof of meeting notice (usually an affidavit signed by an association board member
or manager). While these notice requirements may seem trivial, especially since the notices are
mailed and/or emailed to owners, they are required by statute. Failure to properly post such
notices may result in any action taken at said meeting being void. Failure to maintain proof of
meeting notices when required may have the same effect, if any action taken at said meeting is
challenged. Attention to detail.
In regard to homeowner associations, Section 720.306, Florida Statutes, previously provided that
official notices were to be sent to the address on the property appraiser’s website. That provision
was changed to provide that official notices once again are to be sent to the mailing address in
the official records of the association under section 720.303(4), Florida Statutes. Attention to
detail.
There have been technical changes in how associations must notify owners of delinquent
assessments before the owner can be sent to the attorney for collections. These are technical
requirements that should be discussed with your association attorney. Blindly following previous
practices in regard to such collection notices and actions will result in delays and owner defenses
to association collection actions. Attention to detail.
In regard to budgets, remember that budgets mailed to association members must contain the
period of the budget year (for example, Jan 1, 2022 – Dec 31, 2022). I have seen many
associations go through the arduous process of preparing and adopting a budget, only to have
such budget challenged by a member because it did not contain the actual budget period, even
though there was enough information on the budget to know what period it was for. Attention to
detail.
While some of the above matters may seem minimal in regard to their impact on the association
or its members, the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of
Condominiums, Timeshares and Mobile Homes (“Division”) has recently changed its approach
in regard to association education versus fining. In the past, a first violation of one of the above
provisions, or another what would appear to be “minor” violation, was generally resolved by the
issuance of a warning letter from the Division, recounting the violation, the remedial measures,
and a warning to the association that future similar violations could result in a fine. Those
“warning” days appear to be over, as the Division has adopted a much more stringent
enforcement posture, which usually results in a fine to the association, even for a first violation
of a seemingly minor provision. Fines range from $10 to $30 per unit, with a maximum fine of
$5,000. I have seen recent cases where the Division initially sought to impose the maximum
$5,000 fine for an initial, minor violation (minor in accordance with Rule 61B-21, Florida
Administrative Code.)

Howard J. Perl

Shareholder

Ft. Lauderdale

 954.987.7550

 954.364.6054

 HPERL@beckerlawyers.com

 

 

Tags:
Tree Maintenance and the Potential Impact of Section 163.045, Florida Statutes by Sarah Wilson of Becker

Tree Maintenance and the Potential Impact of Section 163.045, Florida Statutes by Sarah Wilson of Becker

  • Posted: Feb 02, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Tree Maintenance and the Potential Impact of Section 163.045, Florida Statutes by Sarah Wilson of Becker

Tree Maintenance and the Potential Impact of Section 163.045, Florida Statutes

by Sarah Wilson of Becker

 

In general, a community association is responsible for operating and maintaining the common areas of the community (in the case of homeowners’ associations), and the common elements (in the case of condominium associations). If there are trees located on these common areas/elements, the association’s maintenance duties will include trimming and even the removal of trees that may be dead or dying.  Before performing any significant trimming or removal of trees, however, an association must determine whether any prior governmental approval is required.

It is common for counties and/or cities to have ordinances regulating the planting, removal, and replanting of trees in residential areas and requiring a permit prior to the removal of certain trees. Section 163.045, Florida Statutes, which went into effect on July 1, 2019, appears to change the extent to which local governments can enforce such tree regulations. Interpretation issues, however, leave the true scope of the statute unknown, particularly as it relates to community associations.

The statute, which was intended to strengthen property owners’ rights against local government overreach, prohibits local governments from requiring notice, application, approval, permit, fee, or mitigation for the pruning, trimming, or removal of a tree on residential property if the property owner obtains documentation from an arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture or a Florida licensed landscape architect that the tree presents a danger to persons or property.  Additionally, under the statute a local government may not require a property owner to replant a tree that was pruned, trimmed, or removed in accordance with this section.  [Note: Section 163.045, Florida Statutes, does not apply to the exercise of specifically delegated authority for mangrove protection pursuant to ss. 403.9321-403.9333, Florida Statutes.]

