SFPMA

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

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

Florida Condominium Act, extensively regulates amendments to condominium documents. by Becker

Florida Condominium Act, extensively regulates amendments to condominium documents. by Becker

Florida Condominium Act, extensively regulates amendments to condominium documents.

Joseph E. Adams / Becker
BlogPublication Florida Condo & HOA Law Blog

 

Q: After the unit owners in a condominium association vote to approve an amendment, is there a time limit or deadline by which the amendment must be recorded with the county? (M.A. via e-mail)

A: Chapter 718 of the Florida Statutes, known as the Florida Condominium Act, extensively regulates amendments to condominium documents. However, the Act does not contain a specific deadline for when properly adopted amendments to the condominium documents must be recorded.

Section 718.110(3) of the Act states that amendments to the declaration are effective when properly recorded in the public records of the county where the declaration is recorded. Similarly, Section 718.112(1)(b) of the Act states that amendments to the articles of incorporation or bylaws are not valid unless recorded in the public records of the county where the declaration of condominium is recorded. Further, Chapter 617, the Florida Not For Profit Corporation Act, provides that amendments to the articles of incorporation must be filed in the office of the Department of State.

In my opinion, the recording of such amendments is a ministerial act that the board would be required to undertake within a reasonable time of the approval of the amendment. While there is room debate what is reasonable, I would say absent unusual circumstances (such as an intervening legal challenge or some after-discovered error), 30 days from approval would be a reasonable time frame.

However, there is also no specific prohibition in the statute preventing an association from recording an amendment long after the owner vote. I occasionally see situations where an association failed to record an amendment due to changes in the board or management or other circumstances, and records an amendment a year or longer after its approval. This is obviously not an ideal situation since you might have new owners who did not get a chance to vote on the amendment and who could claim that they bought there unit based on what was in the public records.

 

Q: Can you explain what a “material alteration” is? We have a constant argument in our condominium association, usually driven by one particular owner, over what the board can and cannot do. (J.F., via e-mail)

A: This is one of the most common areas of disputes in condominiums. As you probably know, Section 718.113(2) of the Florida Condominium Act provides that there can be no material alterations or substantial additions to the common elements except as authorized by the declaration of condominium. If the declaration is silent, then 75 percent of all voting interests must approve the alteration or addition (there is usually one voting interest per unit).

The standard still used by the courts today comes from a decision from a Florida appeals court rendered almost 50 years ago. In ruling that a unit owner’s closing in a screened lanai with windows was a material alteration, the court stated that the term means “to palpably or perceptively vary or change the form, shape, elements or specifications of a building from its original design, or current condition, in such a manner as to appreciably affect or influence its function, use or appearance.” Using this test, appellate courts have ruled that changing the exterior color scheme of condominium buildings is a material alteration, as is changing mansard roof shingles made of cedar to tile type shingles.

As with most rules, there are exceptions, one being the so-called “necessary maintenance exception,” which originates from a series of appellate court cases from the Second District Court of Appeals (which includes southwest Florida). These cases basically say that certain changes can be made without and owner vote when necessary to comply with law or when necessary for the proper maintenance and preservation of the condominium property.

 


Joe Adams is an attorney with Becker & Poliakoff, P.A., Fort Myers.

Send questions to Joe Adams by e-mail to jadams@beckerlawyers.com.

Past editions may be viewed at floridacondohoalawblog.com.

 

Tags: , ,
We are getting ready for this year, remember: When you keep us informed we can use this to keep the industry informed. | SFPMA

We are getting ready for this year, remember: When you keep us informed we can use this to keep the industry informed. | SFPMA

We are getting ready for this year, we offer many services for members. When you keep us informed we can use this to keep the industry informed.

