Lake Management: Lake Turnover and Fish Kills The science behind it….
|
|
|
Become a Member: JOIN SFPMA TODAY LogIn / Register: LOGIN/REGISTER
Find Blog Articles for Florida’s Condo, HOA and the Management Industry.
|
|
|
The installation and maintenance of lakes, ponds, and wetlands while taking care of cleanliness in your environment are very important these days. The restoration of living shorelines is a creative and productive technique to save water areas from erosion. Erosion is a natural process in which forces of nature such as water or wind crumble and transfer earthen materials to several other areas. The restoration technique actually includes the installation of wetlands plants, grasses, a thick sheet of algae, shrubs, and trees at areas of marine boundaries. This technique involves experts and the careful placement of bio-engineering materials to protect nearby areas of vegetables and soil.
View our services we offer to Homes, HOA’s, Condo’s and the Marine Industry
The contractors of local lakes and ponds for the restoration process, International Subsea Solution Services, have over 20 years of experience in the field. Whether it is demolition or restoration, every related service is offered by our well-experienced local team. We provide our services in areas of Florida in a fast and easy manner. Our professional pond and lake management services company is legally approved by the installation contractor for Dredge Sox Erosion Solutions. Wetland protection and shoreline restoration services are served by the high-quality products and materials of Dredge Sox. The materials used by our company make and restore banks into perfect-looking living shorelines. We have worked on managing several projects for which clients gave great feedback to our team.
Over twenty years of experience in construction inclusive of shoreline pipeline installations and shallow / deep water ROV and diving operations. Experienced in Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) of pipelines to include land based excavations associated with such HDD methodology. Marine construction including pile driving and new wharf installations. Installation of Bio-Engineered “Living Shorelines” through out the costal areas providing solutions for your erosion needs.
Which to Use
Imagine this scenario: you are on the board of directors of your association. The association has repeatedly requested that an owner pressure wash their dirty roof to bring it into compliance with the community standards, but the owner refuses to do so. The association has already sent a number of demand letters and even levied a fine and perhaps a suspension of use rights, too, but the owner still will not comply. What is the association’s next step?
OR
Assume that the association’s declaration contains both the permissive “self-help” remedy and the right to seek an injunction from the court that orders the owner to clean their roof or else be in contempt of court. Thus, it would appear the association has a decision to make: (i) go to court to seek the injunction; or (ii) enter onto the owner’s property, pressure clean the roof, and assess the costs to the owner. Not so fast! Recent case law from Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal affirmed a complication to what should be a simple decision, discussed in greater detail below.
In two cases decided 10 years apart, Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal decided that an association did not have the right to seek an injunction to compel an owner to comply with the declaration if the declaration provided the association the authority to engage in “self-help” to remedy the violation. Prior to a discussion of the cases, a brief explanation of legal and equitable remedies is necessary.
There is a general legal principle that, if a claimant has a remedy at law (e.g., the ability to recover money damages under a contract), then it lacks the legal basis to pursue a remedy in equity (e.g., an action for injunctive relief). In the association context, a legal remedy would be to exercise the “self-help” authority granted in the association’s declaration. An equitable remedy would be to bring an action seeking an injunction to compel an owner to take action to comply with the declaration (e.g., compelling the owner to pressure wash their roof). A court will typically only award an equitable remedy when a legal remedy (such as “self-help”) is unavailable, insufficient, or inadequate.
This distinction is first illustrated in Alorda v. Sutton Place Homeowners Association, Inc., 82 So. 3d 1077 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). In Alorda, the owners failed to provide the association with proof of insurance coverage as required by the declaration. The association sent multiple demand letters to the owners, but they failed to comply. The declaration provided, in pertinent part, that “[t]he owner shall furnish proof of such insurance to the Association at the time of purchase of a lot and shall furnish proof of renewal of such insurance on each anniversary date. If the owner fails to provide such insurance the Association may obtain such insurance and shall assess the owner for the cost of the same in accordance with the provisions of this Declaration” (emphasis added). In accordance with the foregoing, the association had the option to purchase the insurance on behalf of the owners and assess them for the costs of same.
However, the association chose instead to file a complaint against the owners seeking the equitable remedy of injunctive relief, asking the court to enter a permanent mandatory injunction requiring the owners to obtain the required insurance coverage. The owners then filed a motion to dismiss the suit arguing that even though they had violated a provision of the declaration, the equitable remedy of an injunction is not available because the association had an adequate remedy at law. In other words, the owners argued that, because the association could have, pursuant to the declaration, undertaken the ”self-help” option by purchasing the required insurance and assessing it against the owners, they had an available legal remedy and, therefore, the equitable remedy sought (a mandatory injunction) was not available to the association. The court, citing to a different case, Shaw v. Tampa Electric Company, 949 So.2d 1006 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), explained that a mandatory injunction is proper only where a clear right has been violated, irreparable harm has been threatened, and there is a lack of an adequate remedy at law. As the association had an adequate remedy at law (the authority to purchase the insurance on behalf of the owners), the third requirement was not met. Therefore, the court held that the association failed to state a cause of action and dismissed the case. (This case might be decided differently today as it appears the insurance marketplace will not permit an association to purchase insurance for a unit that it does not own, so the legal remedy presumed available to the association would be inadequate).
