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. 

DECONSTRUCTING THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT A Plain English Explanation by Kaye Bender Rembaum

DECONSTRUCTING THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT A Plain English Explanation by Kaye Bender Rembaum

  • Posted: Dec 19, 2021
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on DECONSTRUCTING THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT A Plain English Explanation by Kaye Bender Rembaum

DECONSTRUCTING THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT A Plain English Explanation

by Kaye Bender Rembaum /  Rembaum’s Association Roundup

If your community association has engaged the services of a contractor, engineer, architect, or other construction or design professional to perform a maintenance, repair, replacement, or capital improvement project, you know the process can be overwhelming. No matter the mad rush to execute the contract as soon as possible, when beginning such projects, no matter how big or small, the board needs to ensure the contract adequately protects the association. Even the smallest of projects can have unexpected, disastrous consequences. A few of the more common provisions which every board member should understand follow.

The Indemnity Provision

In today’s extremely litigious world, it is important that your association does what it can to protect itself against unforeseen claims that can arise out of the contractor’s performance of the work. For example, assume a crane fell on the building being repaired, the contractor accidentally damaged the elevator shaft, or worse still, a life is lost. An indemnity provision provides that the contractor will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the association from and against claims arising out of or resulting from the performance of the work by the contractor or any of its employees, subcontractors, suppliers, etc.

Indemnification provisions can be tricky to understand. The general contractor, engineer, and design professionals (aka the architect) may seek to avoid and/or cap their overall liability. Even a small contract can have significant consequences if the negligence of the contractor causes significant damage or injury.

Rarely does the inclusion of a single word have disastrous consequences; however, a recent trend we have seen in many contracts is the contractor requiring the indemnity obligation to be limited only to damage caused by the contractor’s “sole” negligence. As events which cause loss or damage rarely occur by the “sole” actions of an individual, this provision significantly diminishes the contractor’s responsibility to indemnify the association. The association should look out for any indemnity provision which provides that the contractor is only responsible to indemnify for its “sole” negligence. Without getting into too much complexity, Florida is a “contributory negligence” state. This means each party is responsible to satisfy a judgment against them in proportion to their responsibility for the blame. So, if the contractor is found to be 33 percent responsible for an accident, then it pays 33 percent of the final judgment award. But, if the contract indemnity provision required sole negligence, the contractor would pay nothing at all because the accident was not “solely” caused by the contractor. Youch!

Another trend we see is the contractor limiting its liability to damage caused by its “gross negligence,” which by definition excludes “simple negligence.” As a brief explanation, simple negligence is when a person fails to take reasonable precautions that any prudent person would take in similar circumstances and their actions cause harm (for example, a driver who runs a stop sign and causes an accident). Gross negligence is extreme indifference or reckless disregard for the safety of others (for example, driving 100 mph in a parking lot and injuring a pedestrian). As any claims arising out of the work are likely to result from the contractor’s simple negligence, this heightened standard is not favorable to the association.

If the contractor is insistent on limiting its liability, the association may consider limiting the contractor’s indemnification obligation to the maximum payable under the contractor’s insurance policy. This way, the contractor is not on the hook for unlimited liability, but the association has some decent protection as claims can be covered up to the maximum amount payable under the insurance policy. However, in the event of a catastrophic loss or casualty event, even the amount payable under the insurance policy may not be enough to protect the association.

In addition to these limitations, “design professionals” have the added benefit of statutory authority to further limit their liability in a contract (they must have better lobbyists). Section 558.0035, Florida Statutes, provides a procedure by which a design professional can exclude any “individual liability” for damages resulting from negligence occurring within the course and scope of a professional services contract. In other words, the design professional will not be personally liable to the association for any negligence in its design if the contract includes a provision that excludes such personally liability. Section 558.002(7), Florida Statutes, defines a “design professional” as a person who is licensed in the state of Florida as an architect, landscape architect, engineer, surveyor, geologist, or a registered interior designer. Therefore, if your association is contracting with any of the foregoing design professionals, you will likely need to negotiate this provision.

You should also be aware that disputes over the enforceability of the indemnification clause do not automatically include prevailing party attorneys’ fees unless the indemnification provision specifically provides that, in the event of a dispute concerning the applicability of the indemnification, the prevailing party must be indemnified for their attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses incurred in enforcing their right to be indemnified.

Insurance Provisions

To ensure there are sufficient funds to satisfy an indemnity judgment in favor of the association, it is important that the association require the contractor to carry certain minimum insurance. Therefore, the contract should contain a clause which provides that the contractor will maintain such general liability insurance as will protect the contractor and the association from claims that may arise out of or result from the contractor’s operations under the contract documents in the amounts set out in the contract. Additionally, the association should ensure that the contractor obtains sufficient workers’ compensation coverage.

