SFPMA

Menu
Register / Sign Up

Welcome to SFPMA

Reset

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

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

S2E38 – A Tribute, Tough Truths, and Condo Realities (Aired 11/3/24)

S2E38 – A Tribute, Tough Truths, and Condo Realities (Aired 11/3/24)

578 views Streamed live on Nov 3, 2024

This week’s show is dedicated to Eric’s late mother-in-law, Linda, honoring her courageous five-year battle with cancer. We also dive into essential updates on Florida’s mandatory condo laws, and discuss the challenges of selling units amidst an oversupply. Plus, we spotlight PD Concrete’s impressive work and touch on the critical importance of voting in the upcoming election.

As always, we’ll be taking your calls on whatever topic you need answers to or whatever you need to get off your chest.

Call in with your questions & comments or ask them in the live YouTube chat! (717) 452-9378

 

Keep up to date with new topics for Condo and HOA Communities each week on Condo Craze & HOAs every Thursday on YouTube 

The next show:

Condo and HOA Elections: Are You Making These Costly Mistakes?

This Sunday on Condo Craze and HOAs, Eric and Karen dive into a critical topic for every Florida association: election season! With the national elections behind us, it’s time to focus on your community’s elections and ensure the process runs smoothly. We’ll cover the essential steps, from sending out the first notice 60 days in advance to handling candidate information sheets and voting certificates. Eric will highlight common mistakes—like incorrect deadlines, missing documents, and improper ballots—that could force costly do-overs.

As always, we’ll take your calls on any topic you need answers to, or anything you need to get off your chest live in the chat or call in at 717-GLAZER8. Don’t miss it.

 

Tags:
DOS AND DON’TS OF ELECTION CHALLENGES by Rembaum’s Association Roundup

DOS AND DON’TS OF ELECTION CHALLENGES by Rembaum’s Association Roundup

  • Posted: Nov 04, 2024
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on DOS AND DON’TS OF ELECTION CHALLENGES by Rembaum’s Association Roundup

DOS AND DON’TS OF ELECTION CHALLENGES

Rembaum’s Association Roundup

Pursuant to their relevant statutory provisions, election disputes that take place in condominium, homeowners’, and cooperative associations are subject to mandatory nonbinding arbitration before the Division of Florida Condominiums, Timeshares, and Mobile Homes (the “Division,” for short). It is referred to as “nonbinding” because the arbitrator’s order is not final until 30 days after its issuance, which provides time for either party in the dispute to challenge the decision to their local circuit court, which hears the case de novo (anew).

As you will read, not every election dispute will be heard by the Division. As a threshold matter of importance, the Division will not hear election disputes within 60 days prior to an election or 60 days after the election has taken place. In order to bring an election challenge, Florida Statutes require prior written notice to the other party of the dispute, where a reasonable opportunity to correct the alleged error is provided, and it is clearly expressed that if the alleged error is not cured, an arbitration action will take place. In a prior arbitration case, it was held that providing only 10 days to cure the alleged defect in a pre-arbitration notice was insufficient. Therefore, it is suggested to provide more than 10 days opportunity to cure the alleged election defect prior to filing an action for arbitration.

Interestingly, the general rule is that to have standing to challenge election results, arbitration action must be brought by a candidate or an individual who was prevented from being a candidate.  The Division has even held that a member who was not a candidate did not have standing to challenge the election results that other persons should have been declared the winning candidates. While these arbitration decisions are not binding precedent, they are instructive and, if nothing else, useful in evaluating the best course of action.

In the context of condominium election challenges, there are three flaws that are typically “fatal” to the association, if committed. They are i) a substantive or serious defect in the first notice of election, ii) the failure to include a timely submitted candidate information sheet in the second notice of election, and iii) failure to include the name of each eligible candidate on the election ballot. While each of these can potentially be timely cured in advance of the election, if not, then they likely lead to a successful election challenge.

For example, failing to mail the notice of election to one or more owners or the failure of the first or second notice of election to accurately state the street address of the meeting have been considered as “fatal” flaws. Also, the failure to include a timely submitted candidate information sheet or failure to include the name of a candidate on the ballot have also been considered as  “fatal” flaws. However, so long as the election is re-noticed from the second notice of election, including all of the candidate and information sheets and/or also including the name of all of the candidates on the ballot, then such fatal flaws can be cured in advance of the election. In these instances there would be no further solicitation of candidates, but rather a rescheduling of the night of the election itself by sending a revised and corrected second notice of election at least 14 days prior to the election which would cure that defect. This amended second notice should clearly state the reason(s) for having to send the corrected notice.

It is important to note that while condominium association elections are strictly construed in accordance with relevant Florida Statutes, homeowners’ association elections occur in accordance with their governing documents. Therefore, whether the above fatal flaws have applicability to a homeowners’ association fully depends upon the style of election set out within the governing documents.

Arbitrators with the Division have held that a new election will have to be scheduled if  in the governing documents there is included a requirement that candidates be full-time residents of the state of Florida or even reside in their unit full time and such requirements were enforced during the election. Therefore, there cannot be a residency requirement of any kind for board members. Similarly, arbitrators have held that associations cannot require candidates to complete a criminal background check or even execute an acknowledgment that they are not a felon.

Contrary to popular belief, the relevant Florida Statutes do not require candidates to be members of a community association in order to run for the board of directors (often, “membership” is defined in the governing documents as being an owner of a parcel within the community). However, such requirements can be set out in the governing documents; but if such a requirement is not in the governing documents, then the board cannot disqualify a potential candidate because he or she is not an owner or member. This means that without such requirements specifically set forth in the governing documents of the association, any non-member, including tenants and occupants, are qualified to run for the board of directors. Therefore, if you desire to avoid such a circumstance, you should consult with legal counsel for your association regarding whether such requirements exist in the governing documents; if not, then you should consider preparing an amendment for the community to approve to ensure that only members who are actual members/owners of the association are qualified to run and serve on the board.