We ask our members about Advertising
– In the next week we have information that will be sent directly to our members.
– Advertising includes: On our Website, On the Directory Categories, In our Email Blast and our Magazine, Florida Rising Magazine.
These when sent go out to industry professionals. Boards for Condos and HOA’s, Managers and YOU if you sign up.
Be safe and healthy
—————-
As we are reopening let your membership with us help you get in front of clients all over Florida
Here is some information about SFPMA.
What you can expect and rely upon with your membership.
We are a multi-member property management organization in the State of Florida. Expand your professional network, connect with those who work directly with Professionals in our Industry that may not necessarily know about your business.
Take advantage, meet like minded professionals and opens up opportunities for future business ventures and lifelong partnerships.
Through your Membership:
1. You are listed on the Website Members Directory. – marketed to clients all over Florida.
2. You are also listed on the Magazine Directory.- Our publication is sent each month to over 230,000+ Subscribers and Clients keeping them up to date on the the Industry.
3. Members can Write Articles, Send us Company News and Promotions we send to Thousands of Industry Professionals.
Let them get to know what you do! – Remember Send us information about your company! We will resend this out keeping everyone informed on the Services you Offer.
4. We publish many Events each month that are listed on our Upcoming Events Calendar. Licensing Become a CAM, Webinars for our industry and Board Education…..
It starts with: Membership and being listed on the Florida Directory. What we will offer You! Finding the top Companies that work in our Industry is important for Property Managers, Condo & HOA Board Members.
Happy New Year from all of us at:
~SFPMA
From Frank J Mari and Our Team.
Tags: , ,
Washington, D.C. Update: Bipartisan Emergency COVID Relief Act of 2020

Washington, D.C. Update: Bipartisan Emergency COVID Relief Act of 2020

  • Posted: Dec 10, 2020
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Washington, D.C. Update: Bipartisan Emergency COVID Relief Act of 2020

Washington, D.C. Update: Bipartisan Emergency COVID Relief Act of 2020

by  Omar Franco of Becker

Tuesday evening, the House passed HR 8900, an appropriations Continuing Resolution (“CR”) that extends current government funding levels through the end of Friday, December 18th. Its intent is to avoid disruption of relief efforts while Congress continues to work toward an agreement on a longer-term omnibus appropriations bill to fund the federal government for the FY2021. Further complicating negotiations is the renewed push on the Hill to pass additional COVID relief legislation. Any legislation to provide pandemic relief or economic stimulus before the end of the year will most likely need to pass as part of a broader appropriations package, intertwining the fate of both legislative efforts. The Senate is expected to pass the CR with enough time to allow President Trump time to sign it into law before midnight on Friday evening.

The bipartisan “908 coalition” continued efforts to reach agreement on the remaining sticking points of coronavirus legislation (state and local aid and liability reform) will garner most of the media attention as the legislative year ends, but the expected final passage of the CR is significant as well. In addition to giving Congress an additional week to find consensus on an omnibus bill, COVID legislation, or both by avoiding a shutdown, the CR included a few potentially notable health extenders as the pandemic is expected to worsen in the coming weeks. Medicare, Medicaid, FDA, and public health extenders included in this CR would:

  • Extend the Medicare work geographic index floor
  • Extend the delays of Medicaid disproportionate share hospital (DSH) reductions
  • Extend funding for low-income assistance programs including State health insurance programs like CHIP, aging and disability resource centers, and community health centers
  • Extend funding for the National Health Service Corps and teaching health centers that operate graduate medical education programs

To read the relief bill’s outline, please click here to read the Bill. Becker’s Federal Lobbying Team will continue to monitor these developments as they evolve and will share with you as soon as information becomes available.

[AdSense-B]


 

Omar Franco is the Managing Director of Becker’s Washington, D.C., office. He currently represents a wide variety of clients including Fortune 500 companies, small businesses, higher education institutions, trade associations, non-profit organizations, and municipal governments

Omar Franco
Managing Director
Washington, D.C.
202.621.7122
202.731.3401
OFRANCO@beckerlawyers.com

Tags: ,
Is It a Limited Common Element?  By: Michael Dermody, Esq. of BECKER

Is It a Limited Common Element? By: Michael Dermody, Esq. of BECKER

  • Posted: Dec 02, 2020
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Is It a Limited Common Element? By: Michael Dermody, Esq. of BECKER

Is It a Limited Common Element?