In applying this statute, it is important to note that it only applies to “residential property” and only to trees which are documented by a certified arborist or a Florida licensed landscape architect as “present[ing] a danger to persons or property.” Both exemption requirements present interpretation issues. The fact that “residential property” is not defined has caused some governmental authorities to question whether this exemption would even apply to common areas/elements in the community association setting.  Additionally, the requirement that a certified arborist or licensed landscape architect must document that a tree “presents a danger to persons or property” is problematic in that dangerous is not a term that is normally used or defined in the tree care industry’s risk assessment standards. Rather, assessments of tree safety by such professionals focus on the qualified risk of trees, and how this relates to the statute’s use of the word “danger” remains to be seen.

Local governments have acknowledged that the statute sets up some interpretation issues, and it has been reported that different jurisdictions are reaching different results.  The consequences of an association, without prior approval, trimming or removing trees in a jurisdiction that is interpreting this statute as not applying to common areas/elements could be code enforcement actions, costly fines, or other remedial measures. For this reason, before trimming or removing trees from the common areas/elements, it is recommended that associations consult with their association attorney to discuss how their local governments are interpreting this statute and whether or not local ordinances must still be followed before pruning, trimming, or removing trees.

 

 Sara K. Wilson

Attorney at Law

Orlando

 407.875.0955

 SWILSON@beckerlawyers.com

 

 

Tags: ,
The New York Times was doing a story about the incredible number of condominiums in Miami and how fast they were all built read it here!

The New York Times was doing a story about the incredible number of condominiums in Miami and how fast they were all built read it here!

  • Posted: Jan 31, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on The New York Times was doing a story about the incredible number of condominiums in Miami and how fast they were all built read it here!

HOW IN THE WORLD DID WE  GET HERE?

By Eric Glazer, Esq.

So, I get a call a few weeks ago from a reporter at The New York Times.  He was doing a story about the incredible number of condominiums in Miami and how fast they were all built.  How the entire skyline on the coast changed dramatically in the past 40 years or so and if it’s possible that The Champlain Towers in Miami was just a freak occurrence, or something that we need to start thinking about regarding all condominiums that were rushed through and given the green light.  Is it possible for other similarly situated buildings to start falling down?

The story is somewhat startling but not surprising.  It’s a story about greed, out of control construction, tampering with Mother Nature, little to no inspections, rushed through permits,  law firms and politicians helping developers  and The Florida Legislature turning a blind eye towards all of it.

If you’re living in a building in Miami, this is a must read.  If you don’t live in Miami, but are concerned about whether or not your building was built properly, it’s a must read as well.  Besides myself, there are politicians, builders, developers and other experts that tell their side of the story in detail.  Some of it is shocking.

Because so many turned their backs years ago, no wonder the story is called THE TICKING CLOCK OF MIAMI’S CONDO EMPIRE.  You should also know that coincidentally, Robert Lisman, who is the resident from Champlain Towers East, is the producer of our Condo Craze You Tube channel.  It’s a long article but again, it’s a must read.  To read it, click the Towers and the Ticking Clock below:

The Towers and the Ticking Clock

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

1200 Park Central Boulevard South, Pompano Beach, FL. Tel: 954.928.0680
9121 North Military Trail, Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, FL. Tel: 561.241.4462
1211 N. Westshore Boulevard, Suite 409, Tampa, FL. Tel: 813.375.0731

 

 

Tags: , ,
ANOTHER STUNNING GRAND JURY REPORT ABOUT FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS By Eric Glazer, Esq.

ANOTHER STUNNING GRAND JURY REPORT ABOUT FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS By Eric Glazer, Esq.

  • Posted: Jan 11, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on ANOTHER STUNNING GRAND JURY REPORT ABOUT FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS By Eric Glazer, Esq.

ANOTHER STUNNING GRAND JURY REPORT ABOUT FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS

By Eric Glazer, Esq.

I’ll tell you something – I give a lot of credit to Kathy Fernandez Rundle, The State Attorney for Miami-Dade County.  She actually prosecutes cases of condo fraud, years ago she assembled a grand jury to make recommendations to the state legislature regarding condo crimes, kickbacks, conflicts of interest and the grand jury’s findings turned into legislation ———- and now, in light of the tragedy in Surfise at The Champlain Towers collapse where 98 innocent people lost their lives —– she assembled another fact finding grand jury, this time to investigate the laws regarding inspections of our buildings and how we waive  reserve funds.

The last Miami Dade Grand Jury wrote a scathing report regarding condo crime, saying it was rampant — and people get on the board just to divert the condo’s business to their relatives or even their own companies.  Well, this Grand Jury pulled no punches either.

