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. 

HOW DO YOU PROTECT YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE IF YOU LIVE OUT OF THE STATE OR COUNTRY? By Eric Glazer, Esq.

HOW DO YOU PROTECT YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE IF YOU LIVE OUT OF THE STATE OR COUNTRY? By Eric Glazer, Esq.

  • Posted: Mar 01, 2021
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on HOW DO YOU PROTECT YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE IF YOU LIVE OUT OF THE STATE OR COUNTRY? By Eric Glazer, Esq.

LOTS OF COMPLAINTS THIS YEAR ABOUT PEOPLE NOT GETTING THE CHANCE TO VOTE BECAUSE THE MAIL IS SLOW. HOW DO YOU PROTECT YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE IF YOU LIVE OUT OF THE STATE OR COUNTRY?

By Eric Glazer, Esq.

This year I am hearing the following complaint more than ever before: I live out of the state, or out of the country and I never received a ballot to vote in the election.

A little over a year ago I was involved in a case where many owners who lived in Finland did not get their ballots timely.  Instead of having their vote not count, someone who lived in the condominium e-mailed them the ballot.  These owners then took that ballot, placed it in a ballot envelope, placed that ballot envelope in another envelope and signed the exterior, and mailed it back to the association usually by overnight mail.  Some owners didn’t bother to use the interior ballot envelope.

The association didn’t want to count these votes.  The association also didn’t want to count the votes of owners who had their ballot envelopes dropped off by a neighbor, claiming that this was voting by proxy.

Read the attached opinion to find out how the arbitrator ruled.  It makes for interesting reading.  The bottom line…….if you’re out of town…..have the ballot e-mailed to you.

To read the case, click here.

 

About HOA & Condo Blog

Eric Glazer graduated from the University of Miami School of Law in 1992 after receiving a B.A. from NYU. He has practiced community association law for more than 2

decades and is the owner of Glazer and Sachs, P.A. a seven attorney law firm with offices in Fort Lauderdale and Orlando and satellite offices in Naples, Fort Myers and Tampa.

Since 2009, Eric has been the host of Condo Craze and HOAs, a weekly one hour radio show that airs at noon each Sunday on 850 WFTL.

See: www.condocrazeandhoas.com

He is the first attorney in the State of Florida that designed a course that certifies condominium residents as eligible to serve on a condominium Board of Directors and has now certified more than 10,000 Floridians all across the state. He is certified as a Circuit Court Mediator by The Florida Supreme Court and has mediated dozens of disputes between associations and unit owners. Eric also devotes significant time to advancing legislation in the best interest of Florida community association members.

Tags: , ,
A newly filed bill by Senator Jason Pizzo, SB 1490, could create a significant change in terms of an association’s ability to invest the community’s operating and reserve funds in depositories other than a traditional bank or savings and loan.

A newly filed bill by Senator Jason Pizzo, SB 1490, could create a significant change in terms of an association’s ability to invest the community’s operating and reserve funds in depositories other than a traditional bank or savings and loan.

  • Posted: Feb 26, 2021
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on A newly filed bill by Senator Jason Pizzo, SB 1490, could create a significant change in terms of an association’s ability to invest the community’s operating and reserve funds in depositories other than a traditional bank or savings and loan.

A newly filed bill by Senator Jason Pizzo, SB 1490, could create a significant change in terms of an association’s ability to invest the community’s operating and reserve funds in depositories other than a traditional bank or savings and loan. 

 

For years there have been significant legal constraints on a condominium association’s ability to use reserve funds. In addition to the statutory requirement to obtain membership approval for non-designated reserve usage, the prevailing school of thought was that association funds could not be invested since investments can and do fail.

A newly filed bill by Senator Jason Pizzo, SB 1490, could create a significant change in terms of an association’s ability to invest the community’s operating and reserve funds in depositories other than a traditional bank or savings and loan.

The bill provides as follows:

“Unless otherwise prohibited in the declaration, and in accordance with s. 718.112(2)(f), an association, including a multicondominium association, may invest any funds in one or any combination of investment products described in this subsection.”