There are a couple of terms with which you should be familiar:

  • Certificate Holder: The certificate holder is merely entitled to the proof of insurance, nothing more. When the policy holders have their insurance agents issue a certificate of insurance to the entity that hired the contractor to do the work, that entity becomes a certificate holder. It is simply the contractor’s way of saying, “I have insurance.” Certificates show that the contract has the insurance policies in the limits shown on such certificate. It also provides that the certificate holder is entitled to know if the policy lapses.
  • Additional Insured: An additional insured is provided the same coverage and rights under the policy as the named insured. In other words, when you become an additional insured, you are entitled to the same insurance protections as the original policy holder. Therefore, in the event of loss, the association may file a claim on the contractor’s policy through its status as an additional insured.

Thus, the contract should not only require that the contractor carry insurance but also provide that the contractor is obligated to provide a certificate of insurance evidencing the insurance coverage and containing an endorsement listing the association as an “additional insured.”

In addition to the insurance requirements for the contractor, your association may consider purchasing builder’s risk insurance for the project. Builder’s risk insurance is designed to protect the owner of a construction site from loss and damage. This should be further discussed with the association’s insurance agent.

Paying the Contractor

During a major construction project, the association’s contractor will likely be working with several subcontractors to complete the work. The process for payments in such projects is set out in §713.13, Florida Statutes. (For a more detailed discussion on the construction payment process, you can read my prior article, “Construction Progress Payments: The Hidden Trap,” at rembaumsassociationroundup.com, originally published in the Florida Community Association Journal, February 2020 edition.)

By way of brief explanation, when the project commences, the association records a “Notice of Commencement” identifying the contractor and the legal description of where the work is being performed. The purpose of the Notice of Commencement is to inform all subcontractors and suppliers that if they intend to provide goods and/or services to the property, and if they want to have proper legal standing to record a lien against the property in the event they are not paid, the subcontractor and/or supplier must serve a “Notice to Owner” to the association. The Notice to Owner informs the association of all subcontractors working under the general contractor and all suppliers who provide suppliers and materials to the job site.

In exchange for payments to the general contractor, the general contractor provides the association with “partial payment affidavits” for each payment and a “final payment affidavit” upon conclusion of the work at hand. The subcontractors and suppliers provide the association “partial releases” for the payment received from the general contractor using the general contractor as the delivery conduit to deliver the partial release to the association. This method ensures that subcontractors and suppliers cannot later claim that they were not paid. However, in order to ensure this protection, it is important that the contract requires the contractor to provide the subcontractors’ and suppliers’ partial releases contemporaneously with the association’s progress payment. With the partial releases in hand, in the event the contractor does not pay the subcontractors and suppliers, the association is fully protected.

Some general contractors insist on providing the association with the partial releases from the subcontractors and suppliers one payment behind. This should be a red flag to your association because it means if the contractor fails to pay the subcontractors and suppliers after receiving payment from the association, the association will still have to pay the subcontractors and suppliers. In such event, the association will end up having to pay twice for all or part of the same work.

Prevailing Attorney’s Fees

Another important consideration is the prevailing party attorneys’ fees provision of the contract. An attorneys’ fee provision generally provides that in the event of litigation to enforce the terms of the contract, the prevailing party is entitled to recover their attorneys’ fees. However, this provision must be carefully worded to ensure that your association will be able to recover its attorneys’ fees.

Termination

Most contracts provide that the association may terminate the contract for cause. The termination for cause provision should include examples of conduct by the contractor which would entitle the association to terminate the contract for cause. In addition to termination for cause, we recommend the inclusion of a “without cause” termination provision. This provision gives the association an out in the event the contractor is not working out, but the contractor’s conduct does not rise to the level which would allow dismissal for cause.

Generally, if an association terminated an agreement without good cause, and unless otherwise spelled out in the contract, the contractor would likely be entitled to approximately 15 to 22 percent of the contract price for its anticipated lost profit and overhead.

Payment and Performance Bonds

Another way the association can protect itself is by requiring the contractor to obtain “payment and performance bonds,” which are most often purchased together as a set. While doing so typically adds three to five percent to the total contract price, it is well worth it. In addition, if the contractor is not able to provide such a bond because the bonding companies will not bond the contractor, it is very telling because not every contractor is bondable.

A “performance bond” is a surety bond issued by a bonding company or bank to guarantee the satisfactory completion of the work by the contractor. It acts to protect the association in the event the contractor fails to complete its contractual obligations.

A “payment bond” guarantees the contractor will pay all laborers, material suppliers, and subcontractors engaged by the contractor for the work. In the event the association pays the contractor, but the contractor fails to pay the laborers, material suppliers, and/or subcontractors, the surety will step in to pay same.

Force Majeure

Many contracts contain force majeure language which provides that the parties will not be responsible to the other if they are unable to fulfil the terms of the contract due to events beyond the control of the parties. Most often, a force majeure event adds delay to the targeted project completion date and avoids claims for breach of contract due to the delay. Such events may be acts of God, flood, fire, hurricanes, war, invasion, terrorist acts, government order or law, actions, embargoes, or blockades, etc. Of late, for reasons that need no explanation, pandemics are added to this list, too.