Similarly, in the recent case of Mauriello v. The Property Owners Association of Lake Parker Estates, Inc., Case No. 2D21-500 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022), Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal considered the award of attorneys’ fees after the dismissal of the association’s action for an injunction. Ultimately, the court held that the owners were the prevailing party as the association could not seek an injunction because the association had an adequate remedy at law. In Mauriello, the owners failed to maintain their lawn and landscaping in good condition as required by the declaration. As such, the association filed a complaint seeking a mandatory injunction ordering the owners to maintain the lawn and landscaping in a “neat condition.” The association’s declaration contained similar language to the declaration at issue in Alorda. The declaration provided that, if an owner failed to perform any maintenance required by the declaration, the association, after written notice, “may have such work performed, and the cost thereof shall be specifically assessed against such Lot which assessment shall be secured by the lien set forth in Section 9 of this Article VI” (emphasis added). In other words, the association had the permissive “self-help” authority pursuant to the declaration.
The facts of this case were complicated by the sale of the home in the middle of the suit. The new owners voluntarily brought the home into compliance with the declaration, and the case became moot. However, the parties continued to fight over who was entitled to prevailing party attorneys’ fees. The association argued it was entitled to prevailing party attorneys’ fees because the voluntary compliance was only obtained after the association was forced to commence legal action. The owners, citing Alorda, argued that they were entitled to prevailing party attorneys’ fees as the association’s complaint never stated a cause of action in the first place. They argued that the complaint should have been dismissed at the outset because the association sought an equitable remedy (mandatory injunction) when a legal remedy was available to the association (exercise of “self-help” authority).
Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal agreed with the owners that Alorda was controlling. The Court explained that, as in Alorda, “the association’s declaration gave it the option of remedying the alleged violation itself, assessing the owner for the cost, and if the owner failed to pay, placing a lien on the property and foreclosing if it remained unpaid.” As such, the association had an adequate remedy at law and could not seek the equitable remedy of an injunction, which was initially sought by the association. Because the mandatory injunction was not available to the association, the association’s complaint failed to state a proper cause of action and, thus, should have been dismissed by the trial court at the outset. Therefore, the association was not entitled to its sought-after prevailing party attorneys’ fee award, which is otherwise granted if a party comes into compliance after the lawsuit is served.
Sections 718.303 (as to condominiums), 719.303 (as to cooperatives), and 720.305 (as to homeowners associations), Florida Statutes, contain similar language that specifically authorizes the association to bring actions at law or in equity, or both, in the event an owner fails to comply with the governing documents of the association. However, neither the Court in Alorda nor the Court in Mauriello addressed the association’s statutory authority to bring an injunction against an owner who fails to comply with the requirements of the declaration, but rather found that the association must use the “self-help” remedy since it was available to cure the violation.
Notwithstanding the Alorda and Mauriello decisions rendered by Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal, past appellate court decisions from other appellate jurisdictions in Florida have permitted community associations to pursue claims for injunctive relief against violating owners so long as a violation of the restrictive covenant is alleged in the complaint. As such, the Alorda and Mauriello cases appear to be departures from the established principle. Additionally, as both decisions came from Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal, the decisions are certainly binding on those associations within the jurisdiction of the Second District, but there has been no indication that other districts will follow suit. However, there is risk that other appellate district courts may be persuaded by the holdings of Alorda and Mauriello.
As such, if your association’s declaration contains a “self-help” provision, and your association chooses to seek an injunction against an owner rather than pursue “self-help,” the board should definitely discuss the issue in greater detail with the association’s legal counsel prior to proceeding.
Tags: Law and Legal, Management News
|
Shawn G. Brown, Esq., BCS from our Tampa location will answer your questions live on Zoom!
RSVP Free HERE
The theme for this Lunch & Learn is Association Operations. Topics to include Cyberstalking & Defamation in Community Associations.
Be sure to ask a question on the registration form, and it may be picked to be addressed live. Shawn will also take questions live, during the discussion!
Click below to apply to team Falcon today!
Tags: SFPMA Members NewsHOA debt collection and community association management are two very highly-regulated industries. Between sweeping federal regulations like the FDCPA, state statutes dictating operational and communication requirements, local city or county rental ordinances, and of course, individual community governing documents, there is a lot of governance in the HOA and condo association world.
This abundance of legislation can make it hard for board members to know what steps they’re allowed to take (and when!) regarding HOA debt collection.