If this bill passes and an association invests funds in any type of investment product other than a depository account, the association must meet all of the following requirements:

  1. The board shall annually develop and adopt a written investment policy statement and select an investment adviser who is registered under s. 517.12, F.S. and who is not related by affinity or consanguinity to any board member or unit owner. Any investment fees and commissions may be paid from the invested reserve funds or operating funds.
  2. The investment adviser selected by the board shall invest any funds not deposited into a depository account in compliance with the prudent investor rule in s. 518.11, F.S. It is important to note that the statutory prudent investor rule is a test of conduct and not resulting performance. Under this statute, no specific investment or course of action is, taken alone, considered prudent or imprudent. Instead, the investment adviser is deemed to be acting as a fiduciary and he or she may invest in every kind of property and type of investment, subject to that statute. The fiduciary’s investment decisions are evaluated on the basis of whether he or she exercised reasonable business judgment regarding the anticipated effect on the investment portfolio as a whole under the facts and circumstances prevailing at the time of the decision or action. Although the proposed statute requires that funds invested be subject to insurance under the Securities Investor Protection Corporation, it is important to note that this insurance is only there if the brokerage firm fails, not if the investment turns out to be ill-advised and loses the association’s money.
  3. The investment adviser shall act as a fiduciary to the association in compliance with the standards set forth in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 at 29 U.S.C. s. 1104(a)(1)(A)-(C).
  4. At least once each calendar year, the association shall provide the investment adviser with the association’s investment policy statement, the most recent reserve study report or a good faith estimate disclosing the annual amount of reserve funds which would be necessary for the association to fully fund reserves for each reserve item, and the financial reports.
  5. The investment adviser shall annually review these documents and provide the association with a portfolio allocation model that is suitably structured to match projected reserve fund and liability liquidity requirements. There must be at least thirty-six (36) months of projected reserves in cash or cash equivalents available to the association at all times.
  6. Portfolios managed by the investment adviser may contain any type of investment necessary to meet the objectives in the investment policy statement; however, portfolios may not contain stocks, securities, or other obligations that the State Board of Administration is prohibited from investing in under ss. 215.471, 215.4725, and 215.473, F.S. or that state agencies are prohibited from investing in under s. 215.472.

Lastly, the bill would exempt registered investment advisors from having their bids subjected to the competitive bidding requirements found in Section 718.3026, F.S.  The companion bill to SB 1490 is HB 1005 (Killebrew/Fine).

As more associations change their old habits and begin to fund reserves, the allure of more aggressive investment vehicles for these funds, which can be substantial amounts, is undeniable. However, the risk is also undeniable. As such, if this bill becomes law and the investment of reserves becomes available, boards are strongly encouraged to take an extremely cautious, measured approach with reserves.

While investment of your association’s operating and reserve funds might result in a substantially better return than a savings account, you might also see significant losses. The investment of association funds must be done with careful consideration of the demographic in your community, the age of your buildings and facilities, the required liquidity of your funds and, most importantly, the sensitivities and risk tolerance of your membership all taken into account. If your members fuss about your board’s landscaping decisions imagine the potential fallout if you make the wrong investment decisions!

 


Very truly yours,

Donna DiMaggio Berger, Founder & Executive Director
Community Association Leadership Lobby
Tags: , , ,
DBPR reminds you that hurricane season is just around the corner. free hurricane guide

DBPR reminds you that hurricane season is just around the corner. free hurricane guide

  • Posted: Feb 25, 2021
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on DBPR reminds you that hurricane season is just around the corner. free hurricane guide

DBPR reminds you that hurricane season is just around the corner. We have produced a free hurricane guide

preparedness before a storm hits and offers tips and resources for what to do after a storm has made landfall.

Download here: http://bit.ly/2Jcfwp0

Tags:

Keeping Politics Out of Your Community Association by Becker

Keeping Politics Out of Your Community Association by Becker

  • Posted: Feb 22, 2021
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Keeping Politics Out of Your Community Association by Becker

Keeping Politics Out of Your Community Association

by Becker / Donna DiMaggio Berger | 09.15.2020

 

Not surprisingly, the chatter about whether or not political signs should be permitted in private residential communities has increased as we draw closer to the elections in November.

Let’s first discuss whether or not an owner in a Florida HOA has the “right” to install signs. The short answer is “no” with one exception. FL homeowners’ associations can prohibit all types of signs other than one security sign located ten or fewer feet from the entrance to the home. All other signs including “For Sale” signs, signs installed by vendors doing work at a home, seasonal and congratulatory greetings and political signage may be prohibited IF the board determines that doing so is in the best interests of the community. Naturally, if the members disagree with their board’s decisions they may decide not to re-elect that board in the future.

Some owner signs enhance a community’s charm including seasonal greetings, and in the time of Covid, the congratulatory yard signs letting neighbors know of a child’s accomplishments when a traditional party could not take place. However, other signs cause concern. Many boards dislike the posting of “For Sale” signs as an abundance of those signs may send the wrong signal to both residents and potential purchasers.