By: Michael Dermody, Esqof Becker

Most condominium unit owners may think that limited common elements are those areas outside the condominium unit that are part of the common elements, but which are used only by a specific unit owner.  However, the Florida Condominium Act defines “limited common elements” as “those common elements which are reserved for the use of a certain unit to the exclusion of all other units, as specified in the declaration.” (FS 718.103(19), emphasis added). Thus, the determination of whether a common element (i.e., any area not included within the unit boundaries) is a “limited common element” depends solely upon the designation set forth in the property’s declaration. Brown v Rice, 716 So.2d 807 (5th DCA 1998).

 

This requirement that limited common elements (“LCE”) must be “specified in the declaration” can be crucial when it comes to assigning maintenance responsibility.  While maintenance of common elements (of which LCE are a subset) is statutorily the responsibility of the association, the Condominium Act provides that “the declaration may provide that certain limited common elements shall be maintained by those entitled to use the limited common elements…”  FS 718.113(1).  However, the fact that unit owners are assigned the maintenance obligation in the declaration for areas outside of their unit under their exclusive control may not mean much if the area is not designated as a limited common element in the declaration of condominium; in such case the declaration may be assigning maintenance responsibility for something that does not technically exist.  Without such specific designation the area would remain a part of the common elements, and the maintenance responsibility of the association.

 

When patios and balconies are associated with units, they are usually plainly marked as limited common elements in the unit diagrams and are thus “specified.”   But there are less obvious things external to a unit, but used exclusively by the unit owner, that may escape specification in the declaration such as external air conditioning units, air conditioner connecting lines, air conditioner condensate drain lines, or plumbing lines that serve only one unit. If the intent is to assign the unit owner the maintenance responsibility for such things, they must be specified as limited common elements in the declaration.  Conversely, the mere fact that the LCE are specified in the declaration does not automatically make the LCE the maintenance responsibility of the unit owner. LCE are, after all, a part of the common elements, and by default are an association maintenance obligation.  To properly assign the maintenance obligation to the unit owner, the declaration must both specify the item or area in question as a limited common element and designate the maintenance obligation to the unit owner.

 

If your association has portions of the common elements that serve only one unit owner, or group of units, which are not specified in the declaration as limited common elements, the Condominium Act was amended a few years ago to allow the association to reclassify these portions of the common elements as limited common elements, by amending the declaration (and amending the maintenance obligations, if necessary).  If these obligations are not clear in your condominium declaration, consult with your attorney to determine whether amendments to reclassify portions of the condominium property from common elements to limited common elements would be beneficial to your community.

 


Michael O. Dermody
Senior Attorney
tel:772.286.2990
MDERMODY@beckerlawyers.com

 

Michael Dermody concentrates his legal practice in commercial litigation, with a focus in appellate writing. He was admitted to the Florida Bar in May, 2007, and has been a member of the New Jersey Bar since 1996. Prior to coming to Florida, Michael was the principal of his own solo practice in Frenchtown, New Jersey. In 2005, he submitted an amicus curae brief in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court medical marijuana case, Ascroft v. Raich. Since 2007 he has focused on community association law with a concentration in community association litigation.


[AdSense-B]

 

Tags: , ,
Webinar: Is your Association’s website compliant with Florida Law? by KatzmanChandler & Concierge Plus

Webinar: Is your Association’s website compliant with Florida Law? by KatzmanChandler & Concierge Plus

  • Posted: Nov 23, 2020
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Webinar: Is your Association’s website compliant with Florida Law? by KatzmanChandler & Concierge Plus

Webinar: Is your Association’s website compliant with Florida Law?

by KatzmanChandler & Concierge Plus

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2020

11:00 AM IN EASTERN TIME (US AND CANADA)

Register Now

http://ow.ly/SRAw50CpukW

Florida Law has required Condominium Associations of 150 or more units to maintain websites with very specific requirements. Maintaining a generic, public website where governing documents and meeting minutes are uploaded, is simply not sufficient. Specific documents, information, and security, including access password protection, is required.
Katzman Chandler and our friends at Concierge Plus are hosting a webinar to discuss Association websites and statutory compliance.
Tags: , ,
Governor DeSantis has Extended the Florida State of Emergency for 60-Days from November 3rd, 2020

Governor DeSantis has Extended the Florida State of Emergency for 60-Days from November 3rd, 2020