As to the first notice of election, notwithstanding any strict requirements set out in the first notice of election regarding where potential candidates must submit their notice of candidacy, it is not sufficient to exclude a candidate on the basis of the candidate  delivering his or her intent to be a candidate elsewhere so long as it is reasonable to conclude the association actually received notice of such candidate’s intent to run for the board. For example, a specific address could be required to mail the intent to run form, but the fact that a candidate hand-delivered such notice to a board member or manager would likely not be sufficient grounds to exclude the candidate.

Through a variety of arbitration decisions, the arbitrators have made clear that if the violation at hand would not have changed the results of the election, then the challenge will fail. For example, an association that improperly excluded several ballots due to perceived flaws with the outer envelope, which in fact were later held not to be flaws at all and which if counted would not have overturned the otherwise valid election results if the ballots were later included in the total count, would not have changed the result.

In other instances where numerous violations combine to clearly affect the reliability of the election results, then an election challenge may be valid. For example, where unit owners are permitted to cast ballots without inner envelopes, at least one owner was permitted to retrieve his ballot and change it, and nobody verified signatures on the outer ballot envelopes and where at least one unit owner was allowed to cast a ballot after the polls had already closed, then cumulatively the election results were determined to be  no longer reliable and a new election was required.

While the Division has promulgated condominium election rules in the Florida Administrative Code, it has not yet done so for homeowners’ associations. Therefore, the body of condominium arbitration decisions can provide some guidance; but for the most part, when examining homeowners’ association election challenges, the arbitrators are required to consider the significance and totality of violations in their decision-making as to whether to void an election, or not.

At times, for reasons that really do not make any practical sense, some management companies when preparing a homeowners’ association election revert back to the condominium form of election with a first notice, second notice, intent to run, etc. rather than relying on the homeowners’ association governing documents, which have a completely different election style and where voting is by proxy or in person. Also, there are no requirements to declare candidacy in advance of the annual election, meaning a candidate could actually nominate himself or herself from the floor of the meeting on the election day itself. When management companies go on autopilot and use the condominium style of election contrary to the requirements set out in the homeowners’ association governing documents, then the arbitrators will likely require a new election to take place in conformity with the governing documents of the homeowners’ association.

A successful challenge of a homeowners’ association election often rests upon whether the alleged violation affected the outcome of the election. This once again is evidence that unless the alleged violation would have changed the outcome of the election, then the election challenge likely fails even if there were serious irregularities during the election process.

A few odds and ends are worthy of discussion as well. An active board of directors should not use the association’s pulpit for campaigning. Doing so can lead to a successful election challenge. However, an existing board member can certainly campaign on his or her own time and using their own means but not through the association or its website. If the association has not enforced use of voting certificates, then to do so without providing advanced written notice and an opportunity for the owners to comply could invalidate election results. Finally, if a valid election does not occur because either a quorum was not achieved or in the condominium context at least 20 percent of the eligible voters did not cast the ballot, then there is no obligation of the association to try again.

When bringing an election challenge is under consideration, ask yourself if the irregularity would have brought about a change in the outcome of the election. If not, then, think twice about bringing the challenge. In any event, it is worthwhile for an association concerned with its election process to consult with the association’s lawyer for a detailed conversation as to how best to avoid such problems in the future.

Tags: ,
Hurricane Recovery: A rundown of lessons learned from previous storms from Becker Shareholder Joseph E. Adams

Hurricane Recovery: A rundown of lessons learned from previous storms from Becker Shareholder Joseph E. Adams

Hurricane Recovery: A rundown of lessons learned from previous storms from Becker Shareholder Joseph E. Adams

Recovery From Hurricane Ian

Unfortunately, Hurricane Ian was a historic storm and has left a wide and substantial swath of damage across Southwest Florida. As we all work to recover from the ongoing effects of Hurricane Ian, I would like to share a few pointers we have learned from past storms and some things we are experiencing with Ian:

  1. Flood Damage: A significant part of Ian’s damage resulted from rising water, which is generally and generically referred to as “flood damage”. It is very important to note that flood insurance and processing flood insurance claims is covered by federal law, not Florida law. Among the notable differences, federal law requires that a “Proof of Loss” be filed for flood claims within 60 days, and the statute of limitations under flood policies is one year.
  2. Disaster Recovery Contractors: There are a number of large national companies, as well as others, who employ large crews of “storm chasers”, and arrive at disaster sites to shore up the property, dry it in, and dry it out. This is critical work and many of these companies are reputable, but not all are. Bills for significant damage sites can quickly approach seven figures (one million dollars plus) without proper justification. Associations can understandably feel under pressure to sign these companies up quickly but there are several critical things to keep in mind:
  • Approval From Your Insurer: Most reputable companies will be known to your insurers and be able to demonstrate they have the “go ahead” from the insurer before engaging in major work.
  • “Mapping”: As Southwest Florida is a significant disaster zone, insurance adjustors are overwhelmed and one may not visit your property for weeks, or longer. It is very important that the disaster relief contractor properly document the conditions it finds and remediates, commonly known as “mapping.”
  • “Assignment of Benefits”: Historically, various participants in this field have asked for an assignment of the association’s insurance policy rights, known as an “AOB”’. AOB contracts are now strictly regulated by statute but should never be given to an outside contractor.

While getting dry-out work started quickly is critical, the association should not enter into a contract with a remediation company, or any vendor, if the association is not comfortable with the term of the agreement and confident in the company. It is always better to take a step back and make a thoughtful decision than to rush into a bad agreement.

  1. Application Of Your Community’s Governing Documents: If the association has experienced significant damage, it is critical that the association be aware of the requirements of the governing documents, especially for condominiums. For example, many documents state that if a certain percentage of the units are rendered “uninhabitable” (usually an undefined term), the condominium is automatically “terminated” (legally extinguished) if a vote to rebuild is not taken, often in a very short time frame such as 60 days after the loss. Other “gotcha” clauses in documents might include the requirement to have a bank act as “insurance trustee” for insurance proceeds.
  2. Emergency Powers: The “emergency powers” provisions of the statutes are now in effect. Among other powers conferred are the power to contract for debris removal and authorize appropriate remediation, including removal of wet drywall and cabinetry, subject to any limitations of the condominium documents. The emergency powers statute also gives associations flexibility in noticing and holding membership and board meetings. As much as is practicable, you should consult with your association’s attorney regarding use of the statutory emergency powers.