And, it goes without saying that political signs these days are capable of igniting deep fractions inside residential communities. One school of thought is that some people’s sensitivities should not dictate others’ ability to promote their political candidate of choice.

The other school of thought associated with political signs is that they do not belong inside a private residential community where they can do more harm than good. The advocates for keeping politics out of communities believe that one’s political ideology is more productively expressed through monetary donations, volunteering for a campaign and/or waging war on social media sites to one’s heart’s content.

Some owners maintain that their constitutional rights are being trampled if their association denies them the right to install a political sign or political flag. In fact, you need a state actor to be the entity violating one’s First Amendment rights in order to mount a sound constitutional argument. In Florida, condos and HOAs have not been found to be state actors so prohibiting political signs and political flags is possible either through a recorded covenant or a board rule if the board has rule-making authority under the governing documents. In the case of Quail Creek Prop. Owners Association, Inc. v. Hunter, 538 So. 2d 1288, 1289 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1989), the Second District Court of Appeal found that an association’s sign restriction was not unconstitutional as “neither the recording of the protective covenant in the public records, nor the possible enforcement of the covenant in the courts of the state, constitutes sufficient “state action” to render the parties’ purely private contracts relating to the ownership of real property unconstitutional.”

Some boards choose to regulate the number and size of political signs and political flags as well as how long they can remain in place. However, when it comes to wording on those signs and what may or may not be considered offensive that requires a more in-depth analysis which some boards understandably wish to avoid. After much debate, many communities simply decide that political signs are best left outside their communities.

The place you call home should be a respite from the world and respites often don’t involve contentious political signage next door.

 

Tags: ,
Legal Morsel | Court Concludes That Mistakes on a Claim of Lien Does Not Invalidate the Claim by BY ROBERT KAYE, ESQ., B.C.S

Legal Morsel | Court Concludes That Mistakes on a Claim of Lien Does Not Invalidate the Claim by BY ROBERT KAYE, ESQ., B.C.S

  • Posted: Feb 22, 2021
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Legal Morsel | Court Concludes That Mistakes on a Claim of Lien Does Not Invalidate the Claim by BY ROBERT KAYE, ESQ., B.C.S

Legal Morsel | Court Concludes That Mistakes on a Claim of Lien Does Not Invalidate the Claim

by BY ROBERT KAYE, ESQ., B.C.S

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal recently provided a ruling regarding the ability of a homeowner’s association to successfully complete a foreclosure for unpaid assessments when there was an error in the amount indicated as being owed on the claim of lien.  In the case of Pash v. Mahogany Way Homeowners Association, Inc., Case No. 4D19-3367, January 27, 2021, the Appellate Court was faced with the challenge of a lower court ruling in favor of the homeowner’s association in which the homeowner, Mr. Pash, had claimed that the amount indicated on the claim of lien was overstated from what was owed.  The record also reflected that the homeowner’s association admitted that it made a mistake in its calculation of the assessments on the lien but corrected the amount when it filed the foreclosure case.  It was not disputed that some assessments were delinquent when the foreclosure case began.

In a split decision, a majority of the Court focused on the requirements of Section 720.3085(1)(a) of Florida Statutes, as well as the provisions of the Declaration of Covenants for the Community.  The Statute provides the following:

To be valid, a claim of lien must state the description of the parcel, the name of the record owner, the name and address of the association, the assessment amount due, and the due date.  The claim of lien secures all unpaid assessments that are due and that may accrue subsequent to the recording of the claim of lien and before entry of a certificate of title, as well as interest, late charges, and reasonable costs and attorney fees incurred by the association incident to the collection process.  The person making payment is entitled to a satisfaction of the lien upon payment in full.

While the case was reversed for other reasons, the majority of the Court stated that “Nothing in section 720.3085(1)(a) suggests that the claim [of lien] must be free of error for it to serve as an otherwise valid claim of lien.”  The Court also concluded that the statute, as written, does not provide that an error in the amount stated in the claim of lien invalidates an otherwise valid claim by an association.  Rather, the Court indicated that the association is merely asserting “a claim” in the lien and the association remains obligated to prove its claim in order to prevail in its case and homeowners have the ability to contest the claim made.

The Florida Condominium Act contains substantially the same provision as set forth above in Section 718,116(5)(b) F.S.  Consequently, it is anticipated that a lower court would likely apply the conclusions of this case to a condominium association foreclosure case.

It remains to be seen whether this holding is going to be viewed as an anomaly or will be followed by the remaining District Courts in Florida.  Notwithstanding this easing of the perception of association requirements on this point, it remains the recommendation that all collection efforts by associations be fully documented to a “zero” balance on the specific homeowner account to minimize any possible adverse conclusion in an assessment foreclosure case.  Legal counsel familiar with community association law should be involved to assist in the formal collection efforts against any homeowner.