  • Posted: Nov 04, 2020
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Governor DeSantis has Extended the Florida State of Emergency for 60-Days from November 3rd, 2020

Governor DeSantis has Extended the Florida State of Emergency for 60-Days from November 3rd, 2020

Download the PDF: SLG-BIZHUB20110309120_nov4-2020

Below are images of the order. Please click on either image to download the Order 

 

Tags: , ,
Can Political Flags Be Flown? Q&A by DAVID G. MULLER / Becker

Can Political Flags Be Flown? Q&A by DAVID G. MULLER / Becker

  • Posted: Oct 22, 2020
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Can Political Flags Be Flown? Q&A by DAVID G. MULLER / Becker

Can Political Flags Be Flown? Q&A

by DAVID G. MULLER / Becker

Q: I went on a walk in my community and saw at least 8 homes flying either Trump or Biden flags.  Is it legal to fly a political flag on a home located in a homeowners association? I.B.

A: Sections 720.304(2)(a) and 720.3075(3) of the Florida Homeowners Association Act specifically permit the flying of the US flag and other types of governmental flags, including flags of the various military branches.  These statutes do not address other types of flags, such as political flags.

The governing documents for some communities prohibit owners from flying non-exempt flags, such as political flags or flags with sports team logos.  There is an open and rather complicated legal issue as to whether it is an infringement of a homeowner’s First Amendment free speech rights to restrict political speech.

The First Amendment only applies by its terms to Congress, and, by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, to the states and their local governments. In legal jargon, “state action” is required before constitutional rights come into play.  There are several Florida cases which have held that a community association is not a state actor.

Your association’s attorney should be able to determine if these political flags are indeed regulated by the governing documents, and if so, guide you through the constitutional law analysis that is part of deciding your options.

 

Q: Your February 2020 column addresses the cap on transfer fees for condominium associations.  Is there a similar cap for homeowners associations? D.P.

A: No.  My February 2020 column referenced Section 718.112(2)(i) of the Florida Condominium Act, which states that no charge shall be made by a condominium association in connection with the sale, mortgage, lease, sublease, or other transfer of a unit unless the association is required to approve such transfer and unless a fee for such approval is provided for in the declaration, articles, or bylaws. Any such fee (in the condominium association context) may be preset but may not exceed $100 per applicant other than husband/wife or parent/dependent child, who are considered one applicant.  There is no similar provision found in Chapter 720 of the Florida Statutes, the Florida Homeowners Association Act.

 

Q: I am considering purchasing a home in a community with a homeowners association, but I have been told that there is a “capital contribution” fee of $1,500 charged to all purchasers.  Is such a fee legal? T.F.

A: Sometimes referred to as a “flip tax”, these charges are not uncommon in the homeowner association context. There is neither authority for nor prohibition on this type of fee in the law applicable to homeowners’ associations (the condominium law does address this issue).  If the authority to charge the capital contribution fee is contained in the appropriate governing documents, the prevailing view in the legal community is that such charges are legally valid.

 

[AdSense-B]

 

Tags: , , ,
2020 Florida Constitutional Amendments by KBR Legal

2020 Florida Constitutional Amendments by KBR Legal

  • Posted: Oct 15, 2020
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on 2020 Florida Constitutional Amendments by KBR Legal

2020 Florida Constitutional Amendments

What You Need To Know Before Voting 

When voters go to the polls on November 3, 2020, there will be six constitutional amendment proposals on the ballot. This article contains a brief discussion of the amendments. In order to adopt each amendment, it must be approved by 60% of voters casting a ballot. We take no position on any of the amendments, and simply wish to provide our readers with a summary of each proposed amendment. The ballot title and summary of each amendment, as same will be listed on the ballot, is provided, and a brief explanation follows.

 

 

Amendment 1Citizenship Requirement to Vote in Florida Elections

This amendment provides that only United States Citizens who are at least eighteen years of age, a permanent resident of Florida, and registered to vote, as provided by law, shall be qualified to vote in a Florida election. Because the proposed amendment is not expected to result in any changes to the voter registration process in Florida, it will have no impact on state or local government costs or revenue. Further, it will have no effect on the state’s economy.

