SFPMA

Menu
Join SFPMA

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

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

Release of Liability and Hold Harmless Agreements by JEFFREY REMBAUM, ESQ., KAYE BENDER REMBAUM

Release of Liability and Hold Harmless Agreements by JEFFREY REMBAUM, ESQ., KAYE BENDER REMBAUM

Release of Liability and Hold Harmless Agreements

by JEFFREY REMBAUM, ESQ., KAYE BENDER REMBAUM

If Your Association Requires One, Then You Must Read This…

Many communities offer a host of amenities for their residents and guests to enjoy, such as clubhouses, fitness centers, playgrounds, swimming pools, tot lots, tennis courts, etc. One of the upsides to providing such amenities is that the residents and their guests have a variety of activities to choose from, which enhances the quality of life within the community. However, one of the potential significant downsides to offering such benefits is that the association often incurs liability if a resident or guest is injured while using one of the amenities.

Accordingly, it has become commonplace for associations to require that residents and guests sign a document that releases the association from liability and holds the association harmless when a resident or guest uses the amenities. Although the title of the document may vary—“Hold Harmless,” “Indemnification Agreement,” “Release of Liability,” or “Waiver and Release”—there is usually language included within the document along the lines of the following:

“I, Mr. Owner, on my own behalf and on behalf of all other occupants and guests to my home, for and in consideration for use of the association’s facilities, equipment, etc. hereby release and hold harmless the association, its members, officers, directors, agents, etc. from any and all liability which may arise out of or in connection with my participation or use of the foregoing facilities, equipment, etc.”

This language is often referred to as an “exculpatory clause,” which is a clause that is designed to relieve a party from blame or liability. Such language has traditionally served to help prevent an association’s liability to an owner or guest when he or she is injured while using the amenities. It may have been a while since anyone has taken a good look at the specific language included in the association’s release, and it may be taken for granted that such language will automatically protect the association from liability. Many such form documents do not provide the protection you might think they should. A recent Florida appellate court case dealing with such exculpatory clauses highlights this potential issue and offers pause.

Specifically, The Estate of Nicholas Adam Blakely, By and Through Michele Wilson, as Personal Representative v. Stetson University, Inc., WL 17997526 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022), involved the tragic death of a young man who played football at Stetson University. As described in the written appellate opinion, the young man pulled himself out of an afternoon football practice complaining to an assistant athletic trainer that he felt dizzy and that his chest felt tight. Although the trainers continued to monitor his symptoms on the sidelines, after approximately 45 minutes the young man collapsed. Thereafter, university employees attempted various emergency medical procedures in an unsuccessful effort to revive him. The young man was transported to the hospital where, sadly, he died.

The trial court found that the two identical releases signed by the young man were sufficiently clear to bar claims brought against the university arising from his death after participating in the football practice. On appeal, however, one of the arguments focused on whether the language in the releases that the young man signed were sufficient to be enforceable. The appellate court determined it was not. Although the entirety of the written releases are unable to be reproduced here, the particular language that the court focused on is set out below. Specifically, the appellate court placed emphasis on the following:

I understand that the dangers and risks of playing or participating/practicing may include, but are not limited to: death…Because of the dangers and risks involved in participating in intercollegiate athletics, I recognize the importance of following the Coaches and Sports Medicine staff instructions regarding playing techniques, conditioning, rehabilitation/treatment recommendations and team rules, etc. and agree to obey such instructions…I hereby assume all risks associated with participation and agree to hold Stetson University…from any and all liability…of any kind or nature which may arise by or in connection with my participation in any activities related to the Stetson University athletic program. The terms hereof shall serve as a release and assumption of risk for myself, my heirs, estate, executor, administrator, assignees and for all members of  my family. The terms hereof shall serve as a complete release and waiver of liability for myself, my heirs, estate, executor, administrator, assignees, and for all members of my family.

 

On its face, it sounds complete. But is it? In its analysis of the language included in the releases, the appellate court began by expressing that

[A]n exculpatory clause purports to deny an injured party the right to recover damages from a person negligently causing his injury. They are disfavored in the law because they relieve one party of the obligation to use due care and shift the risk of injury to the party who is probably least equipped to take the necessary precautions to avoid the injury and bear the risk of loss. Such claims are strictly construed against the party seeking to be relieved of liability. Thus, exculpatory clauses are enforceable only where and to the extent that the intention to be relieved from liability is made clear and unequivocal. The wording must be clear and understandable that an ordinary and knowledgeable person will know what he is contracting away (quoting UCF Athletics Ass’n, v Plancher, 121 So. 3d 1097, 1101 [Fla. 5th DCA 2013]).