The next few months will be a trying time for everyone in Southwest Florida and practically every community association will have to deal with some consequence from Hurricane Ian. The decisions that board members and owners make at this time will, to a great degree, determine outcome for many communities.

Joseph E. 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: , ,
A Guide to Sending the New Notice of Late Assessment By: K. Joy Mattingly, Esq.

A Guide to Sending the New Notice of Late Assessment By: K. Joy Mattingly, Esq.

  • Posted: Jul 16, 2024
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on A Guide to Sending the New Notice of Late Assessment By: K. Joy Mattingly, Esq.

A Guide to Sending the New Notice of Late Assessment

By: K. Joy Mattingly, Esq.

As of July,  associations are required to send delinquent owners a Notice of Late Assessments, giving the owners 30 days to bring the account current prior to turning the account over to the association’s legal counsel for collections.

Failure to provide the delinquent owner with this 30-day notice will preclude the association from recovering legal fees related to past due assessments, i.e., any fees incurred in a subsequent collection/foreclosure action.

The notice must be sent via first class United States mail to the owner’s last address as reflected in the association’s official records, and if the last address is not the property address, the notice must also be sent to the property address by first class United States mail. The notice is deemed delivered upon mailing and a rebuttable presumption that the notice was mailed as required can be established by a sworn affidavit executed by a board member, officer or agent of the association, or by a licensed manager.

A form for the 30-day notice, titled “Notice of Late Assessment” can be found in §§718.121, 719.108 and 720.3085, Fla. Stat.

While the statutory instructions for the Notice of Late Assessment may appear to be straight-forward and easy to follow, there are several ways that the process can go awry. These missteps can result in an association having to send out a new Notice of Late Assessment, further delaying the collections and foreclosure process and adding to the association’s workload and frustration. But fear not! An association can avoid pitfalls in the process by incorporating the following best practices when drafting and sending the Notice of Late Assessment.

First, when detailing the delinquency in the Notice, the assessments, interest and late fees owed should be broken out rather than listed as a lump sum.

If there are other amounts owed, such as fines, these should be listed separately from the monthly or quarterly assessments. Late fees (if applicable) and interest should be listed below the monthly or quarterly assessments and the annual rate of interest should be detailed as well.

Second, when sending the Notice of Late Assessment, the association should check the county property appraiser’s website and the current deed for additional mailing addresses for the owner. While the statute requires the association to send the notice to the property address and the last address “as reflected in the association’s records”, there is always the possibility that the association’s records have not been properly updated or maintained to include additional addresses. Taking a few minutes to conduct this search at the beginning of the process can eliminate the possibility of an owner subsequently arguing that the association failed to send the notice to a relevant address. If the owner is successful in this argument, the association will be precluded from collecting the subsequent legal fees incurred in the collections/foreclosure process.

Third, the association should keep a copy of each Notice of Late Assessment sent to an owner as part of the association’s records. This will enable the association to provide the copy in support of the association’s sworn affidavit that the notice was mailed to the owner, should the owner subsequently dispute that the notice was provided.

In addition to following the best practices detailed above, the association should consult with its legal counsel to confirm that the association’s collections policy, practices and procedures are in conformance with the applicable statutory requirements.

 

Tags: ,
One thing has become clear since the fall of the Champlain Towers South condo: many condos are falling apart, often because owners don’t want to spend the money to maintain them. Soon, they might have no choice but to pay.

One thing has become clear since the fall of the Champlain Towers South condo: many condos are falling apart, often because owners don’t want to spend the money to maintain them. Soon, they might have no choice but to pay.

  • Posted: Jul 16, 2024
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on One thing has become clear since the fall of the Champlain Towers South condo: many condos are falling apart, often because owners don’t want to spend the money to maintain them. Soon, they might have no choice but to pay.

A Broward task force will likely ask the state to boost inspections and change funding of reserves. But any new rules will face regulatory and political hurdles.

Broward County task force agreed, informally, to recommend a change in state law that would make it harder for condos to waive the proper funding of reserves and to require more frequent inspections for coastal condos. The changes, if adopted by the state, could make condo living more expensive, but safer.

“It’s going to hurt in the beginning, but that’s where we have to get,” insurance expert Paul Handerhan, president of the Federal Association for Insurance Reform (FAIR), told the committee Monday, echoing many of their own opinions. “… There’s no way to get out of this without paying.”

Monday’s was the second of three meetings for the Broward County Condominium Structural Issues Committee, set up by Mayor Steve Geller to quickly offer recommendations to the Florida Legislature, whose committee meetings begin next month.

The Florida Bar and the Community Associations Institute trade group also are studying issues arising from the June 24 condo collapse in Surfside, and will offer recommendations to the governor and Legislature.

All are focused on just a few topics, including the issues of reserves and inspections.

Currently, reserves can be waived by majority vote of those present at a condo meeting. And the first major inspection is not required in Broward until a building turns 40.

“We’re here to try to come up with creative ways to make buildings safe. What Surfside has done is made city officials, building officials, condo residents, everybody aware of the widespread lack of maintenance in older condos,” said Hollywood Commissioner Caryl Shuham, who has a degree in civil engineering and is an attorney.

She recommended, and the committee conceptually agreed, that condos should have to present a reserve study to unit owners and secure a super-majority vote to waive full funding of reserves. She also suggested reserves not be waived unless an engineer has inspected the building and issued a report.

The potential cost to condo owners is not lost on state, county and city officials or the civic and industry leaders huddling on the issue. While some million-dollar condo owners might have no trouble forking over extra money, many unit owners are not in that category. Even the inspections are costly, one condo representative said. Unit owners could be forced out and condo sales could be stifled, some said.

“In certain cases, you could be mandating the death of a building,” said Fred Nesbitt, president of the Galt Ocean Mile condo association in Fort Lauderdale, which opposes reserve mandates. “I think we should still give owners choice.”

Geller said condos that don’t properly save for repairs face sticker shock with giant special assessments. By the time a major problem is found, he said, it’s too late to start paying into reserves.

“You can’t insure a burning building, and you can’t start reserving for an emergency that has already arrived,” he said.