As you know, the current law allows all condos the opportunity to waive the full funding of reserve accounts for major repairs or replacements.  All it takes is a lousy vote of a majority of a quorum of the owners who attend a meeting.  So, if in your 100 unit condo, a quorum of owners is typically 50 or less.  So, if 50 or more people show up either in person or by proxy, a majority of them can change the budget to completely exclude reserves, and as we know it’s typically done year after year after year.

Here is what the Grand Jury said about that:

“We Are At A Loss To Understand Why Such Language Would Even Be Included In The Florida Condominium Act.”  They eventually said that at a minimum, it should at least require a 70% vote of the owners to waive reserves.  So, you can rest assured that this one finding by the grand jury will work its way into new condo legislation in the next 2 months as the Florida Legislature is now in session. It’s going to become real difficult real soon, to completely refuse to fund your reserve account.  Surprisingly,  the grand jury didn’t say a word about requiring properly licensed personnel to do the reserve  account analysis each year., instead of joe the butcher, fred the cab driver and joan the teacher, each of whom are not qualified to do the reserve analysis.

In terms of the 40 year certification process for Dade and Broward, The Grand Jury recommended that buildings should be given a  2 year advanced notice to perform the 40 year inspection.  And of course 40 years is way too long for the first inspection.   The first inspection and certification should be 10 – 15 years after the building is constructed , and the condominium inspection should be updated every 10 years.  I think you can rest assured  that The Florida Legislature will probably make this a law throughout the state, not only in d\Dade and Broward counties.  In fact, a bill has already been filed in the senate that would require the inspection of all condos in the state over 3 stories, after 30 years and every ten years thereafter.

As the law stands right now in Dade and Broward —- for the 40 year certification — the inspection only involves the structural and electrical issues.  Well, you can throw that right out the window according to this grand jury.  going forward,

 

The Grand Jury recommends that all of the following components must pass inspection:

roof, structure, fireproofing and fire protection systems, elevators, heating and cooling systems, plumbing, electrical systems, swimming pool or spa and equipment, seawalls, pavement and parking areas, drainage systems, painting, irrigation systems.  This is a much more comprehensive and much more expensive inspection report than what we have now.   Condos better get ready to put these costs into their budgets if this legislation passes.

Even the qualifications of the people doing the certifying would change.    The Grand Jury wants any engineer certifying a building in connection with an inspection —— must have previously designed and inspected at least 3 buildings of the same or greater height as the building to which is to be recertified.

The Grand Jury opined that building officials must require proof of waterproofing and painting every 10 years.  They specifically found that ” a failure of condo boards to implement much needed repairs and maintenance has led to unsafe building structures throughout South Florida.  They reminded everyone that associations who don’t comply with the insurance company’s requirement of routine maintenance may result in a denial of the claim.”

They even recommended that building officials should check to see if the condominium is performing routine maintenance and condo boards should be required to file a document certifying that regular routine maintenance has been conducted in the last 12 months.

And thankfully, The Grand Jury believes that the education requirement for board members be expanded.  As you know, I drafted Senate Bill 394 filed by Anna Maria Rodriguez and House Bill 547 filed by Representative David Borerro, The bill would require board members to get certified by taking an educational class rather than getting certified by signing a silly form.  Florida would be the first state in the country to require that.  That would be my legacy and I have my fingers crossed.

All I can say is……when you factor in the insane rise in the price of insurance, and the changes we know are coming in this legislative session, it’s about to get a lot more expensive to live in your condominium.  Get ready to buckle up and hold on.  It’s going to be a bumpy ride.

To view the actual Grand Jury report click here.

 

Tags:
Condo Craze and HOAs Radio Show on 850 WFTL every Sunday 11am – 12pm  Is now live on YouTube!

Condo Craze and HOAs Radio Show on 850 WFTL every Sunday 11am – 12pm  Is now live on YouTube!

  • Posted: Jan 10, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Condo Craze and HOAs Radio Show on 850 WFTL every Sunday 11am – 12pm  Is now live on YouTube!

Condo Craze and HOAs Radio Show on 850 WFTL every Sunday 11am – 12pm  Is now live on YouTube!

Condo and HOA Boards and Owners you can now watch the show ask questions.  Each Sunday morning we will bring to you topics and discussions for out industry.

Subscribe to our YOU TUBE PAGE. 

Condo Craze and HOAs In 2009, Eric began a career in radio, starting and hosting the weekly Condo Craze and HOAs Radio Show on 850 WFTL. Eric answers questions from the callers week in and week out and the show has become incredibly popular throughout the state. For more information, and to listen to past shows.