 

Discussion:

Amendment 1 amends the language of Article VI of the Florida Constitution. Currently, Article VI provides that “Every citizen of the United States who is at least eighteen years of age and who is a permanent resident of the state, if registered as provided by law, shall be an elector of the county where registered.” This amendment revises the language of Article VI to provide that “Only a citizen of the United States…” can vote. As currently drafted, the language of Article VI bars non-citizens from voting.

  • Proponents argue that the language change is necessary to clarify who is not permitted to vote, and to stimy any efforts to give voting rights to non-citizens in local elections.
  • Opponents argue that the amendment is unnecessary as the language of Article VI of the Florida Constitution already limits voting to citizens.

 


Amendment 2: Raising Florida’s Minimum Wage

Raises minimum wage to $10.00 per hour effective September 30th, 2021. Each September 30th thereafter, minimum wage shall increase by $1.00 per hour until the minimum wage reaches $15.00 per hour on September 30th, 2026. From that point forward, future minimum wage increases shall revert to being adjusted annually for inflation starting September 30th, 2027. State and local government costs will increase to comply with the new minimum wage levels. Additional annual wage costs will be approximately $16 million in 2022, increasing to about $540 million in 2027 and thereafter. Government actions to mitigate these costs are unlikely to produce material savings. Other government costs and revenue impacts, both positive and negative, are not quantifiable.

 

THIS PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT IS ESTIMATED TO HAVE A NET NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE STATE BUDGET. THIS IMPACT MAY RESULT IN HIGHER TAXES OR A LOSS OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN A BALANCED STATE BUDGET AS REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION.

 

Discussion:

Amendment 2 would increase Florida’s minimum wage to $15.00 per hour by September 2026. Currently, Florida’s minimum wage is $8.56 per hour. The amendment proposes to increase the minimum wage to $10.00 per hour in September 2021 with an increase of $1.00 per hour each year until the minimum wage becomes $15.00 per hour in September 2026. Thereafter, the minimum wage will be adjusted annually for inflation.

  • Proponents argue that the increased minimum wage will allow minimum wage workers to earn enough to afford basic household necessities, and help to reduce race and gender income inequality. They also point to a potential increase in economic activity by increased household spending.
  • Opponents argue that an increase in labor costs would likely be passed on to the customers which would lead to an increase in the cost of living. They argue that a minimum wage increase would impact state and local governments with increased wage costs of $16 million in 20212 and $540 million in 2027. They point to a 2019 Congressional Budget Office analysis looking at the potential impact of raising the federal minimum wage which predicted a .8% drop in employment and reduced business income.

 


Amendment 3: All Voters Vote in Primary Elections for State Legislature, Governor, and Cabinet

Allows all registered voters to vote in primaries for state legislature, governor, and cabinet regardless of political party affiliation. All candidates for an office, including party nominated candidates, appear on the same primary ballot. Two highest vote getters advance to general election. If only two candidates qualify, no primary is held and winner is determined in general election. Candidate’s party affiliation may appear on ballot as provided by law. Effective January 1, 2024. It is probable that the proposed amendment will result in additional local government costs to conduct elections in Florida. The Financial Impact Estimating Conference projects that the combined costs across counties will range from $5.2 million to $5.8 million for each of the first three election cycles occurring in even-numbered years after the amendment’s effective date, with the costs for each of the intervening years dropping to less than $450,000. With respect to state costs for oversight, the additional costs for administering elections are expected to be minimal. Further, there are no revenues linked to voting in Florida. Since there is no impact on state costs or revenues, there will be no impact on the state’s budget. While the proposed amendment will result in an increase in local expenditures, this change is expected to be below the threshold that would produce a statewide economic impact.

 

Discussion:

Currently, Florida is a closed primary state, meaning that voters can only vote in the primary of the party with which they are affiliated. Amendment 3 would replace closed primaries with open primaries for the following elections: Governor, State Cabinet, and Florida Legislature. In an open primary all voters vote for all candidates on a single ballot. The top two vote getters, regardless of party affiliation, would advance to the general election. This change would only apply to the enumerated elections, and would not apply to local or federal races.