The cause of the Champlain collapse remains unknown but is under investigation. Because there was evidence of poor maintenance and crumbling, cracking concrete at the Champlain, there has been a sharp focus on how government can ensure that condos are kept in good repair.

“It’s terrifying to me that we’re in this place,” said state Sen. Lauren Book, one of four state legislators on the county committee. Book complained that there’s no one keeping track of individual condos – where they stand with insurance, reserves and repairs.

The committee also debated whether more frequent inspections are needed. Broward is one of two counties in Florida – the other being Miami-Dade – that requires buildings to be inspected for electrical and structural safety at age 40 and every 10 years subsequently.

Dr. Jennifer Jurado, Broward County’s climate change sustainability director, said the striking increase in sea level here – more than a foot over 20 years – could increase deterioration of concrete in buildings along the coast. She also cited temperate change and flood levels in saying that inspections should begin earlier, at 25 or 30 years.

But Dan Lavrich, a structural engineer and chairman of the Broward County Board of Rules and Appeals, which oversees application of the building code, questioned the need. Any change in the inspection program would have to be approved by Rules and Appeals, and the Florida Building Commission.

“The rest of the state has no program at all,” he said of the 40-year safety program, “and they don’t have any problems.”

The Broward committee will hold what it expects to be its final meeting next week, on Aug. 30, where formal recommendations will be voted on.

Reposted via: https://www.floridarealtors.org/news-media/news-articles/2021/08/condo-law-changes-likely-after-surfside-its-complicated

 

Tags: , , , ,
“Video Cameras—for Surveillance Purposes Only” by Kevin L. Edwards of Becker Lawyers

“Video Cameras—for Surveillance Purposes Only” by Kevin L. Edwards of Becker Lawyers

“Video Cameras—for Surveillance Purposes Only”

Many associations have installed video surveillance cameras within the community common areas as a means to provide security for their residents. However, good intentions often lead to unanticipated consequences. In fact the use of video cameras may expose an association to liability.

Generally, an association is not a guarantor or insurer of any person’s safety and is not obligated to provide “security” to its residents. However, once an association assumes a duty to provide security, it must do so in a non-negligent manner. This may very well be the case with installing “security cameras.” Florida courts have routinely held that if an association undertakes, or appears to undertake, the duty to provide security for its community, it must also take certain measures to prevent criminal activity from occurring on the premises.

For example, the court in Vazquez v. Lago Grande Homeowners Ass’n, 900 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), ruled that the association had a duty to exercise reasonable care to guard its residents against crime or criminal activity because the association had undertaken the responsibility to provide such security. In this case the association was a gated community with a guardhouse staffed 24 hours a day. The developer marketed the complex on the basis of safety, and the association collected a specific part of its assessments to provide for security. A resident of the association moved into the community because it appeared safe and was gated. The resident had many visitors, including a former neighbor and the neighbor’s children. One day the  former neighbor’s estranged husband came into the community to pick up his children and got into an argument with the resident. Thereafter, the resident instructed the association’s security guards not to let the estranged husband into the community. Despite this, the security guards allowed the estranged husband to enter the community, and he shot the resident, shot and killed his ex-wife, and killed himself. The court found that the association had breached its duty to provide security because it continued to employ the security guards despite knowing that they routinely let unauthorized individuals into the community. Therefore, the association was found liable for the death of a visitor and  injury of a resident.

Thus, associations may wish to be careful not to label the video cameras as “security cameras” and instead let the owners know that the cameras are for surveillance purposes only. As previously mentioned, associations have no duty to provide security, and having “security cameras” will lead owners to believe that the association is providing security.

Regardless of whether the association uses video cameras, it is still liable for criminal conduct that is reasonably foreseeable. In Czerwinski v. Sunrise Point Condominium, 540 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1999), the court ruled that a landlord generally has no duty to ensure the safety of its tenants or to protect them from the criminal acts of third persons unless the criminal occurrence is reasonably foreseeable. The court further noted that the landlord’s knowledge of prior crimes, against both persons and property, is relevant to the issue of foreseeability, even if the prior criminal acts are lesser crimes than the one committed against the plaintiff.

Based on these cases, community associations have been held liable in tort for failure to take precautions against criminal activities committed against the owners and residents if those criminal activities are reasonably foreseeable; and in addition they have been held liable when they voluntarily provide security services but fail to provide them in a reasonable manner.

Thus, if the association is inclined to install video cameras, it must do so in a reasonably prudent manner and should make sure the cameras are always being maintained in good condition and repaired as needed.

Another issue with providing cameras in the community is whether or not the cameras record audio. Florida law (Section 934.03, FS) makes it illegal to intentionally intercept, attempt to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of a device if one does not have the prior consent of all parties. Therefore, the association’s cameras must be limited to visual images. The process of taking and recording video is perfectly legal, and you do not need to notify the owners or post signs upon the property that the association is taking or recording video. There is no privacy issue as long as the cameras are not directed into a resident’s home or into a bathroom, shower, changing room, or other area where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy for persons who use the common areas or come onto the association’s property (with the exception of bathrooms, showers, units, etc.).

Lastly, a surveillance camera’s video recordings are not part of the association’s official records. The association’s official records are limited to written records, and a video recording is not a written record. As such, video camera recordings are not open for review by the association’s membership. Moreover, an association is not legally obligated to store the recordings for any specific period of time. However, if stored for any amount of time, the association must be sure to preserve the video in case it may be used as evidence in a court proceeding. Video footage should, therefore, be made and stored in a location where it will not be tampered with or duplicated. The footage should be stored in a secure location with access limited to authorized personal. Any footage that is to be kept should be preserved in an original and unaltered version by saving it in a secure manner that is incapable of being edited.

 

Mr. Edwards manages the community association practice in Becker’s Sarasota office and serves as corporate counsel to hundreds of condominium, cooperative, mobile home, and homeowners’ associations located in Sarasota, Manatee, Charlotte, and Highlands Counties. Mr. Edwards is also one of only 190 attorneys statewide who is a board-certified specialist in condominium and planned development law.