 

 

Tags: , , ,
An Introduction to HB 969: Florida’s Proposed Data Privacy Law by Becker

An Introduction to HB 969: Florida’s Proposed Data Privacy Law by Becker

  • Posted: Feb 18, 2021
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on An Introduction to HB 969: Florida’s Proposed Data Privacy Law by Becker

An Introduction to HB 969: Florida’s Proposed Data Privacy Law

Jack S. Kallus | Becker Lawyers
Client Advisory

 

Yesterday, House Bill 969 titled Consumer Data Privacy was introduced as a potential new law to protect the personal data of Florida consumers. Governor Ron DeSantis’ stated goal for the bill is to “safeguard the privacy and security of consumer data.”

The bill is intended to give consumers more control over the personal information that businesses routinely collect and may even sell to third parties. Many of the basic rights under the new bill mirror that of the California Consumer Privacy Act passed in 2018 (CCPA). Like the CCPA, HB 969 attempts to secure new privacy rights for Florida consumers. If you are a Florida resident, you may ask businesses to disclose what personal information they have about you and what they do with that information as well as the right to request a business delete and to not sell your personal information. Consumers will also have the right to be notified, before or at the point businesses collect personal information, about the types of personal information being collected and what the business may do with that information. Generally, businesses will not be able to discriminate against you for exercising your rights under HB 969.

As stated above, the consumer will be provided the right to request that businesses disclose what personal information they have collected, used, shared, or sold about the consumer, and why they collected, used, shared, or sold that information. Businesses must provide a consumer with this information for the twelve-month period preceding the request and must provide the information free of charge.

If passed, HB 969 would require businesses to inform consumers about certain information being collected at the time of collection. Businesses would be required to inform consumers about:(i) categories of personal information collected; (ii) specific pieces of personal information collected; (iii) sources from which the business collected personal information; (iv) purposes for which the business uses the personal information; (v) categories of third parties with whom the business shares the personal information; and (vi) categories of information that the business sells or discloses to third parties.

If the business sells consumers’ personal information, then the information at collection must include a “Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information” link. The information of consumer rights must also contain a link to the business’s privacy policy, where consumers can get a description of the business’s privacy practices and of their privacy rights.

 

A Florida consumer may also request that businesses stop selling their personal information (“opt-out”). With some exceptions, businesses cannot sell your personal information after they receive an opt-out request unless later provide authorization allowing them to do so again. Businesses must respect the consumer’s decision to opt-out for at least twelve months before requesting that the consumer authorize the sale of the consumer’s personal information. Businesses can offer consumers financial incentives in exchange for collecting, keeping, or selling personal information. However, businesses cannot use financial incentive practices that are unjust, unreasonable, coercive, or usurious in nature.

After discovering what personal information is collected, used, shared or sold a consumer may request that a business delete the personal information collected and to tell their service providers to do the same. However, there are many exceptions that allow businesses to keep personal information. Businesses must respond to a request to delete within 45 calendar days and can only extend that deadline once by another 30 days (75 days total) if they notify the consumer.

Consumers may be worried about retaliation for exercising rights under HB 969. However, the bill prohibits businesses from denying goods or services, charging a different price, or providing a different level or quality of goods or services just because a consumer exercised rights under the proposed law. Businesses also cannot make the consumer waive these rights, and any such contract provision is unenforceable.

What happens if a business violates HB 969? What rights are given to the consumer? Much like the CCPA, HB 969 only provides a private cause of action against a business if there is a data breach, and even then, only under limited circumstances. A consumer can sue a business if their nonencrypted and nonredacted personal information was stolen in a data breach as a result of the business’s failure to maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect it. If this happens, the consumer can sue for the amount of monetary damages actually suffered from the breach or up to $750 per incident. An important aspect of the proposed law is that it does not provide for prevailing party legal fees.

For all other violations of HB 969, only the Department of Legal Affairs (“Department”) can file an action. If the Department has reason to believe that any business is in violation and that proceedings would be in the public interest, the Department may bring an action against such business and may seek a civil penalty of not more than $2,500 for each unintentional violation or $7,500 for each intentional violation. Such fines may be tripled if the violation involves a consumer who is sixteen years of age or younger. A business may be found to be in violation if it fails to cure any alleged violation within 30 days after being notified in writing by the Department of the alleged noncompliance.