  • Proponents argue that open primaries would help increase voter participation by allowing registered voters not affiliated with a major political party to participate in primary elections. They also argue it could help produce more competitive races and attract more moderate candidate to run for state offices.
  • Opponents argue that open primaries could result in two members of a major political party being on the general ballot. Additionally, opponents argue that closed primaries ensure that candidates conform more closely and consistently with positions held by the two major political parties.

 


Amendment 4: Voter Approval of Constitutional Amendments

Requires all proposed amendments or revisions to the State Constitution to be approved by the voters in two elections, instead of one, in order to take effect. The proposal applies the current thresholds for passage to each of the two elections. It is probable that the proposed amendment will result in additional state and local government costs to conduct elections in Florida. Overall, these costs will vary from election cycle to election cycle depending on the unique circumstances of each ballot and cannot be estimated at this time. The key factors determining cost include the number of amendments appearing for the second time on each ballot and the length of those amendments. Since the maximum state cost is likely less than $1 million per cycle but the impact cannot be discretely quantified, the change to the state’s budget is unknown. Similarly, the economic impact cannot be modelled, although the spending increase is expected to be below the threshold that would produce a statewide economic impact. Because there are no revenues linked to voting in Florida, there will be no impact on government taxes or fees.

 

THE FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THIS AMENDMENT CANNOT BE DETERMINED DUE TO AMBIGUITIES AND UNCERTAINTIES SURROUNDING THE AMENDMENT’S IMPACT.

 

Discussion:

Amendment 4 would change the requirements to approve a constitutional amendment. Currently, a constitutional amendment is adopted if it is approved by 60% of the voters casting a ballot. Amendment 4 would require an amendment to be approved by at least 60% of the voters in two consecutive election cycles. In other words, a proposed amendment would have to be approved twice.

  • Proponents argue that requiring double approval would limit “legislating” by constitutional amendment by making it harder to adopt amendments to the Florida Constitution.
  • Opponents argue that it will limit voters’ ability to amend the constitution and to act as a check on the Florida Legislature when it fails to pass laws that are important to citizens.

 


Amendment 5: Limitations on Homestead Property Tax Assessments; increase portability period to transfer accrued benefit

Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution, effective January 1, 2021, to increase, from 2 years to 3 years, the period of time during which accrued Save-Our-Homes benefits may be transferred from a prior homestead to a new homestead.

 

Discussion:

Amendment 5 increases the amount of time property owners have to transfer the “Save Our Homes” property tax exemption when they move. Currently, property owners have two years to transfer their tax exemption when they move. Amendment 5 would extend that to three years effective January 1, 2021.

  • Proponents argue that, as the tax year starts on January 1, owners who sell later in the year end up with less time to transfer their tax benefit than owners who sell earlier in the year. They argue that extending the exemption to three years allows more Floridians to take advantage of the transfer.
  • Opponents argue that the amendment would reduce local property taxes, including a reduction of $1.8 million in fiscal year 2021-2022.

 


Amendment 6: Ad Velorem Tax Discount for Spouses of Certain Deceased Veterans Who Had Permanent, Combat-Related Disabilities

Provides that the homestead property tax discount for certain veterans with permanent combat-related disabilities carries over to such veteran’s surviving spouse who holds legal or beneficial title to, and who permanently resides on, the homestead property, until he or she remarries or sells or otherwise disposes of the property. The discount may be transferred to a new homestead property of the surviving spouse under certain conditions. The amendment takes effect January 1, 2021.

 

Discussion:

Under current law, honorably discharged, combat disabled veterans who are over 65 are eligible for a homestead property tax discount. However, the discount expires upon the death of the veteran. Amendment 6 would allow the homestead property discount to be transferred to the veteran’s surviving spouse who is on the title and lives in the home.

  • Proponents argue that the amendment would extend additional tax relief to assist surviving spouses who often live on fixed incomes.
  • Opponents argue that the tax discount will lead to a reduction in tax revenue including a reduction in school tax revenue by $1.6 million annually and non-school property tax revenue by $2.4 million annually.

 

A special Thank You to attorney Olivia Cato of our firm for preparing this article

 

[AdSense-B]

 

Tags: , ,