Eric M. Glazer is a native of Brooklyn, New York Mr. Glazer obtained his B.A. in Political Science at New York University. While at N.Y.U., Mr. Glazer was employed in the Kings County District Attorney’s Office. Mr. Glazer obtained his Juris Doctorate at the University of Miami School of Law. In 1994 he established Glazer and Associates, P.A. and has focused his career on representation of community associations and their members.

Visit our Website: https://www.condocrazeandhoas.com Board Certification Classes Eric has certified over 12,000 board members in the State of Florida, who are now eligible to serve on either a condominium or homeowner association board.

 

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

Selective Enforcement: A Grossly Misunderstood Concept by KBRLegal

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

Without exception, the affirmative defense of “selective enforcement” is one of the most misunderstood concepts in the entire body of community association law. How often have you heard something like this: “The board has not enforced the fence height limitation, so it cannot enforce any other architectural rules”? Simply put, nothing could be further from the truth.

When a community association seeks to enforce its covenants and/or its board adopted rules and regulations, an owner can, under the right circumstances, assert an affirmative defense such as the affirmative defense of selective enforcement. An affirmative defense is a “yes I did it, but so what” type of defense. In civil lawsuits, affirmative defenses include the statute of limitations, the statute of frauds, waiver, and more. However, it’s just not as simple as that. For example, a fence height limitation is a very different restriction than a required set back. Under most if not all circumstances, the failure to enforce a  fence height requirement is very different from the failure to enforce a setback requirement. Ordinarily, the affirmative defense of selective enforcement will only apply if the violation or circumstances are comparable, such that one could reasonably rely upon the non-enforcement of a particular covenant, restriction, or rule with respect to their own conduct or action.

In the seminal case of Chattel Shipping and Investment Inc. v. Brickell Place Condominium Association Inc., 481 So.2d 29 (FLA. 3rd DCA 1986), 45 owners had improperly enclosed their balconies. Thereafter, the association informed all of the owners that it would thereafter take “no action with respect to existing enclosed balconies, but prohibit future balcony constructions and enforce the enclosure prohibition.” As you might have already predicted, nevertheless, thereafter an owner of a unit, Chattel Shipping, enclosed their unit; and the association secured a mandatory injunction in the trial court requiring the removal of the balcony enclosure erected without permission. The owner appealed. In the end, the appellate court disagreed with the owner who argued that the association decision to enforce the “no enclosure” requirement only on a prospective basis was both selective enforcement and arbitrary. The court held that the adoption and implementation of a uniform policy under which, for obvious reasons of practicality and economy, a given building restriction will be enforced only prospectively cannot be deemed “selective and arbitrary.”

In Laguna Tropical, A Condominium Association Inc. v. Barnave, 208 So. 3d 1262, (Fla. 3d DCA 2017), the court again used the purpose of the restriction in its determination of whether the association engaged in selective enforcement. In Laguna Tropical, a rule prohibited floor covering other than carpeting unless expressly permitted by the association. Additionally, the rule provided that owners must place padding between the flooring and the concrete slab so that the flooring would be adequately soundproof. In this case, an owner installed laminate flooring on her second floor unit and the neighbor below complained that the noise disturbed his occupancy. As a result of the complaint, the association demanded that the owner remove the laminate flooring. However, the owner argued selective enforcement because the association only enforced the carpeting restriction against the eleven exclusively upstairs units in the condominium. The court noted that the remaining units in the condominium were either downstairs units only, or were configured to include both first-floor and second-floor residential space within the same unit.

Again, the court looked to the purpose of the prohibition on floor coverings other than carpet and found that the prohibition was plainly intended to avoid noise complaints. Therefore, no selective enforcement was proven because no complaints were shown to have arisen regarding any units except the eleven exclusively upstairs units.

What about cats and dogs? In another case, Prisco v. Forest Villas Condominium Apartments Inc., 847 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), the Fourth District Court of Appeals heard an appeal alleging selective enforcement regarding the association’s pet restrictions. The association had a pet restriction which stated that other than fish and birds, “no pets whatsoever” shall be allowed. In this case, the association had allowed an owner to keep a cat in her unit, but refused to allow another owner to keep a dog. The association argued that there was a distinction between the dog and the cat. However, on appeal, the court found that the restriction was clear and unambiguous that all pets other than fish and birds were prohibited. Therefore, the court reasoned that the facts which make dogs different from cats did not matter because the clear purpose of the restriction was to prohibit all types of pets except fish and birds. In other words, the court held that the plain and obvious purpose of a restriction should govern any interpretation of whether the association engaged in selective enforcement.