The bill also contains other provisions outlining who is protected under the bill, what is considered personal information, data retention and biometric information rules and procedures for businesses to follow. We will publish additional articles exploring these provisions and expand on the information addressed in this article. In addition, we will explore the importance of Florida enacting a well-balanced privacy law which does not act as an anchor for businesses and appropriately protects the rights of Florida consumers.

 

Tags: , ,
COVID-19 Best Practices for Community Associations with US Congressman TED Deutch Presented by KWPM & Kaye Bender & Rembaum

COVID-19 Best Practices for Community Associations with US Congressman TED Deutch Presented by KWPM & Kaye Bender & Rembaum

  • Posted: Feb 16, 2021
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on COVID-19 Best Practices for Community Associations with US Congressman TED Deutch Presented by KWPM & Kaye Bender & Rembaum

COVID-19 Best Practices for Community Associations with US Congressman TED Deutch

Feb 17, 2021 03:00 PM

Presented by KWPM & Kaye Bender & Rembaum

KWPM Executive Director Tim O’Keefe host this live, monthly webinar offering a dynamic landscape that addresses best practices for HOAs and Condo Associations, provides updates and features guests who offer insight into the industry.

This week’s panel of experts:
*US Congressman Ted Deutch, FL-22
*Attorney Jeffrey Rembaum, Partner with Kaye, Bender, & Rembaum
*Attorney Michael Bender, Partner with Kaye, Bender, & Rembaum

Register Today

Feb 17, 2021 03:00 PM
Mar 17, 2021 03:00 PM
Apr 21, 2021 03:00 PM
May 19, 2021 03:00 PM
Jun 16, 2021 03:00 PM
Jul 21, 2021 03:00 PM
Aug 18, 2021 03:00 PM

Time shows 

Tags: , ,
Discriminatory Practices: Is Your Association Prepared? by KBR Legal

Discriminatory Practices: Is Your Association Prepared? by KBR Legal

  • Posted: Feb 12, 2021
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Discriminatory Practices: Is Your Association Prepared? by KBR Legal

Discriminatory Practices: Is Your Association Prepared?

by Kaye Bender Rembaum

On September 26, 2016, Rembaum’s Association Round Up published an extremely important article regarding a community association’s potential liability when allegations by one member accuse another member of a discriminatory practice. (Click HERE to view the 2016 article). On September 13, 2016, HUD made clear that a housing provider is responsible for discriminatory practices that may take place. In its Rules and Regulations set out in Chapter 24, Part 100 of the Code of Federal Regulations, effective which further interprets the Federal Fair Housing Act, HUD explained that it believes that, “we are long past the time when racial harassment is a tolerable price for integrated housing; a housing provider is responsible for maintaining its properties free from all discrimination prohibited by the Act.” Those regulations became effective on October 14, 2016.

In this author’s opinion, HUD went way too far by mandating that housing providers act as the investigator, police, judge and jury in cases of alleged discrimination. After all, there are countless Fair Housing offices in each state where complaints can be filed and are actively investigated, often times with only a bare inference. Community association board members are volunteers with no required special training other than to be “certified” within 90 days of taking office, which certification can be met by signing a one-page form acknowledging duties or taking a two-hour class. Neither the individual board members nor the community as a whole should have to bear liability for its board of directors not taking action in a neighbor to neighbor dispute. Afterall, the court room is the proper setting where such matters should be resolved.

In the January 25, 2021, edition of the Palm Beach Post reporter Mike Diamond Special to Palm Beach Post USA TODAY NETWORK, authored an article titled “Judge Won’t Dismiss HOA Religious Bias Suit.” In the article the judge was quoted as follows: ““the La-Grassos [the plaintiff’s] have plausibly alleged a claim against the association for its failure to respond to or seek to control Ms. Tannenholz’s allegedly discriminatory conduct.” Amongst other things, the allegation is that Tannenholz’s told La-Grassos, “you do not belong in a community that is 80% Jewish and that La-Grassos should “move the F… out and go to a white supremist community.”

 

But for HUD’s position that a housing provider can have liability for discriminatory practices of the residents it is unlikely the association would be a defendant in this lawsuit. By forcing housing providers, such as Florida’s countless condominium, homeowners’ and cooperative associations, to interject themselves into what should be private disputes amongst neighbors, HUD is providing the deepest of pockets to the plaintiff’s attorneys. At the end of the day, it is just another reason to sue the innocent community association to create liability where there should not be any in the first place.

Practical Tip no. 1: In light of this lurking danger, be sure to check in with your association’s insurance agent to be sure the association has proper liability coverage for accusations of discrimination.