The above discussion is not meant to be all inclusive. There are so many other important provisions to consider, but space is limited. To ensure your association is protected, the association should always rely on its legal counsel to review the association’s contracts and make the necessary revisions to assist in the  protection of the association.

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

Happy Holidays from all of us at Kaye Bender Rembaum

 

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

Find us on the Members Directory and Sponsors of SFPMA

Tags: , ,
We are House of Floors – family owned and operated since 1989. “We don’t just sell flooring, we sell service”.

We are House of Floors – family owned and operated since 1989. “We don’t just sell flooring, we sell service”.

  • Posted: Dec 14, 2021
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on We are House of Floors – family owned and operated since 1989. “We don’t just sell flooring, we sell service”.

We are House of Floors – family owned and operated since 1989. “We don’t just sell flooring, we sell service”

Brothers in Business.
It is truly a blessing to be a part of a successful family business that has been doing it for over 30 years. So here is a weird statistic: if you were to line up the amount of flooring in square feet that House of Floors’ has installed, it would reach to the Moon and back 5 times. The number reason for our success is we put the client first. We, as a family, have unanimously agreed to put the client first!! This is one of the pillars of our success.

https://www.houseoffloorsweb.com/

 

Proud of our hard working installation crews who are dedicated to supporting Property Managers throughout Florida. Our culture is built on pride of customer service. At House of Floors we are just one spoke in the wheel for our Property Management clients.

 

Wishing our friends, clients, vendors, and all our associates a peaceful and relaxing holiday.

 

Also Owners of Flash Restore.

Flash Restore

844-Flash-24

Flash provides Fire, Water and Mold Mitigation and Remediation and we do it right every time.

At Flash we have developed a unique set of Standard Operating Practices that are supported by a strong back office team, and well trained field technicians. It is imperative that we perform the highest-quality work, and just as important that we can prove our work to our customer. A Scope and Estimate are always provided for review, communication and documentation begins as soon as we get eyes on a job, and daily progress updates are sent each day of an open job. Finally, each job performed by Flash is documented in detail in our Evidence Documentation Packet (EDP) (Remote owners especially appreciate this process).

Success is best measured by customers that request additional work, refer Flash to others and/or are willing to commit to longer term relationships. The feedback and response from Property Managers, Insurance Carriers, Hygenists/Assessors and Homeowners have been overwhelmingly positive. We’re different, and we’ll prove it.

Once a water-related emergency occurs, it’s critical to act quickly. Water moves fast and does incredible damage and remember water will flow until something stops it. Once it hits a surface like a wall, molding, or the foundation, it starts to fill up, and it can wick up into drywall, wood, and plaster in a matter of hours. That’s why it is critical to contact the professionals at Flash Restore as soon as possible. They are always available, even in the middle of the night. Remember, the more time that passes, the more damage that can occur.

Tags:
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: ,
Legal: Comcast of Florida LP v. L’Ambiance Beach Condominium Association, Inc.

Legal: Comcast of Florida LP v. L’Ambiance Beach Condominium Association, Inc.

  • Posted: Dec 13, 2021
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Legal: Comcast of Florida LP v. L’Ambiance Beach Condominium Association, Inc.

Comcast of Florida LP v. L’Ambiance Beach Condominium Association, Inc.

17 So.3d 839 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)

By: Jay Roberts, Esq.

The ability for condominium associations to terminate certain contracts using a statutory procedure is at the heart of THIS CASE. In 2002, Comcast of Florida, L.P. (“Comcast”) entered into an agreement with the condominium developer (on behalf of the Association) that granted Comcast an easement to install cables and offer cable television services to residents at a bulk-discount rate. Every unit owner received and paid for the cable service as part of a monthly maintenance fee. The termination provision in the agreement stated it would be subject to the conditions and regulations required under Chapter 718, Florida Statutes. Following turnover from the developer to the unit owners, the Association voted to terminate the agreement and sent written notice to Comcast in accordance with F.S. 718.302.

Section 718.302, Fla. Stat. (2002), provided in part:

(1) Any grant or reservation made by a declaration, lease, or other document, and any contract made by an association prior to assumption of control of the association by unit owners other than the developer, that provides for operation, maintenance, or management of a condominium association or property serving the unit owners of a condominium shall be fair and reasonable, and such grant, reservation, or contract may be canceled by unit owners other than the developer:
(a) … the cancellation shall be by concurrence of the owners of not less than 75 percent of the voting interests other than the voting interests owned by the developer….

After receiving notice of the termination, Comcast refused to open the distribution lock boxes. Ultimately, Comcast sued for declaratory and injunctive relief for breach of contract and trespass. Before a hearing was held, the Association hired another provider to rewire the building and provide services to all residential units. The trial court ruled in favor of the Association. On appeal, Comcast argued that F.S. 718.302 did not apply to Comcast’s services, because the contract was not one for operation, maintenance, or management of the condominium as required under the statutory language.