If an association has a “no pets” rule and allows cats, must it allow dogs, too? There is a long line of arbitration cases that have distinguished dogs from cats and other pets for purposes of selective enforcement. For example, in Beachplace Association Inc. v. Hurwitz, Case no. 02-5940, a Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Florida Condominium Arbitration case, the arbitrator found, in response to an owner’s selective enforcement defense raised in response to the association’s demand for removal of a dog, that even though cats were allowed, that comparison of dogs to cats was not a comparative, like kind situation. Further the arbitrator found that cats and dogs had significant distinctions such as barking versus meowing, and therefore the owner’s attempted use of the selective enforcement argument failed.

But, in Hallmark of Hollywood Condominium Association Inc. v. Andrews, Case 2003-09-2380, another Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Florida Condominium Arbitration case, the learned arbitrator James Earl decided that because the association has a full blown “no pets of any kind”  requirement and since cats were allowed, then dogs must be allowed, too. In other words, the defendant owner’s waiver defense worked. But, the arbitrator wisely noted in a footnote as follows: “The undersigned notes that there is a long line of arbitration cases that have distinguished dogs from cats and other pets for purposes of selective enforcement. However, the fourth district court of appeal has ruled that where the condominium documents contain particular language prohibiting all pets, any dissimilarity between dogs and cats is irrelevant and both must be considered. See Prisco.” The distinction between the two arbitration cases could be explained because of timing in that the 4th DCA’s decision in Prisco was not yet published when Hurwitz was decided.

From these important cases, it can be gleaned that

(i) even if an association has ignored a particular rule or covenant, that by giving written notice to the entire community that it will be enforced prospectively, the rule or covenant can be reinvigorated and becomes fully enforceable once again (though of course, prior non-conforming situations may have to be grandfathered depending on the situation),

(ii) if an association or an owner is seeking an estoppel affirmative defense, they must be sure all of the necessary elements are pled,

(iii) at times a court will look to the purpose of the rule itself where it makes sense to do so, and

(iv) dogs and cats are different, but they are both considered “pets.”

Remember to always discuss the complexities of re-enforcement of covenants and rules and regulations that were not enforced for some time with your association’s legal counsel in an effort to mitigate negative outcomes. The process (commonly referred to as “republication”) can restore the viability of a covenant or rule that may have been waived due to the lack of uniform and timely enforcement.

 

Kaye Bender Rembaum

We are dedicated to providing clients with an unparalleled level of personalized and professional service regardless of their size and takes into account their individual needs and financial concerns. Our areas of concentration include

1200 Park Central Boulevard South, Pompano Beach, FL. Tel: 954.928.0680
9121 North Military Trail, Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, FL. Tel: 561.241.4462
1211 N. Westshore Boulevard, Suite 409, Tampa, FL. Tel: 813.375.0731
  • Assessment collections
  • Construction defect claims
  • Contract drafting and negotiation
  • Cooperatives
  • Covenant enforcement
  • Fair Housing
  • Land Use and Zoning
  • Litigation and Arbitration
  • Master/ Sub Association Issues
  • Pre and Post Turnover Planning
  • Real Estate and Title Concerns
  • Review and amendment of covenants
Kaye Bender Rembaum is a full service commercial law firm devoted to the representation of more than 1000 community associations throughout Florida. Under the direction of attorneys Robert L. Kaye, Esq., Michael S. Bender, Esq., and Jeffrey A. Rembaum, Esq. Kaye Bender Rembaum is dedicated to providing clients with an unparalleled level of personalized and professional service regardless of their size and takes into account their individual needs and financial concerns.your interest in Kaye Bender Rembaum.

 

Tags:
Top 5 Community Update Articles of 2021 from Becker

Top 5 Community Update Articles of 2021 from Becker

  • Posted: Jan 04, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Top 5 Community Update Articles of 2021 from Becker

A new year means 365 new opportunities to be grateful.

Practicing gratitude has far reaching effects, from improving our mental health to boosting our relationships with others. Join the Becker Team as we share what we’re truly grateful for – our clients, community, coworkers, family, friends, health, happiness, and growth. From our Becker family to yours, we wish you all the best and look forward to being of service in 2022!       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5MiiLJaCXM

Top 5 Community Update Articles of 2021

Before heading into the New Year, we look back at the year’s most popular reads. This month’s featured articles highlight the topics you found most interesting in 2021 – from fining committees to questions about remote meetings.