Practical Tip no. 2: Also, given that there can even be personal liability in such actions, board members would be wise to speak to their own personal insurance agents too… Afterall you never know when that umbrella policy may come in handy. Remember this, too: if one board member has knowledge about an event, then such knowledge can be imputed to all board members as if they are all similarly aware. In other words, when one board member knows, then the association itself is on notice.

Practical Tip no. 3: Consider formally adopting a “no discrimination” type of rule. It could be as simple as “discrimination of any kind will not be tolerated”.

Practical Tip no. 4: If your association is made aware of an alleged discriminatory practice, then a written record of such allegation and the association’s efforts to remedy the situation should be made.

Be sure to discuss each and every alleged discriminatory practice brought to the attention of the board and/or its manager with the association’s attorney to obtain the proper guidance needed.

 

 

Tags: , , ,
Hosting Association Meetings via Zoom by KBRLegal.com

Hosting Association Meetings via Zoom by KBRLegal.com

  • Posted: Feb 08, 2021
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Hosting Association Meetings via Zoom by KBRLegal.com

Hosting Association Meetings via Zoom

by KBRLegal.com

 

What You Need to Know    

The most asked question of 2020 is this: Can our association host our board and annual meetings using Zoom or another similar virtual/electronic platform? There is no doubt that technology will always advance faster than legislation. In fact, advances in technology seem to take place in light speed whereM as advances in legislation seem to travel at the speed of your average turtle.

 

As to board meetings, §718.112(2)(b)5 of the Condominium Act provides, “A board or committee member’s participation in a meeting via telephone, real-time videoconferencing, or similar real-time electronic or video communication counts toward a quorum, and such member may vote as if physically present. A speaker must be used so that the conversation of such members may be heard by the board or committee members attending in person as well as by any unit owners present at a meeting.” Note that similar provisions are provided for cooperative associations in §719.106(1)(b)5 and in §617.0820 for homeowners’ associations.

 

As to virtual membership meetings, Chapter 617 Florida Statutes, applicable to all of Florida’s not-for-profit community associations, provides in §617.0721(3) that if authorized by the board of directors, and subject to such guidelines and procedures as the board of directors may adopt, members and proxy holders who are not physically present at a meeting may, by means of remote communication participate in the meeting and be deemed to be present in person and vote at the meeting if the corporation implements reasonable means to verify that each person deemed present and authorized to vote by means of remote communication is a member or proxy holder; and the corporation implements reasonable measures to provide such members or proxy holders with a reasonable opportunity to participate in the meeting and to vote on matters submitted to the members, including an opportunity to communicate and to read or hear the proceedings of the meeting substantially concurrent with the proceedings. If any member or proxy holder votes or takes other action by means of remote communication, a record of that member’s participation in the meeting must be maintained by the corporation in accordance with §617.1601. [emphasis added]

 

In addition, the Condominium, Homeowners Association, and Cooperative Acts (Chapters 718, 720, and 719, Florida Statutes, respectively), provide that members have a right to speak during board and membership meetings (more on that below). In fact, each of the Acts also provide that board members can even communicate, but not make decisions, via email. Rule 61B23.001(2) of the Florida Administrative Code provides, in relevant part, that “all unit owners have the right to attend and observe all meetings of the board…” With this limited guidance as our backdrop, let’s ask the question slightly differently.

 

Can our association host our board and annual meetings via Zoom or another electronic platform so long as all members have their opportunity to speak at the relevant times and all other statutory requirements are followed, such as a speakerphone in the designated meeting location for condominium association board meetings? The answer, simply put, is “yes,” you can.

 

It is extremely important when planning on hosting the meeting through a Zoom-type platform that you think ahead about the implications. The type of vote that will occur at any membership meeting must be carefully considered. For example, what if there is an election and members have not yet opted to vote electronically? Provisions must be made to gather ballots up to the closing of the balloting at the membership meeting and for write-in candidates, too, as applicable (in a homeowners association type setting). Instructions must also be clearly provided to the members letting them know how the votes will be counted and ensuring the membership that they can observe the entire tabulation of the voting process. For example,

 

Dear Members, In accordance with s. 720.316, Florida Statutes, in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the Association’s members, except for the members who volunteer to assist with the tally of the ballots (along with the man- agement team and the Association’s legal counsel), there will be NO in-person attendance at the annual meeting. Although there will be no in-person atten- dance, the annual meeting will be broadcast through Zoom (online video conf- erencing) for those who wish to remotely attend and observe the annual meeting, including the tallying of ballots. You may join the Zoom meeting at the appointed time by using the following link in your web browser: ___________ or through the Zoom ap- plication on your smart phone or tablet with Meet- ing ID: __________ and entering the following Password: ___________.