On appeal the Fourth District Court of Appeal found that the agreement explicitly required Comcast to operate and maintain the wires and lock boxes it had installed. The Court also noted that under F.S. 718.115(1)(d), the cost of cable television service obtained pursuant to a bulk rate contract is deemed a common expense. In light of the fact that the agreement provided for a cable television service, and that the cost was part of a monthly maintenance fee, and that Comcast was required to service and maintain the cable television, the Court concluded that the agreement was one for “operation, maintenance, or management” subject to F.S. 718.302 (NOTE: the 2021 version of this statute is substantially the same as the 2002 version).

So why does THIS CASE matter? The Florida Condominium Act provides various rights to condominium associations which become effective upon turnover of the association from developer-controlled to unit owner-controlled, including, but not limited to, the ability to terminate certain contracts. It is vital for associations which recently have undergone turnover to discuss the various rights which accrued on the date turnover with the association’s legal counsel.

Tags: ,
DEVELOPERS ARE ON THE PROWL

DEVELOPERS ARE ON THE PROWL

  • Posted: Dec 08, 2021
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on DEVELOPERS ARE ON THE PROWL

DEVELOPERS ARE ON THE PROWL

by Condo craze @HOAs

I got a call this week from The Sun Sentinel.  They asked if I had heard about the prominent developer who approached the owners of the other Champlain Towers buildings that are still standing, offering to buy out all of their units.  I had not, but I’m not surprised in the least about it.  In fact, it’s going to be happening more and more.  Developers are going to be approaching lots of owners in condominiums that are distressed.

Why approach the owners in the remaining Champlain Towers condominiums?  I’m sure the developer is thinking that these owners may now have a hard time selling their condo units on the open market because there may not be many buyers interested in purchasing a unit in a condominium by that name.  The Champlain Towers will forever be remembered as the building that collapsed and where nearly a hundred innocent people died.  I think the developer is right.  It will be tough to sell your units in the remaining Champlain Towers condominiums.

The truth is……if that’s the case…and it is next to impossible to now sell your condo unit in these buildings, the developer can look like a knight in shining armor, if the price they offer is fair and reasonable.  It may very well make sense for the owners to seriously consider the developer’s offer.  At the remaining Champlain Towers buildings, the developer’s offer is contingent upon 95% of the owners agreeing to sell to the developer.  If less than 95% of the owners agree to sell, the deal is off the table.  That’s because if at least 5% of the owners vote against a plan of “termination” the developer’s plan to “terminate” the condominium, knock it down and build a more expensive one fails.  So, the developer needs to acquire at least 95% to ensure their plan succeeds.

We know that it’s about to get more expensive to live in a condominium because it looks like it will become more difficult to waive reserves and buildings will be undergoing more frequent inspections.  Repairs will be needed more than ever before which means money will be needed like never before.  When unit owners don’t have the money or don’t want to spend the money on a building that’s already old, rest assured that developers will be there ready to make an offer to everyone so that the property can be bought, knocked down, rebuilt and sold.

Over the last few years the law has made it more difficult to terminate a condominium.  As a result of the tragedy at The Champlain Towers I certainly expect the pendulum to swing back the other way.  Terminations will become easier.  Developers will use their eyes and airs searching for the most vulnerable properties, meaning the ones that will require the greatest cost to repair.  The laws regarding termination continue to evolve, but if I am a developer I may want to be cautious about buying units in a condominium that requires 100% of the owners to agree to termination and that does not have Kaufman language or “as amended from time to time” language.  In these types of condominiums, one owner who refuses to sell may wind up screwing up the developer’s grand plans.

 

Tags:
Financial Screening of Purchasers: How Far Is Too Far? by KBRLegal

Financial Screening of Purchasers: How Far Is Too Far? by KBRLegal

  • Posted: Dec 03, 2021
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Financial Screening of Purchasers: How Far Is Too Far? by KBRLegal

Financial Screening of Purchasers: How Far Is Too Far?

A few months back a case came before the county court in the 20th Judicial Circuit for Collier County, wherein a prospective buyer challenged the validity of a board-adopted rule which required that all prospective buyers provide two years of tax returns with their application for ownership approval. This requirement was in addition to the background check and credit check that were also required. While this is only a county court case and, therefore, has no precedential value other than to the parties themselves, there are principles addressed of which associations and managers should be aware; even though many learned attorneys would opine that the conclusions of the court are legally flawed under the facts of the case and, if appealed, would likely be overturned. Nevertheless, there are still nuggets of knowledge that can be gleaned from this case.

In this case, Mech v. Crescent Beach Condominium Association, Inc., Case No. 19-SC-3498, decided June 2020, the purchaser, who was the plaintiff, was seeking to buy a unit at Crescent Beach Condominium for $400,000, which was to be paid in cash. The purchaser purportedly had a clean background and a credit score of 800. Nonetheless, the board required that, like all other prospective purchasers at the condominium, this purchaser needed to produce his tax returns in order for the association to approve the transfer. The purchaser refused to provide his tax returns and cited his good credit score and clean background as evidence enough for approval. Eventually, an impasse was reached, and the purchaser canceled the contract. Then he brought the county court lawsuit challenging the requirement. (Generally speaking, typically under current Florida law, the purchaser would not have legal standing to even bring the claim against the association; but it does not appear that this legal infirmity was raised by the association, which allowed the case to proceed.)