From all of us at Becker, we wish you a happy holiday and a joyous, healthy, and prosperous New Year!

 

1.

Of all enforcement options available to an association for violations of its governing documents, the imposition of fines is one that yields many questions due to the strict procedures required to impose a fine. Learn more in, “What is a “Fining Committee” and Who Can Be on It?”

2.

Although Florida’s Sunshine Laws don’t apply to community associations, the Condominium Act has its own set of “sunshine” requirements to be aware of. Karyan San Martano breaks down what the statute says in, “‘Sunshine Laws’ for Condominium Associations.”

3.

While Mother Nature may be hard to harness, community associations are often tasked with doing just that to protect both residents and property. In, “Responsibility for Tree Branches and Roots,” Elizabeth Lanham-Patrie explores how the law decides who needs to tackle this chore.

4.

As of July 1, 2021, associations are required to send delinquent owners a Notice of Late Assessments prior to turning the account over to collections. Learn best practices for sending this letter in, “A Guide to Sending the New Notice of Late Assessment.”

5.

“Can Remote Meetings Be Held Now That the State of Emergency Has Expired?” Yeline Goin discusses what meetings can be held remotely, in whole or in part.

 

 

CALLING ALL BOARD MEMBERS AND COMMUNITY MANAGERS

As leaders in Community Association Law, we not only helped write the law – we also teach it.

Did you know Becker provides over 200 educational classes per year throughout the State of Florida on a variety of topics ranging from board member certification to compliance, and everything in between? Our most popular classes are now available online!

To view our entire class roster, visit:
beckerlawyers.com/classes

As a service to the community and industry, we are pleased to offer some of our most popular classes online for you to participate in from the comfort of your own home.

 

 

Unpaid Fines Can Have Consequences,” News-Press by Joseph E. Adams of Becker

Unpaid Fines Can Have Consequences,” News-Press by Joseph E. Adams of Becker

  • Posted: Dec 14, 2021
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Unpaid Fines Can Have Consequences,” News-Press by Joseph E. Adams of Becker

Unpaid Fines Can Have Consequences,”

Joseph E. Adams | 12.13.2021

Q: What happens is I refuse to pay a fine for violating the association’s governing documents? (R.N., via e-mail)

A: A duly levied fine is due after a board appointed fining committee confirms, at a properly noticed fining hearing at which the accused can state his or her case, a fine proposed by the board. Pursuant to amendments to the statute enacted in 2021, the fine is due 5 days after notice is sent to the person who owes the fine.

Assuming the procedures outlined under statute and the association’s governing documents are followed, the association may take action to collect the fine. The condominium and cooperative statutes prohibit unpaid fines from becoming a lien against a unit. The statute for homeowners’ associations, by comparison, provides that no fine of less than $1,000.00 can be secured by a lien against a parcel, presumably meaning that fines of $1,000.00 or more may become a lien against parcel, if authorized by the governing documents.

In most cases, a lawsuit in small claims court is the proper venue to collect an unpaid fine. The statute for homeowners’ associations provides that in any legal action to collect a fine, the prevailing party is entitled to recovery of their attorneys’ fees from the non-prevailing party, as determined by the court. While the statutes for condominiums and cooperatives do not contain the same language, it is generally believed that the generic provisions of those statutes allow for the recovery of attorneys’ fees for legal actions brought under the statute.

Fines are “monetary obligations” and, if left unpaid, can also result in the suspension of voting and common area use rights, and disqualification from board service. Unpaid fines can also be disclosed on the “estoppel certificate” that the association provides in connection with the sale of the unit, a process which is primarily aimed at ensuring that assessments and other charges applicable to the unit are properly calculated, accrued, and prorated between a buyer and seller, so that a “clean” and insurable title can be issued.

 

Q: Can an association charge late fees on past due assessments? (B.K., via e-mail)

A: Yes, if late fees are authorized by the documents governing your community.

The respective laws governing Florida condominium, cooperative, and homeowners’ associations allow for an administrative late fee of up to the greater of $25 or five percent of each late assessment installment, if authorized by the declaration or the bylaws. Assessments and installments on assessments that are not timely paid also bear interest as provided in the declaration or bylaws. If the community documents do not provide an interest rate, interest accrues at the rate of 18 percent per annum.

Payments on delinquent accounts received by the association must first be applied to any interest accrued, then to any administrative late fees, then to any costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in collection, and then to the delinquent assessment.