 

Since we are on the subject of board and membership meetings and we are in “election season,” as it is affectionally referred to, let’s take a quick look at meeting notice requirements, eligibility, and terms for board of directors, vacancies, election disputes, and a members’ right to speak.

 

BOARD MEETING NOTICE REQUIREMENTS

 

Pursuant to §718.112(2)(c)1, 719.106(1)(c), and 720.303(2)(c), Florida Statutes, notice of a meeting of the board must be posted in a conspicuous place on the property at least 48 continuous hours preceding the meeting, unless the governing documents of the association require additional notice. However, notice of meetings of the board at which regular or special assessments against unit owners or at which amendment to the rules regarding unit use will be considered must be mailed, delivered, or electronically transmitted to the owners and posted conspicuously on the property not less than 14 days before the meeting. Remember, too, electronic transmission is only permitted if the owner provides prior written consent.

 

As discussed in more detail below, for annual meetings of the membership where an election will be held, the notice requirements for condominium and cooperative associations differ from the requirements for homeowners associations. However, for other meetings of the members, unless a homeowners association’s bylaws provide differently, the notice requirements are the same. Pursuant to §718.112(2)(d)3 and 719.106(1)(d), Florida Statutes, notice of a meeting of the membership must be given to each owner and posted in a conspicuous place on the property at least 14 days before the meeting. For homeowners associations, pursuant to 720.306(5), Florida Statutes, notice of meetings of the members must be given 14 days prior to the meeting, unless the bylaws provide differently. For meetings of the members where an election will be held, pursuant to §718.112(2)(d)4 and 719.106(1)(d)1, Florida Statutes, the first notice of the annual meeting of the membership must be sent to the members at least 60 days prior to the meeting, and the second notice must be provided at least 14 days to the members and posted conspicuously on the property at least 14 days in advance before the meeting. For homeowners associations’ annual meetings, notice must be provided at least 14 days before the meeting unless the bylaws provide differently pursuant to §720.306(5), Florida Statutes.

 

ELIGIBILITY AND TERMS FOR BOARD OF DIRECTORS

 

The eligibility requirements for board members are set out in §718.112(2)(d)2, 719.106(1)(a), and 720.306(9)(b). Pursuant to the foregoing, a person who is delinquent in the payment of any fine, fee, or other monetary obligation to the association is not eligible to be a candidate for the board. Additionally, any person who has been convicted of a felony is not eligible to serve on the board unless the person’s civil rights have been restored for at least five years. With the passage of Amendment 4, voting rights were restored to people convicted of a felony. It is unclear what impact Amendment 4 will have on the restrictions to eligibility for board members.

 

Additionally, condominium associations should be aware that §718.112(2)(d)2 was amended to provide that a board member may not serve more than eight consecutive years unless approved by two-thirds of all votes cast in an election or if there are not enough eligible candidates to fill vacancies on the board. However, this provision applies prospectively, which means the clock did not start until the law went into effect on July 1, 2018. Additionally, this only prohibits eight consecutive years of service. If a board member has a break in service, then the clock would begin again.

 

For condominium and cooperative associations with 10 or more units, co-owners of units are not eligible to serve on a condominium board unless they own more than one unit or unless there are not enough eligible candidates. This is not applicable to homeowners associations.

 

Governing documents may provide that you must be an owner to serve on the board, but generally they cannot establish other eligibility requirements, such as residency requirements.

 

VACANCIES

 

In the event of a vacancy on the board, pursuant to §718.112(2)(d)9, 719.106(1)(d)6, and 720.306(9)(c), unless the bylaws provide otherwise, the vacancy may be filled by the affirmative vote of a majority of the remaining directors, even if the remaining directors constitute less than a quorum, or if there is only one director remaining. In the event there is only one director remaining on the board, that director can choose to appoint people to fill all of the vacancies.

 

ELECTION DISPUTES

 

Election disputes for condominium, cooperative, and homeowners associations are handled by the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Florida Condominiums, Timeshares, and Mobile Homes (the “DBPR”) through mandatory arbitration in accordance with §718.1255(1), 719.1255, and 720.311(1), Florida Statutes. Pursuant to §718.112(2)(d)4.c, 719.106(1)(d)1.a, and 720.306(9)(a), any challenge to an election must be brought within 60 days after the election results are announced. Additionally, a board member cannot be subject to a recall when there are 60 or fewer days until a scheduled election, or when 60 or fewer days have not elapsed since the election of the board member sought to be recalled.