In addition to his extensive experience as a community association lawyer, Mr. Edwards has trial and appellate experience in many areas of corporate and civil litigation, construction litigation, covenant enforcement, real estate, and foreclosure law.

For more information email kedwards@beckerlawyers.com, or visit www.beckerlawyers.com.

 

Tags: , ,
SECURING YOUR GATED COMMUNITY Exactly Who Is Allowed In? by KBR Legal

SECURING YOUR GATED COMMUNITY Exactly Who Is Allowed In? by KBR Legal

  • Posted: May 20, 2024
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on SECURING YOUR GATED COMMUNITY Exactly Who Is Allowed In? by KBR Legal

SECURING YOUR GATED COMMUNITY  Exactly Who Is Allowed In?

by  Kaye Bender Rembaum

 

While living in a gated community can add peace of mind for the residents who live behind the gates, there are many important considerations for the association when crafting rules and regulations regarding who may and who may not be permitted to enter the community. In today’s gated communities, there are three entry control options: (i) live personnel to monitor the gate, (ii) a virtual gate guard where the gate guard who allows guests to pass through is off-site and monitoring electronically, or (iii) a simple call box.

Many associations adopt rules which require visitors to the community to present valid identification to ensure that the visitors are authorized by the association or a resident to enter the community. But, what kind of identification can an association require? Are there limits? In the end, the association must balance its interest in ensuring that only authorized visitors enter the community with the rights of the owners and the visitors entering the community.

One question which bears analysis is, is the association permitted to “swipe” a driver license? Section 322.143, Fla. Stat. (2021), defines “swiping” a driver license as the act of passing a driver license or identification card through a device that is “capable of deciphering, in an electronically readable format, the information electronically encoded in a magnetic strip or bar code on the driver license or identification.”

Pursuant to §322.143, Fla. Stat. (2021), a private entity is not permitted to “swipe” an individual’s driver license or identification card to capture and store information contained in the magnetic strip unless the individual consents to allow this, and the association informs the individual what information will be collected and the purpose or purposes for which it will be used. However, an exception exists in that the association is allowed to “swipe” the driver license to verify the authenticity of the driver license, as long as the association is not capturing and storing the information on the magnetic strip. More specifically, §322.143(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2021), provides, in pertinent part, the following:

    (2) Except as provided in subsection (6), a private entity may not swipe an individual’s driver license or identification card, except for the following purposes:

        (a) To verify the authenticity of a driver license or identification card or to verify the identity of the individual if the individual pays for a good or service with a method other than cash, returns an item, or requests a refund.

 

[AdSense-A]

 

In accordance with the foregoing, an association is permitted to “swipe” a driver license but is not permitted to store, sell, or share the personal information collected from swiping the driver license. Although swiping without storing the information is permitted, this author recommends that the association fully avoid swiping the driver license. If the information was inadvertently or even temporarily stored on the device that the association used to swipe the driver license, the association would be in violation of this statute. Note that manually collecting personal information or making a photocopy or other copy of the front of the driver license is not prohibited by the statute and is a far safer practice.

Another question worth addressing is, can the association require a valid United States driver license for any drivers entering the community? Be warned, such a requirement could land the association in hot water. Although the association can likely require any driver entering the community to have a valid driver license, the association cannot require that the license be issued in the United States.

Pursuant to §322.04(1), Fla. Stat. (2021), “a nonresident who is at least 16 years of age and who has in his or her immediate possession a valid noncommercial driver license issued to the nonresident in his or her home state or country” is permitted to operate a vehicle without a Florida license. In other words, a driver with a proper license in another state or another country is legally permitted to drive in Florida as long as they have their valid noncommercial driver license in their possession. Similarly, an association should accept a valid license issued from another state or country for entry into the community.

If the above is not enough to encourage your associations to accept driver licenses from all countries and states, consider that a policy requiring a driver license issued in the United States may be considered a violation of the Fair Housing Act in that doing so may be deemed discrimination based upon national origin and may form the basis of a discrimination lawsuit based on disparate treatment or disparate impact. “Disparate treatment” is an intentional form of discrimination, whereas “disparate impact” discrimination occurs when a policy has an unintentional negative effect on members of a protected class. Thus, while this author is not aware of any such appellate decisions issued in the State of Florida, the last thing any association needs is to be the first defendant in such a Fair Housing Act lawsuit.

 

With regard to all rules adopted by the board of the association, rules regarding who can enter the community are only enforceable if they are within the board’s scope of authority and are reasonable for the purpose. If a rule is outside the board’s scope of authority as set out in the governing documents of the association, or if the rule represents arbitrary or capricious decision-making, such rule will not be enforceable. When adopting rules, remember the following:

  1. The board or the body making the rule must have authority from the governing documents or statute to adopt the rule.
  2. The rule cannot conflict with any rights afforded by documents of higher priority, whether express or implied rights.
  3. The rule must be reasonable. Reasonableness is hard to define, but the case law provides that the rule must be rationally related to a legitimate association objective. The rule cannot be wholly arbitrary or capricious.
  4. The rule cannot contravene any law or compelling public policies.
  5. The rule must be adopted in a procedurally correct manner, which includes proper notice.

 

On a different note, remember that material alterations to the gate area may require a vote of the membership.

In regard to official records and as to homeowners associations, §720.303(5)(c), Fla. Stat. (2021), provides, in relevant part, that although part of the official records of the association, “[i]nformation an association obtains in a gated community in connection with guests’ visits to parcel owners or community residents” are not accessible to members.

As is evident from this discussion, there are many different issues to take into consideration when drafting rules governing who is permitted in your community. To ensure that your rules comply with Florida law, we recommend that the association have its counsel review any rules prior to their adoption.

Jeffrey A. Rembaum, Esq., BCS

Jeffrey Rembaum’s, Esq. legal practice consists of representation of condominium, homeowners, 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.

 


If you are looking for a company to help with securing your Gates, Doors to your Amenities, Our members can help.