The purchaser challenged the rule, arguing that the rule was not within the scope of the association’s authority to adopt, nor did it reflect reasoned decision-making. (It is noteworthy to point out that, after the initiation of the lawsuit, the association amended its declaration of condominium to provide that the association may require tax returns in an application for approval of a sale. However, this is not relevant to the conclusions of the Court in this case since it occurred after the litigation was filed.)

The association argued that the tax returns are necessary because they provide more information than a credit report and could help ensure that the potential purchaser is “a good credit risk.” The Court, however, did not agree, calling the argument “nonsensical.” The Court goes on to identify what this judge considers to be the best indicator of a person’s financial history, and as a result, it is the only information the association is allowed to seek. (We note that this conclusion is also without a stated legal basis.)

In the final judgment, some might argue that the Court goes way beyond what proper judicial consideration and conclusions typically contain and indicates that she could find “NO justification for the invasive requirement that a full, or even partial, return would be required when, in fact, the board already requires a full background check and credit check.” While no legal support for the conclusion was provided, the Court held that the request for tax returns was invasive and unnecessary and that the requirement was “shocking.”

The Court objected to the blanket requirement that applied to every applicant regardless of the results of their background and credit checks. Had the tax returns only been required when an applicant’s credit history showed a history of financial instability or delinquencies, the rule may have been upheld by the Court. How-ever, the Court held that “to take a position that ‘every person’ who applies to be a member at [the association] is patently unreasonable and shall be stricken.” Lastly, also without a legal basis or ability, the Court ordered the association to strike all reference in its condominium documents which require potential purchasers to produce tax returns unless the association can show good cause to request the information.

A brief discussion regarding the adoption of rules and regulations is necessary to highlight lessons that can be learned from this case. Generally, both condominium and homeowners association governing documents will typically provide that the board of the directors has the authority to adopt rules and regulations for the community. While some governing documents may contain restrictions requiring a membership vote to approve new rules, it is common for the governing documents to provide the board with the authority to adopt rules and regulations. (Careful review of the documentary authority for each community is recommended as some may limit the rule-making authority to common areas only and not to the residential property within the community.)  Although the board is generally authorized to adopt rules and regulations, those rules and regulations must not conflict with any provision expressly set out in the governing documents or reasonably inferred from them, and they must be reasonable. (This should be contrasted with covenants recorded in the County’s official records, which may be unreasonable and still be legally enforceable under long-standing Florida case law.)

In Beachwood Villas Condominium v. Poor, et. al., a 1984 Fourth District Court of Appeal (4th DCA) case  in which several owners challenged rules enacted by their association’s board of directors, the Court noted that there could be two sources of use restrictions: (i) those set out in the declaration of condominium and (ii) those adopted by the board. As to the use restrictions set out in the declaration, the court held that such restrictions are “clothed with a very strong presumption of validity,” as initially provided in Hidden Harbor Estates v. Basso (a 1981 4th DCA case).

In examining board-adopted rules, the court first must determine whether the board acted within its scope of authority—in other words, whether the board had the express authority in the documents to adopt the rule in the first place. If the answer is “yes,” the second question to determine is whether the rule conflicts with an express provision of the governing documents or one that is reasonably inferred. (If the documents are silent on an issue, the inference is that it is unrestricted. Adopting a rule to restrict a topic that the declaration is otherwise silent about would conflict with the inferred unrestricted use and therefore be unenforceable.)  If these first two issues are found to exist, the court will then determine if the rule is reasonable. The board’s exercise of its reasonable business judgment in adopting a rule is generally upheld so long as the rule is not “violative of any constitutional restrictions and does not exceed any specific limitations set out in the statutes or condominium documents.”

In examining your own board-adopted rules, ask the following:

  • Did the board have the power to adopt the rule?
  • Is the rule in accord with with the declaration, articles of incorporation, or bylaws?
  • Is the rule reasonable under the circumstances? (While ultimately only a court can make this final determination, the board should use its best judgment, with assistance of its counsel, to reach this decision.)

If the answer to these three questions is “yes,” then the rule should be found to be valid and enforceable by the court upon an owner challenge.

Ultimately, what can be gleaned from Mech v. Crescent Beach Condominium Association Inc. is that even if the association acts reasonably when adopting rules and even when amending the declaration, a lower court judge can reach almost any decision it wishes. Had the provision at issue only required tax returns when the background or credit checks revealed that the prospective purchaser had a history of financial irresponsibility, the provision may have withstood judicial challenge by this particular judge. Additionally, had the provision requiring tax returns been set out in the declaration before the initiation of the lawsuit, the outcome may have been different under existing, well-established case law.

Bottom line, whenever the board is considering new rules, it is recommended that the board consult with the association’s legal counsel before adopting them.