 

MEMBER PARTICIPATION

 

Members have a right to speak at meetings of the membership. Pursuant to §718.112(2)(c) and 719.106(1)(d)4, Florida Statutes, members of condominium and cooperative associations have the right to participate in meetings of the unit owners with reference to all designated agenda items. Pursuant to §720.306(6), members of a homeowners association have the right to speak with reference to all items opened for discussion and all items included on the agenda. In other words, in a homeowners association, members can speak on any matter that was opened for discussion, even if the matter was not listed on the agenda for the meeting. Additionally, §720.306(6), Florida Statutes, provides that a member must be allowed at least three minutes to speak on any item.

 

Members also have a right to speak at meetings of the board of directors. [Pursuant to §718.112(2) (d)7 and 719.106(1)(c), Florida Statutes, members of condominium and cooperative associations have a right to speak at board meetings with reference to all designated agenda items. Pursuant to §720.303(2)(b), members have a right to speak at a board meeting with reference to all designated items.]

 

In all instances condominium, cooperative, and homeowners association boards are authorized to adopt reasonable rules governing frequency, duration, and other manner of member comments for the board and membership meetings. To make the member comments more meaningful, consider permitting them after the board fully discusses each item, prior to voting, and prior to moving on to the next item.

 

It is recommended you consult with your association legal counsel on the adoption of reasonable rules to ensure your virtual/electronic meetings run smoothly while also ensuring that they are in compliance with the association’s governing documents, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code.

 

 

Tags: ,
A group of Tampa Bay lawmakers have filed a series of bills to support tenants facing eviction during the COVID-19 pandemic.

A group of Tampa Bay lawmakers have filed a series of bills to support tenants facing eviction during the COVID-19 pandemic.

  • Posted: Feb 01, 2021
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on A group of Tampa Bay lawmakers have filed a series of bills to support tenants facing eviction during the COVID-19 pandemic.

A group of Tampa Bay lawmakers have filed a series of bills to support tenants facing eviction during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

A group of Tampa Bay lawmakers have filed a series of bills to support tenants facing eviction during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Sen. Darryl Rouson filed SB 412 and SB 926 in an effort to address eviction records and housing insecurity. 

The Residential Tenancies bill, SB 412, would help address housing insecurity by referring matters of eviction to mediation in circuit courts with established mediation programs. It would also remove the requirement for the tenant to deposit money owed during eviction proceedings into the court registry.

“Our state should be utilizing mediation to discuss options for tenants and landlords prior to the eviction proceeding,” Rouson said at a press conference Monday. 

Rep. Fentrice Driskell filed the Senate’s companion bill HB 481


The related bill, Eviction Records (SB 926), would allow for defendants to move to seal their eviction record if the court finds they were adversely affected by COVID-19. The bill would apply to eviction complaints filed after March 1, 2020.
“What we’re really trying to do here, to put it very plainly, is to help level the playing field and make sure that we can slow it down a bit so that we can hear the facts,” Driskell said.

The goal: to prevent future landlords from refusing to rent to tenants adversely impacted by COVID-19. 

“Nothing is more sacred than adequate shelter, safe and secure housing, particularly during a health crisis,” Rouson said. “We allow records to be expunged and sealed for criminal offenses. Why not for the unfortunate situation of an eviction so that people can truly get a clean, start.” 

Rep. Dianne Hart filed the companion bill for eviction records, HB 657. 


During Monday’s press conference, Rouson emphasized that nearly 180 families a day are being evicted from their homes in Florida.
“Even with a moratorium in place many people were not spared from the process of losing their homes,” Hart said. “Even though these circumstances were not within anyone’s control, once you have an eviction on your record, it is exceedingly difficult to find another landlord willing to give you an opportunity to rent.”

“This is not a partisan issue. The landlord does not ask your party affiliation when he begins an eviction process,” Rouson said. “No one likes going through an eviction process, why not have mediation, to discuss options between landlords and tenants when people are unable to pay and afford the rent.”

Eviction-related bills spurred by the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic have been coming in hot to the Florida legislature. 

In early January, Sen. Shevrin Jones filed a bill, SB 576, which would prohibit landlords from refusing to enter into a rental agreement with a prospective tenant solely based on an eviction that occurred during the pandemic.

Back in December, the passage of the $900 billion federal relief package allocated about $1.4 billion in rental relief assistance to Florida.

But, without protection from the state, which let its eviction moratorium expire in September, more tenants may face evictions come March 31 — a deadline extended by the CDC.

A National Low Income Housing Coalition report found that Florida has the second highest eviction risk rate across the country. The report found that 15.6% of Florida renters were at risk of eviction in the two months following December, compared to a national risk of eviction rate of 8.4%.

Tags: , ,