Florida’s Top Access Control System Companies, CCTV, Security Gates and Card Readers. keeping your properties safe and secure. State Approved Members of SFPMA

Search for Security & Access Control Members

 

Tags: , ,
Mandatory Condominium & Cooperative Building Inspections and Non-Waivable Reserve Requirements | SENATE BILL 4-D

Mandatory Condominium & Cooperative Building Inspections and Non-Waivable Reserve Requirements | SENATE BILL 4-D

  • Posted: Mar 28, 2024
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Mandatory Condominium & Cooperative Building Inspections and Non-Waivable Reserve Requirements | SENATE BILL 4-D

Mandatory Condominium & Cooperative Building Inspections and Non-Waivable Reserve Requirements | SENATE BILL 4-D

brought to us by: REMBAUM’S ASSOCIATION ROUNDUP

We are getting so many calls from condo owners about inspections.  SFPMA thought why not re-post a great article about the inspections  what led up to this changes and what going forward are the requirements in Florida.  

With home insurers leaving Florida in droves, and following pressure from members of both political parties in the legislature to actually do something about it, in May 2022, the governor called a special legislative session to address the problem. A very real concern to the insurers is the effect of both time and inclement weather on Florida’s aging high-rise buildings. Until now, and for the most part, Florida law largely ignored these concerns. Enter Senate Bill 4-D (SB 4-D) which already became effective upon being signed into law by Governor DeSantis on May 26, 2022. This new piece of legislation addresses condominium and cooperative building inspections and reserve requirements (while this article primarily addresses these new laws in the context of condominium association application, they are equally applicable to cooperative associations).

By way of background, during the regular legislative session, there were several bills introduced in the Florida House of Representatives (House) and in the Florida Senate (Senate) addressing building safety issues, but none of them were passed into law due to the inability to match the language of the bills in both the House and the Senate which is a requirement for legislation to pass and go to the governor for consideration. As such, it was a little surprising to many observers that the legislature was able to approve SB 4-D in essentially a 48-hour window during the special session in May. The language used in SB 4-D was initially drafted into a proposed bill in November 2021. At that time, and during the most recent legislative session, input was provided by many industry professional groups including engineers, reserve study providers, and association attorneys. Many of these industry professionals indicated that there were challenges with some of the language and concepts being proposed in SB 4-D during session.

Notwithstanding these challenges, and in an effort to ensure some form of life safety legislation was passed this year, SB 4-D was unanimously approved in both the House and Senate and signed by the governor. A plain reading of this well intended, but in some instances not completely thought-out, legislation evidences these challenges. Some will say it is a good start that will need significant tweaking, which is expected during the 2023 Legislative Session. Others praise it, and yet others say it is an overreach of governmental authority, such as an inability to waive or reduce certain categories of reserves. You be the judge. We begin by examining the mandatory inspection and reserve requirements of SB 4-D.

I. MILESTONE INSPECTIONS: MANDATORY STRUCTURAL INSPECTIONS FOR CONDOMINIUM AND COOPERATIVE BUILDINGS. (§553.899, Fla. Stat.)

You will not find these new milestone inspection requirements in Chapters 718 or 719 of the Florida Statutes, but rather in Chapter 553, Florida Statutes, as cited above.

MILESTONE INSPECTIONS:

The term “milestone inspection” means a structural inspection of a building, including an inspection of load-bearing walls and the primary structural members and primary structural systems as those terms are defined in section 627.706, Florida Statutes, by a licensed architect or engineer authorized to practice in this state for the purposes of attesting to the life safety and adequacy of the structural components of the building and, to the extent reasonably possible, determining the general structural condition of the building as it affects the safety of such building, including a determination of any necessary maintenance, repair, or replacement of any structural component of the building. The purpose of such inspection is not to determine if the condition of an existing building is in compliance with the Florida Building Code or the fire safety code.

SUBSTANTIAL STRUCTURAL DETERIORATION:

The term “substantial structural deterioration” means substantial structural distress that negatively affects a building’s general structural condition and integrity. The term does not include surface imperfections such as cracks, distortion, sagging, deflections, misalignment, signs of leakage, or peeling of finishes unless the licensed engineer or architect performing the phase one or phase two inspection determines that such surface imperfections are a sign of substantial structural deterioration.

MILESTONE INSPECTIONS FOR BUILDINGS THREE STORIES OR MORE IN HEIGHT:

A condominium association under chapter 718 and a cooperative association under chapter 719 must have a milestone inspection performed for each building that is three stories or more in height by December 31 of the year in which the building reaches 30 years of age, based on the date the certificate of occupancy for the building was issued, and every 10 years thereafter.

WITHIN THREE MILES OF COASTLINE:

If the building is three or more stories in height and is located within three miles of a coastline, the condominium association or cooperative association must have a milestone inspection performed by December 31 of the year in which the building reaches 25 years of age, based on the date the certificate of occupancy for the building was issued, and every 10 years thereafter.

The condominium association or cooperative association must arrange for the milestone inspection to be performed and is responsible for ensuring compliance.

The condominium association or cooperative association is responsible for all costs associated with the inspection.

IF THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WAS ISSUED BEFORE JULY 1, 1992:

If a milestone inspection is required under this statute and the building’s certificate of occupancy was issued on or before July 1, 1992, the building’s initial milestone inspection must be performed before December 31, 2024. If the date of issuance for the certificate of occupancy is not available, the date of issuance of the building’s certificate of occupancy shall be the date of occupancy evidenced in any record of the local building official.

Upon determining that a building must have a milestone inspection, the local enforcement agency must provide written notice of such required inspection to the condominium association or cooperative association by certified mail, return receipt requested.

Within 180 days after receiving the written notice the condominium association or cooperative association must complete phase one of the milestone inspection. For purposes of this section, completion of phase one of the milestone inspection means the licensed engineer or architect who performed the phase one inspection submitted the inspection report by e-mail, United States Postal Service, or commercial delivery service to the local enforcement agency.

A MILESTONE INSPECTION CONSISTS OF TWO PHASES:

    (a) PHASE 1: For phase one of the milestone inspection, a licensed architect or engineer authorized to practice in this state must perform a visual examination of habitable and non-habitable areas of a building, including the major structural components of a building, and provide a qualitative assessment of the structural conditions of the building. If the architect or engineer finds no signs of substantial structural deterioration to any building components under visual examination, phase two of the inspection (discussed below) is not required. An architect or engineer who completes a phase one milestone inspection shall prepare and submit an inspection report.