 

Q: Our homeowners’ association board says that we cannot have an ice cream truck in the community because our governing documents prohibit solicitation in the community. Is that true? (K.S., via e-mail)

A: It sounds like your board could use some good humor.

“No solicitation” clauses are generally aimed at prohibiting door-to-door types of activities. The legally correct answer will depend on several factors, including whether your roads are private or public, whether the community is gated, and the easement language in your declaration of covenants.

In the board’s defense, there is certainly reasonable cause for concern with children running up to the truck, potential accidents, and the like. If the association owns the roads, it would be a party to get sued in the event of a mishap or tragedy.

Perhaps a reasonable compromise would be to permit the truck to park in a certain common area for a stated period of time, and allow the patrons to come and get their ice cream from the truck only while safely parked and the motor turned off.

 

Joseph Adams is a Board Certified Specialist in Condominium and Planned Development Law, and an Office Managing Shareholder with Becker & Poliakoff. Please send your community association legal questions to jadams@beckerlawyers.com. Past editions of the Q&A may be viewed at floridacondohoalawblog.com.

Tags: ,
It’s the Manager’s Fault…Or Is It? by rembaumlaw

It’s the Manager’s Fault…Or Is It? by rembaumlaw

  • Posted: Dec 13, 2021
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on It’s the Manager’s Fault…Or Is It? by rembaumlaw

It’s the Manager’s Fault…Or Is It?

Posted on  by 

Few professions have more demands placed upon them than that of the Florida licensed community association manager (CAM). Depending on whom you ask, the CAM is the organizer, rules enforcer, keeper of secrets (meaning confidential and statutorily protected information not limited to the medical record of owners and attorney-client privileged information), best friend, the “bad guy” (a frequent misconstruction), and the first person in the line of fire when things go wrong; in other words, the one who takes all the blame and gets little credit when things go right.

When things at the association go wrong, what comment is most likely heard? “It’s the manager’s fault!” But, is it? Unless the manager failed to carry out a lawful directive from the board, breached a management contract provision, or violated a Florida statute, then in all likelihood, the manager has no culpability. CAMs are licensed by the State of Florida pursuant to Part VIII of Chapter 468 of the Florida Statutes, and there are statutory standards by which CAMs must conduct themselves.

Pursuant to §468.4334, Florida Statutes, “[a] community association manager or a community association management firm is deemed to act as agent on behalf of a community association as principal within the scope of authority authorized by a written contract or under this chapter. A community association manager and a community association management firm shall discharge duties performed on behalf of the association as authorized by this chapter loyally, skillfully, and diligently; dealing honestly and fairly; in good faith; with care and full disclosure to the community association; accounting for all funds; and not charging unreasonable or excessive fees.”

As set forth herein, statutory standards provide guidance to CAMs as to how they should conduct themselves. They must discharge their duties with skill and care and in good faith. They must act with loyalty to their association employer and deal with the association both honestly and fairly. They must provide full disclosure, which can be interpreted as both keeping the board informed of current events and providing disclosures of any conflict of interests. They must be able to account for all funds, too, which means both assessment income and expenditures; in other words, they must mind the budget.

Best practices for CAMs include becoming extremely familiar with the governing documents of the association (including the declaration, articles of incorporation, bylaws, and rules and regulations) and the financials of the association, walking the physical property, engaging with their team and residents, as well as providing weekly status updates to the board regarding all ongoing association business. If you are a CAM and do these things, then you have an opportunity to shine and stand head and shoulders above your peers and competition. This weekly status report is an excellent communication tool yet seems to be a rarity. CAMs should also make themselves available to owners. However, when an owner becomes offensive or insulting, the CAM should politely and firmly request that the owner communicate respectfully and in a professional manner. A CAM should always be financially transparent and should be extremely familiar with the management contract to fully understand her obligations and authority; for example, the limitation to spend association funds. Finally, the CAM should strive to keep a written record of her activities.

The two most obvious and biggest ways to get in trouble include committing acts of gross misconduct or gross negligence in connection with the profession or contracting on behalf of an association with any entity in which the CAM has a financial interest that is not disclosed. Disciplinary actions against a CAM fall under the purview of the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR). Section 455.227, Florida Statutes, governs grounds for discipline, penalties, and enforcement.