(Reprinted with permission from KBR Legal)

Jeffrey Rembaum’s, Esq. of Kaye, Bender, Rembaum attorneys at law, legal practice consists of representation of condominium, homeowner, commercial and mobile home park associations, as well as exclusive country club communities and the developers who build them. Mr. Rembaum is a Certified Specialist in Condominium and Planned Development Law. He is the creator of ‘Rembaum’s Association Roundup’, an e-magazine devoted to the education of community association board members, managers, developers and anyone involved with Florida’s community associations.  His column appears monthly in the Florida Community Association Journal. Every year since 2012, Mr. Rembaum has been selected to the Florida Super Lawyers list and was also named Legal Elite by Florida Trends Magazine. He can be reached at 561-241-4462.

Tags: , ,
There is plenty of time to let the community members know what the new monthly assessments will be for the coming year.

There is plenty of time to let the community members know what the new monthly assessments will be for the coming year.

  • Posted: Dec 02, 2021
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on There is plenty of time to let the community members know what the new monthly assessments will be for the coming year.

Budgets: Boards How are you doing?

Most community associations have their budget meeting in the month of November for the upcoming year.  By doing it in November there is plenty of time to print new coupon books and let the community members know what the new monthly assessments will be for the coming year.

In terms of notice, in a condominium the budget must be sent to the owners at least 14 days before the budget meeting.  In an HOA, The association shall provide each member with a copy of the annual budget or a written notice that a copy of the budget is available upon request at no charge to the member.

Don’t forget that in a condominium, in addition to annual operating expenses, the budget must include reserve accounts for capital expenditures and deferred maintenance. These accounts must include, but are not limited to, roof replacement, building painting, and pavement resurfacing, regardless of the amount of deferred maintenance expense or replacement cost, and any other item that has a deferred maintenance expense or replacement cost that exceeds $10,000.

Condo boards need to be well aware of the reserve requirement.  To be clear, the Board MUST send out a budget that includes fully funded reserves.  That is all they are required to do.  However, if they want to, they can give the owners the opportunity to vote for an alternative budget such as a budget that contains no reserves or partially funded reserves.  Remember that if a majority of a quorum of owners does not vote for a budget that does not contain full reserves, fully funded reserves shall go into effect.

In a post Champlain Towers world, I think things may be a little different this year.  I think lots of Board members will want to have fully funded reserves in their budget.  They don’t want to be short millions of dollars when the time comes, and it will, for millions of dollars in repairs.

Delinquencies are starting to pick up as well.  So, make sure you have a line item in your budget for “bad debt.”   For example, if your assessments are $6,000.00 per year and you’re pretty sure that 5 owners won’t pay  a dime, you should put $30,000.00 as an line item in your budget for bad debt.  That way you collect enough money to pay the bills.

Keep in mind that electricity prices are expected to rise 18%.  Also remember that some of your long term contracts may have clauses requiring automatic rate increases every single year.  F I still get the same question all the time…who passes the budget; the board or the unit owners? The answer is…the board and only the board.  Food prices are going up, the cost of materials are going up, electricity is going up, the cost of labor is going up, and worst of all, insurance rates for condominiums are simply skyrocketing, with some associations complaining that their rates have tripled.  So, all this means in no uncertain terms, that condo assessments are about to go up as well.  It also seems pretty clear that it will become extremely difficult if not impossible to waive reserves starting next year.  Yes, it’s about to get a lot more expensive to live in a condominium, especially if you were kicking the can down the road and always waiving reserves.  I don’t envy condo boards at their next budget meetings where they will be forced to tell the members of their community that their monthly assessments are about to go up, in fact way up.  Buckle up everyone in a condo, you’re in for a bumpy ride going forward.

 

Tags:
Natural Gas Fuel Stations by Becker Lawyers

Natural Gas Fuel Stations by Becker Lawyers

  • Posted: Dec 02, 2021
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Natural Gas Fuel Stations by Becker Lawyers

Natural Gas Fuel Stations

 BY  / of Becker

A few years ago, the Florida Legislature recognized that the use of electric vehicles conserves and protects the state’s environmental resources, provides significant economic savings to drivers, and serves an important public interest.  As a result, the Legislature created Section 718.113(8), Florida Statutes, to allow unit owners to install electric vehicle charging stations within the boundaries of the unit owner’s limited common element parking area.  During the 2021 legislative session, the Legislature expanded the statute to allow unit owners to also install natural gas fuel stations for a natural gas fuel vehicle.  The term “natural gas fuel” is any liquefied petroleum gas product, compressed natural gas product, or a combination of these products used in a motor vehicle. The term includes all forms of fuel commonly or commercially known or sold as natural gasoline, butane gas, propane gas, or any other form of liquefied petroleum gas, compressed natural gas, or liquefied natural gas. However, the term does not include natural gas or liquefied petroleum placed in a separate tank of a motor vehicle for cooking, heating, water heating, or electricity generation.

While the board may not prohibit a unit owner from installing an electric vehicle charging station or a natural gas fuel station within the boundaries of a limited common element or exclusively designated parking area, the board can impose certain requirements, including, but not limited to, a requirement that the electric vehicle charging station or natural gas fuel station must be separately metered or metered by an embedded meter and payable by the unit owner installing such charging or fuel station.