    (b) PHASE 2: A phase two of the milestone inspection must be performed if any substantial structural deterioration is identified during phase one. A phase two inspection may involve destructive or nondestructive testing at the inspector’s direction. The inspection may be as extensive or as limited as necessary to fully assess areas of structural distress in order to confirm that the building is structurally sound and safe for its intended use and to recommend a program for fully assessing and repairing distressed and damaged portions of the building. When determining testing locations, the inspector must give preference to locations that are the least disruptive and most easily repairable while still being representative of the structure. An inspector who completes a phase two milestone inspection must prepare and submit an inspection report.

POST-MILESTONE INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS:

Upon completion of a phase one or phase two milestone inspection, the architect or engineer who performed the inspection must submit a sealed copy of the inspection report with a separate summary of, at minimum, the material findings and recommendations in the inspection report to the condominium association or cooperative association, and to the building official of the local government which has jurisdiction. The inspection report must, at a minimum, meet all of the following criteria:

(a) Bear the seal and signature, or the electronic signature, of the licensed engineer or architect who performed the inspection.

(b) Indicate the manner and type of inspection forming the basis for the inspection report.

(c) Identify any substantial structural deterioration within a reasonable professional probability based on the scope of the inspection, describe the extent of such deterioration, and identify any recommended repairs for such deterioration.

(d) State whether unsafe or dangerous conditions, as those terms are defined in the Florida Building Code, were observed

(e) Recommend any remedial or preventive repair for any items that are damaged but are not substantial structural deterioration

(f) Identify and describe any items requiring further inspection.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENFORCEMENT:

A local enforcement agency may prescribe time lines and penalties with respect to compliance with the milestone inspection requirements.

A board of county commissioners may adopt an ordinance requiring that a condominium or cooperative association schedule or commence repairs for substantial structural deterioration within a specified time frame after the local enforcement agency receives a phase two inspection report; however, such repairs must be commenced within 365 days after receiving such report. If an association fails to submit proof to the local enforcement agency that repairs have been scheduled or have commenced for substantial structural deterioration identified in a phase two inspection report within the required time frame, the local enforcement agency must review and determine if the building is unsafe for human occupancy.

BOARD’S DUTY AFTER OBTAINING THE MILESTONE REPORT:

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 or cooperative 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.

WHO PAYS FOR THE MILESTONE INSPECTION:

Pursuant to section 718.112, Florida Statutes, if an association is required to have a milestone inspection performed, the association must arrange for the milestone inspection to be performed and is responsible for ensuring compliance with all of the requirements thereof. The association is responsible for all costs associated with the inspection.

FAILURE TO OBTAIN THE MILESTONE INSPECTION:

If the officers or directors of an association willfully and knowingly fail to have a milestone inspection performed pursuant to section 553.899, Florida Statutes, such failure is a breach of the officers’ and directors’ fiduciary relationship to the unit owners.

MANAGER’S DUTY:

If a community association manager or a community association management firm has a contract with a community association that has a building on the association’s property that is subject to milestone inspection, the community association manager or the community association management firm must comply with the requirements of performing such inspection as directed by the board.

EXEMPTIONS:

For clarity, the otherwise required milestone inspection does not apply to a single family, two-family, or three-family dwelling with three or fewer habitable stories above ground.

FLORIDA BUILDING COMMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

The Florida Building Commission must review the milestone inspection requirements and make recommendations, if any, to the legislature to ensure inspections are sufficient to determine the structural integrity of a building. The commission must provide a written report of any recommendations to the Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives by December 31, 2022.

The Florida Building Commission must consult with the State Fire Marshal to provide recommendations to the legislature for the adoption of comprehensive structural and life safety standards for maintaining and inspecting all types of buildings and structures in this state that are three stories or more in height. The commission must provide a written report of its recommendations to the Governor, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives by December 31, 2023.

II.    STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY RESERVE STUDIES AND MANDATORY RESERVES:

The reserve legislation set out in section 718.112 (f)(2)(a), Florida Statutes, is, for all intents and purposes, re-written. Prior to examining these most recent revisions, it is necessary to first examine the definitions set out in section 718.103, Florida Statutes, where a brand new term is added as follows:

Structural integrity reserve study means a study of the reserve funds required for future major repairs and replacement of the common areas based on a visual inspection of the common areas applicable to all condominiums and cooperative buildings 3 stories or higher.

Hereafter, the structural integrity reserve study is referred to as “SIRS”. Now we can turn our attention to the requirements of the SIRS as set out in section 718.112 (f)(2)(a), Florida Statutes

THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY RESERVE STUDY (required for all condominium and cooperative buildings three stories or higher regardless of date of certificate of occupancy):

An association must have a SIRS completed at least every 10 years after the condominium’s creation for each building on the condominium property that is three stories or higher in height which includes, at a minimum, a study of the following items as related to the structural integrity and safety of the building:

a. Roof
b. Load-bearing walls or other primary structural members
c. Floor
d. Foundation
e. Fireproofing and fire protection systems
f.  Plumbing
g. Electrical systems
h. Waterproofing and exterior painting
i.  Windows
j. Any other item that has a deferred maintenance expense or replacement cost that exceeds $10,000 and the failure to replace or maintain such item negatively affects the items listed in subparagraphs a.-i., as determined by the licensed engineer or architect performing the visual inspection portion of the structural integrity reserve study.

The SIRS may be performed by any person qualified to perform such study. However, the visual inspection portion of the structural integrity reserve study MUST be performed by an engineer licensed under chapter 471 or an architect licensed under chapter 481.

As further set out in the legislation, at a minimum, “a structural integrity reserve study must identify the common areas being visually inspected, state the estimated remaining useful life and the estimated replacement cost or deferred maintenance expense of the common areas being visually inspected, and provide a recommended annual reserve amount that achieves the estimated replacement cost or deferred maintenance expense of each common area being visually inspected by the end of the estimated remaining useful life of each common area.”