For example, the following activities constitute grounds for which disciplinary actions may be taken by the DBPR (this list is not all inclusive):

(i) making misleading, deceptive, or fraudulent representations in or related to the practice of the CAM’s profession; (ii) intentionally violating any rule adopted by the DBPR; (iii) being convicted or found guilty of, or entering a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (“I do not wish to contend”) to, a crime in any jurisdiction which relates to the practice of, or the ability to practice, a CAM’s profession; (iv) having been found liable in a civil proceeding for knowingly filing a false report or complaint with the DBPR against another CAM; (v) attempting to obtain, obtaining, or renewing a license to practice a profession by bribery, by fraudulent misrepresentation, or through an error of the DBPR; (vi) failing to report to the DBPR any person who the CAM knows is in violation of the laws regulating CAMs or the rules of the DBPR; (vii) aiding, assisting, procuring, employing, or advising any unlicensed person or entity to practice a profession contrary to law; (viii) failing to perform any statutory or legal obligation; (ix) making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; (x) making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in or related to the practice of a profession or employing a trick or scheme in or related to the practice of a profession; and  (xi) performing professional responsibilities the licensee knows, or has reason to know, the licensee is not competent to perform.

The Florida Administrative Code, in Rule 61E14-2.001, also provides standards for professional conduct which are deemed automatically incorporated as duties of all CAMs into any written or oral agreement for community association management services. A CAM must adhere to the following standards:

  1. comply with the requirements of the governing documents by which a community association is created or operated
  2. only deposit or disburse funds received by the CAM or management firm on behalf of the association for the specific purpose or purposes designated by the board, community association management contract, or the governing documents of the association
  3. perform all community association management services required by the CAM’s contract to professional standards and to the standards established by §468.4334(1), Florida Statutes
  4. in the event of a potential conflict of interest, provide full disclosure to the association and obtain authorization or approval; and
  5. respond to, or refer to the appropriate responsible party, a notice of violation or any similar notice from an agency seeking to impose a regulatory penalty upon the association within the timeframe specified in the notice.

In addition, during the performance of community association management services pursuant to a contract with a community association, a CAM cannot withhold possession of the association’s official records or original books, records, accounts, funds, or other property of the association when requested in writing by the association to deliver the foregoing to the association upon reasonable notice. However, the CAM may retain those records necessary to complete an ending financial statement or report for up to 20 days after termination of the management contract. Additionally, a CAM cannot (i) deny or delay access to association official records to an owner, or his or her authorized representative, who is entitled to inspect and copy the association’s official records within the timeframe and under the applicable statutes governing the association; (ii) create false records or alter the official records of an association or of the CAM except in such cases where an alteration is permitted by law (e.g., the correction of minutes per direction given at a meeting at which the minutes are submitted for approval); or (iii) fail to maintain the records for a CAM, management firm, or the official records of the association as required by the applicable statutes governing the association.

How do you know if your association requires a licensed community association manager? Pursuant to §468.431, Florida Statutes, if the association has 10 or more units or has a budget of $100,000 or more and the person is conducting one or more of the following activities in exchange for payment, the person must be a licensed CAM:

  1. controlling or disbursing funds of a community association
  2. preparing budgets or other financial documents for a community association
  3. assisting in the noticing or conduct of community association meetings
  4. determining the number of days required for statutory notices
  5. determining amounts due to the association
  6. collecting amounts due to the association before the filing of a civil action
  7. calculating the votes required for a quorum or to approve a proposition or amendment
  8. completing forms related to the management of a community association that have been created by statute or by a state agency
  9. drafting meeting notices and agendas
  10. calculating and preparing certificates of assessment and estoppel certificates
  11. responding to requests for certificates of assessment and estoppel certificates
  12. negotiating monetary or performance terms of a contract subject to approval by an association
  13. drafting pre-arbitration demands
  14. coordinating or performing maintenance for real or personal property and other related routine services involved in the operation of a community association, or
  15. complying with the association’s governing documents and the requirements of law as necessary to perform such practices.

However, a person who performs clerical or ministerial functions under the direct supervision and control of a CAM or who is charged only with performing the maintenance of a community association and who does not assist in any of the management services described above is not required to be licensed.

So, whose fault is it when things go awry? A CAM’s role is far different than that of a rental complex manager who often has decision-making authority. The CAM does not have that same type of decision-making authority. The CAM must take direction from the board and perform pursuant to the obligations set out in the management agreement and Florida law. It is the board of directors of the community association that actually makes the decisions. So, while the uninformed might blame the CAM, you now know that the buck stops with the board of directors. If you have further questions regarding a CAM’s responsibility, then please discuss this with your association’s lawyer.

Tags: ,