When an owner goes delinquent on their HOA dues, the community usually has a security interest and the ability to foreclose and take limited title to a property. Before they exercise the security interest, and even before they can send a unit into collections, there are specific steps that must be taken. These steps are called “Condition Precedent.”
A condition precedent is defined as “a condition or an event that must occur before a right, claim, duty, or interest arises.” In plain English, certain tasks must be completed before an anticipated action can occur (like a collection effort). You can’t take a vacation until you’ve saved up enough money, right? Same concept.
If your management team does not get the condition precedent right, then your HOA or condo association cannot send a file to collections. Period, end of story. So these are very important steps of the collections process.
Condition precedent can vary widely depending on what part of the country you are in and what other legal restrictions your community is under. This will mostly depend on where your HOA or condo association is located, but it can also be impacted by what your own governing documents state.
Some states require a host of steps that need to be taken before a community association can move a file to a collection agency. Some of these steps include but are not limited to:
While this list covers many common condition precedent requirements, every state will vary. If your association misses a step, it could very well mean that you will lose any progress you’ve made and be bumped back to step one. Community association management firms should understand what their communities are expected to do legally before sending a unit into collections.
Axela Technologies has a team of experts who understand all of the condition precedent steps needed and can help educate on this exact matter. Whether you’re a management company looking to help your associations stay on track, or a board of directors seeking out HOA debt collection assistance, Axela can help.
When you are ready to recover your money, avoid the hassle and get a professional to help. Click here for a free, no-risk consultation with an Axela collections specialist.
United Security Inc. (USI) provides contract security solutions and investigation services to a select group of vertical markets. For the past 30 years, USI has created safe, secure environments for commercial and government employees and customers by investing in our people, innovation and relationships. USI is committed to delivering:
For the past 30 years, USI has created safe, secure environments for commercial and government employees and customers by investing in our people, innovation and relationships. As engaged, owner-operators, our investment begins with recruitment and screening to ensure we have the right people and continues through our policies and practices that enable USI to properly train and retain the best personnel.
USI is engaged in supporting your security and business by developing customized security solutions that support your business objectives while cost-effectively minimizing risk. Clients receive continuous support from a highly responsive team of professionals including owners, management, field supervisors and officers. Our commitment to quality includes field inspections and audits, as well as investments in innovative solutions for continuous training and compliance.
John Libby
Regional Manager
407-675-7960
United Security, Inc
http://www.usisecurity.com
ACRYFIN® is a highly rated product from both commercial and residential consumers and holds an A rating from the Better Business Bureau. It is also certified as Eco-Friendly. Additional benefits of utilizing ACRYFIN®, an acrylic polymer coating, to restore, renew, and revitalize your outdoor surface area are the following:
ACRYFIN® is an industrial strength acrylic polymer coating that can be applied to many surfaces including wood and concrete. From full service marinas, restaurants, and beach boardwalks to any residential area; no job is too big or too small!
Lets chat: Contact us for a quote for your property today.
Tags: Painting Service Articles
SOME OTHER NEW LAWS CONDOS MUST FOLLOW – PART TWO
By Eric Glazer, Esq.
DISTRIBUTION OF THE INSPECTION REPORTS
Upon completion of a phase one or phase two milestone inspection and receipt of the inspector-prepared summary of the inspection report from the architect or engineer who performed the inspection, the association must distribute a copy of the inspector-prepared summary of the inspection report to each unit owner, regardless of the findings or recommendations in the report, by United States mail or personal delivery and by electronic transmission to unit owners who previously consented to receive notice by electronic transmission; must post a copy of the inspector-prepared summary in a conspicuous place on the condominium property; and must publish the full report and inspector-prepared summary on the association’s website, if the association is required to have a website.
THE DEVELOPER’S TURNOVER REPORT
Notwithstanding when the certificate of occupancy was issued or the height of the building, the developer must provide a milestone inspection report in compliance with s. 553.899 included in the official records, under seal of an architect or engineer authorized to practice in this state, and attesting to required maintenance, condition, useful life, and replacement costs of the following applicable condominium property common elements comprising a turnover inspection report:
POWERS OF THE DIVISION
So let’s say the developer is ignoring all of these new safety laws. Does the DBPR have any power to do anything about it?
(1) The division may enforce and ensure compliance with this chapter and rules relating to the development, construction, sale, lease, ownership, operation, and management of residential condominium units and complaints related to the procedural completion of milestone inspections under s. 553.899.
However, Once The Developer Has Turned Over…
(2) However, after turnover has occurred, the division has jurisdiction to investigate complaints related only to financial issues, elections, and the maintenance of and unit owner access to association records under s. 718.111(12), and the procedural completion of structural integrity reserve studies under s. 718.112(2)(g).
So………..if your Board ignores these new safety laws and you want to do something about it…..it’s off to court.