In addition to expanding the statute for natural gas fuel vehicles, the Legislature also amended the statute to give associations the authority to install or operate an electric vehicle charging station or a natural gas fuel station upon the common elements or association property as a common expense, and such installation does not constitute a material alteration to the common elements or association property.  As alternative fuel vehicles become more and more popular and as car manufacturers continue to transition away from gas vehicles, condominium associations now have the ability to add electrical vehicle charging stations and/or natural gas fuel stations on the common elements or association property to accommodate these new types of vehicles by a vote of the board of directors only.

Associations should take a proactive approach to this issue and consider adopting a policy for unit owner installed electric vehicle charging stations and/or natural gas fuel stations.  In addition, associations should start considering whether there are areas on the common elements or association property that would accommodate these installations by the association for the use of all owners as a common expense.

 

Tags: ,
Don’t Want Your Association to Be the Next Rental Community? by KBRLegal

Don’t Want Your Association to Be the Next Rental Community? by KBRLegal

  • Posted: Nov 16, 2021
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Don’t Want Your Association to Be the Next Rental Community? by KBRLegal

Don’t Want Your Association to Be the Next Rental Community?

Many community associations throughout Florida struggle to deal with the increase in overnight and short-term rentals caused by the proliferation of online websites such as VRBO and Airbnb. As such, many communities fear being turned into “rental communities,” especially with so many large corporations buying homes in the South Florida area for the express purpose of renting them. These transient rentals can present nuisance and safety issues and can easily change the composition of your community. The good news, however, is that there are steps your association can take to help protect the community from becoming the next transient rental community by having the necessary language in the declaration of restrictions, as further discussed below.

 

There are two types of restrictions which work together to help achieve this goal. First, corporate (or business entity) ownership must be fully addressed. Second, specific criteria for approval of purchasers, tenants, and occupants residing in the community for longer than 30 days (or such other time period) must be adopted. Finally, a brief discussion regarding the applicability of the statutory provisions set out in Chapter 718 of the Florida Statutes, more commonly referred to as the Condominium Act, and Chapter 720 of the Florida Statutes, more commonly referred to as the Homeowners Association Act, is in order.

 

To avoid ownership for purely investment purposes, an amendment to the declaration that prohibits ownership by a corporation, limited liability company, partnership, trust, or other entity or company should be considered. However, certain carve-outs are recommended to ensure that the owners can use these types of entities for their estate planning purposes, to ensure that the rights of mortgagees are not adversely affected, and to ensure the association still has the authority to purchase units as a result of foreclosure or in other appropriate circumstances. In addition to restrictions on ownership, the association can consider adopting an amendment restricting the number of units that can be owned by a person or entity.

 

The association must ensure that its authority to approve transfers of title to lots and units is not an “unreasonable restraint on alienation.” In other words, the association must have the express authority to deny transfers of title, and the restrictions on such sales must be reasonable.

 

In Aquarian Foundation v. Sholom House, 448 So.2d 1166 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal considered the validity of a condominium association’s transfer restrictions. In its analysis, the court noted that “restrictions on a unit owner’s right to transfer his property are recognized as a valid means of insuring [sic] the association’s ability to control the composition of the condominium as a whole.” The court explained that while an association can adopt restrictions on transfers, that right must be balanced with the individual owner’s right to transfer his property. In Aquarian Foundation, the association had the right to deny a sale “arbitrarily, capriciously, and unreasonably” with no obligation to provide an alternate purchaser in the event of such denial. The court held that the association’s authority to deny for any reason whatsoever without the obligation to provide an alternate purchaser was an unreasonable restraint on alienation. However, the court explained that while a condominium association has “considerable latitude in withholding its consent to a unit owner’s transfer, the resulting restraint on alienation must be reasonable.” Therefore, we can glean from this case that a provision authorizing the association to approve or disapprove transfers is acceptable where the restraint is reasonable.

 

In 1993 Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal considered another challenge to an association’s approval authority. In Camino Gardens Association, Inc., v. McKim, 312 So.2d 636 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), the declaration prohibited the sale, lease, or occupancy of any lot in the subdivision to anyone other than a duly admitted member in good standing of the association. The court held that because the restriction prohibited transfer to anyone except existing owners, the restriction was an unreasonable restraint on alienation and was invalid.

 

In Coquina Club v. Mantz, 342 So.2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal considered an age restriction contained in the declaration (which was lawful at the time). The applicant did not meet the age requirement and was therefore “facially disqualified.” The court held that, in light of the facial disqualification, the association did not have an obligation to provide the otherwise required substitute purchaser.

 

In light of the foregoing case law, any provision which grants the association limitless power of denial is likely invalid. If the association has the right to deny a purchaser, but the declaration is void of any standards by which such decisions should be made, the restriction can still be easily found to be invalid. However, if the declaration requires the association provide a substitute purchaser or allows for denial based on “good cause,” the provision is likely valid and enforceable. If an association has the right to deny “for good cause,” then to withstand judicial scrutiny, the governing documents, preferably the declaration, should provide standards as to what “for good cause” means.