The amount to be reserved for an item is determined by the association’s most recent structural integrity reserve study that must be completed by December 31, 2024. If the amount to be reserved for an item is not in the association’s initial or most recent structural integrity reserve study or the association has not completed a structural integrity reserve study, the amount must be computed using a formula based upon estimated remain useful life and estimated replacement cost or deferred maintenance expense of each reserve item.

If the condominium building is less than three stories then the legislation provides that, “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.”

The association may adjust replacement reserve assessments annually to take into account any changes in estimates or extension of the useful life of a reserve item caused by deferred maintenance.

If an association fails to complete a SIRS, such failure is a breach of an officer’s and director’s fiduciary relationship to the unit owners.

NON-WAIVABLE AND WAIVABLE RESERVES IN THE UNIT OWNER CONTROLLED ASSOCIATION:

As to the SIRS, the legislation is patently clear that unit owners may not vote for no reserves or lesser reserves for items set forth SIRS report. There is on-going debate amongst attorneys in regard to whether a condominium under three stories can waive or reduce reserves for any of the reserve items required to be in the SIRS that are included in the under three story condominium reserve, for example, roof and painting (For those interested, examine lines 1029 to 1033 and 1050 to 1071 in SB 4-D).

MANDATORY RESERVES IN THE DEVELOPER CONTROLLED ASSOCIATION:

Before turnover of control of an association by a developer to unit owners other than a developer pursuant to section 718.301, Florida Statutes, the developer-controlled association may not vote to waive the reserves or reduce the funding of the reserves (Previously, a developer could fully waive all reserves for the first two years, meaning this is a monumental change).

PRE-TURNOVER DEVELOPER DUTY:

Before a developer turns over control of an association to unit owners other than the developer, the developer must have a SIRS completed for each building on the condominium property that is three stories or higher in height.

III.    OFFICIAL RECORDS:

Official records of the condominium and cooperative association include structural integrity reserve studies, financial reports of the association or condominium, and a copy of the inspection reports and any other inspection report relating to a structural or life safety inspection of condominium or cooperative property.

In addition to the right to inspect and copy the declaration, bylaws and rules renters have the right to inspect the milestone inspection report and structural integrity reserve study inspection reports as well.

Structural integrity reserve studies must be maintained for at least 15 years after the study is completed. In addition, inspection reports report and any other inspection report relating to a structural or life safety inspection of condominium property must be maintained for 15 years after receipt of such report.

IV.    ASSOCIATION WEBSITES:

In addition to other positing requirements, the inspection reports described above and any other inspection report relating to a structural or life safety inspection of condominium property and the association’s most recent structural integrity reserve study must be posted to the website.

V.    JURISDICTION OF DIVISION OF CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES, AND MOBILE HOMES:

Pre-turnover, the Division of Florida Condominiums, Timeshares, and Mobile Homes (Division) may enforce and ensure compliance with 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. 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, and the procedural completion of structural integrity reserve studies.

VI. NEW REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL CONDOMINIUM AND COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS:

On or before January 1, 2023, condominium associations existing on or before July 1, 2022, must provide the following information to the Division in writing, by e-mail, United States Postal Service, commercial delivery service, or hand delivery, at a physical address or e-mail address provided by the division and on a form posted on the division’s website:

    1. The number of buildings on the condominium property that are three stories or higher in height.
    2. The total number of units in all such buildings.
    3. The addresses of all such buildings.
    4. The counties in which all such buildings are located.

An association must provide an update in writing to the division if there are any changes to the information in the list within six months after the change.

VII.    APPLICABLE TO ALL SELLERS OF UNITS:

As a part of the sales process, the seller of a condominium or cooperative unit and developers must provide to potential purchasers a copy of the inspector-prepared summary of the milestone inspection report and a copy of the association’s most recent structural integrity reserve study or a statement that the association has not completed a structural integrity reserve study.

VIII.    GLITCHES:

As with any new legislation of such a substantial nature, there often follow in subsequent years what are referred to as “glitch bills” which help provide additional clarity, remove ambiguity, and fix unintended errors. To name a few: (i) the term “common areas” is used in the legislation when in fact the correct term is “common element;” (ii) clarity needs to be provided regarding whether reserve items that are required to be in SIRS, but show up in the under three story reserves, such as paint and paving, can be waived or reduced by the membership; and (iii) for those buildings that are within three miles of the coastline, additional clarity could be provided to provide better guidance as to how to perform the measurement.

 

 

 

Tags: ,
HB 1203: LOTS OF NEW PROTECTIONS FOR MEMBERS LIVING IN HOAs MAKES IT HARDER FOR CAMs

HB 1203: LOTS OF NEW PROTECTIONS FOR MEMBERS LIVING IN HOAs MAKES IT HARDER FOR CAMs

  • Posted: Mar 27, 2024
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on HB 1203: LOTS OF NEW PROTECTIONS FOR MEMBERS LIVING IN HOAs MAKES IT HARDER FOR CAMs

HB 1203: LOTS OF NEW PROTECTIONS FOR MEMBERS LIVING IN HOAs MAKES IT HARDER FOR CAMs

House Bill 1203 and SB 7046 merged to eventually create a huge bill for the protection of homeowners in HOAs.  It starts by placing lots of responsibilities on community association managers.

A community association manager or community association management firm that is authorized by contract to provide community association management services to a homeowners’ association must do all of the following:

(a) Attend in person at least one member meeting or board meeting of the homeowners’ association annually.

(b) Provide to the members of the homeowners’ association the name and contact information for each community association manager or representative of a community association management firm assigned to the homeowners’ association, the manager’s or representative’s hours of availability, and a summary of the duties for which the manager or representative is responsible. The homeowners’ association must also post this information on the association’s website or application required under s.720.303(4)(b). The community association manager or community association management firm must update the homeowners’ association and its members within 14 business days after any change to such information.

(c) Provide to any member upon request a copy of the contract between the community association manager or community association management firm and the homeowners’ association and include such contract with association’s governing documents.

So what do you think so far of the new protections for members of an HOA?

Every Sunday:  Ask Questions get them answered! 

Join us Sunday at 11am on YouTube https://youtube.com/live/DdNkcu9wrsw?feature=share

 

Tags: , ,