 

As discussed above, the first step is to ensure that the declaration provides authority for the screening and approval process. The second step is to ensure there is meaningful written criteria by which to evaluate prospective purchasers, tenants, and even occupants residing for longer than 30 days (or other time period). If the declaration contains general language for purchaser and tenant approval but does not provide the standards and procedures necessary to make such a decision, then the association’s approval authority is vulnerable to judicial challenge and likely faces an uphill and expensive court battle. The association may be interested in adopting criteria, allowing rejection based on “good cause,” such as the following:

 

  • A record of financial irresponsibility
  • A guilty plea or conviction of a crime of moral turpitude
  • A history of being a “bad tenant”
  • A false statement on the application
  • Failure to comply with the request of the board of directors for a personal interview

 

(Please note this abbreviated list was provided for example purposes only and should not be utilized by any association without consultation with the association’s lawyer as additional language is necessary.)

 

Providing specific written criteria on which the association can base its denial of a proposed sale, lease, or other transfer helps protect the association from claims that it is not acting reasonably in denying a transfer. However, before disapproving a proposed sale or lease, the association should be sure that the disapproval does not run afoul of the provisions of the Fair Housing Act at the federal, state, and county levels. The federal Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions, based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, and disability. State law and, sometimes, local ordinances provide additional protected classes.

 

While the authority to approve lessees is an important step, adopting additional leasing restrictions addressing the frequency and type of leases permitted in the community should also be included in the declaration if these issues are a concern for the community. Associations that would like to minimize the number of short-term leases might consider amendments to the declaration limiting leasing as follows:

 

  • No lot or unit may be rented or leased for a 12-month period (o longer) following the closing date (or date of recorded deed) of a sale of that lot or unit.
  • Owners are restricted to one rental or lease per calendar year.
  • After approval by the association, only entire lots or units can be rented, provided occupancy is only by the lessee and those individuals listed as occupants in the lease agreement.
  • No rooms may be rented, and no transient tenants may be accommodated.
  • No owner may list the owner’s lot or unit on any website (e.g., and without limitation, Airbnb, VRBO), print or online publication advertising the owner’s lot or unit for short-term rental
  • No lot or unit may be subleased.

 

Statutory provisions must be considered as well regarding whether a new lease restriction amendment will apply to all owners or only those who vote in favor of the amendment or who acquire title to their unit or home after the effective date of the amendment (these issues will need to be reviewed with association counsel). For instance, we note the following:

 

  • As to condominium associations, effective on October 1, 2004, the Florida legislature first adopted §718.110(13), which has since been amended, and this section provides that “[a]n amendment prohibiting unit owners from renting their units or altering the duration of the rental term or specifying or limiting the number of times unit owners are entitled to rent their units during a specified period applies only to unit owners who consent to the amendment and unit owners who acquire title to their units after the effective date of that amendment.”
  • As to homeowners associations, effective on July 1, 2021, the Florida legislature adopted §720.306 (1)(h) which provides that, “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this paragraph, any governing document, or amendment to a governing document, that is enacted after July 1, 2021, and that prohibits or regulates rental agreements applies only to a parcel owner who acquires title to the parcel after the effective date of the governing document or amendment, or to a parcel owner who consents, individually or through a representative, to the governing document or amendment. …Notwithstanding… an association may amend its governing documents to prohibit or regulate rental agreements for a term of less than 6 months and may prohibit the rental of a parcel for more than three times in a calendar year, and such amendments shall apply to all parcel owners.”

As you have likely discerned, the leasing restrictions of the Homeowners Association Act are broader than those set out in the Condominium Association Act. However, the real issue is whether these provisions apply to all associations that are already in existence or only to those that have adopted “Kaufman language” into their declaration and those declarations that are recorded after the effective date of the statute.

 

Kaufman language refers to having a provision in the declaration that it is subject to the relevant Chapter “as it is amended from time to time.” If the declaration contains such language, then there is no question that the statutory leasing provisions do apply. On the other hand, if there is no Kaufman language set out in the declaration, then what? There are those who take the position that these statutory leasing provisions are “procedural;” if so, then they would apply to an existing declaration. But, if the statutory leasing provisions are changing existing “substantive rights,” then, absent Kaufman language, the statutory provisions likely do not apply to the declaration at issue. By way of an oversimplified explanation, this is because the declaration is a contract, and the legislation in effect at the time a contract is executed is the law to which the contract is subjected.

 

Thus, we must ask the question, are the statutory leasing provisions disturbing existing substantive rights? Likely so, though it may take an appellate court decision to bring needed clarity. Clearly, this is an issue which must be discussed with the association’s legal counsel.

 

To ensure your association is properly protected against unwanted transient rentals, you should consult with association’s legal counsel who can review the governing documents to ensure necessary language is included and make recommendations to better protect the association from the likes of VRBO, Airbnb, and other short-term rentals, and at the same time shore up the association’s approval powers over owners, tenants, and occupants.