 

Unlike the trial court, the appellate court took issue with the language contained within the releases because the release forms

  1. failed to expressly inform the young man that he was contracting away his rights to sue the university for its own negligence,
  2. used language that could reasonably lead one to believe that the university would be supervising and training [him] properly such that the young man was only being asked to sign the exculpatory clause to cover injuries inherent in a sport, and
  3. used language suggesting that the terms of the releases were for the young man’s benefit.

 

Accordingly, the appellate court determined that the foregoing supported a determination that the releases were not clear and unambiguous. So, what does the appellate court’s decision mean for exculpatory clauses as related to an association’s release? It means that associations need to review the language in such exculpatory clauses with counsel to assist in aligning the language with the thinking of the court. For example:

  1. Is the language in the release clear, unambiguous, and written in such a way that an ordinary and knowledgeable person would know that he or she is contracting away his or her right to sue the association if an injury occurs?
  2. Is the language in the release free from any indication whatsoever that training and/or supervision is being provided by the association to avoid a mistaken belief by the owner or guest that he or she is merely signing away his or her right to sue for injuries inherent in a particular activity?
  3. Is it unequivocally clear that the individual is giving up all rights to litigate against the association in regard to any accident that may occur, even if the association was negligent?
  4. Are there terms in the release that would make it seem as though the release is for the benefit of the homeowner or guest and not the association?
    If you are in doubt as to the exculpatory language included in your association’s release, do not wait until a homeowner or guest is injured, or possibly worse, to discover that the language is not appropriate for protecting the association from liability. In light of this most recent opinion, you should discuss with your association’s legal counsel when there would be a good opportunity to review and amend such release of liability and hold harmless agreements.
Jeffrey Rembaum, Esq. of Kaye, Bender, Rembaum attorneys at law, legal practice consists of representation of condominium, homeowner, commercial and mobile home park associations, as well as exclusive country club communities and the developers who build them. Mr. Rembaum is a Certified Specialist in Condominium and Planned Development Law. He is the creator of ‘Rembaum’s Association Roundup’, an e-magazine devoted to the education of community association board members, managers, developers and anyone involved with Florida’s community associations.  His column appears monthly in the Florida Community Association Journal. Every year since 2012, Mr. Rembaum has been selected to the Florida Super Lawyers list and was also named Legal Elite by Florida Trends Magazine. He can be reached at 561-241-4462.
Tags: ,
As a homeowner, it is important to know Common Property Damage Claims. by Joseph Maus

As a homeowner, it is important to know Common Property Damage Claims. by Joseph Maus

  • Posted: Apr 02, 2023
  • By:
  • Comments: 0

Common Property Damage Claims. As a homeowner, it is important to know

A home or office building is the most important purchase most of us will make during our lifetime. Most of us buy insurance coverage – windstorm, liability, flood, homeowners, and business interruption – to protect our homes and businesses. Yet, today’s insurance policies are lengthy, complex contracts full of exceptions, exclusions, deductibles, and conditions that make the policy difficult to read, and sometimes even more difficult to recover from for your damage. When you call the Maus Law Firm, a top Fort Lauderdale property damage lawyer will handle property damage claims.

Disagreeing with Your Insurance Claim for Property Damage

You have four options if you disagree with the amount the insurance company is offering you for your damage:

Most insurance companies create entire TV marketing campaigns designed to say that you’re part of the insurance company’s “family”. However, the reality of the insurance business is that insurance companies exist to make money. That means that insurance company needs to minimize the amount of claims it pays out; meanwhile, maximizing the premiums that it collects.

When an insurance company doesn’t offer to pay you the full (or fair) amount of your property damage, you need to be prepared to fight. While many homeowners are hesitant to go to court – fearful of a lengthy or expensive legal battle against a big-name insurer – settling for less than your claim was worth can end up costing you more in the long-term. The repairs your home needed can continue to pile up, lowering the value of your property. Hiring the best Fort Lauderdale property damage lawyer you can find will save you the headache later.

The Process for Property Damage Claims & Florida Property Owner’s Obligations

When making insurance claims for property damage, it is helpful to know how the process typically unfolds. Our Fort Lauderdale property damage lawyer knows that while there are many potential scenarios, the property owner should first understand their own obligations under the insurance policy. Second, the property owner should understand the reasons for the insurance company’s denial of their claim.

Any property insurance policy will place some obligations on the property owner when they make a claim for property loss. These obligations will differ from policy to policy, but the following are several of the most common requirements.

  • Notice of Loss: The property owner is generally required to provide notice of the loss to the carrier promptly. The policy should provide a specific deadline. Failure to meet this deadline could result in the claim being barred.
  • Protect Against Further Damage: The property owner is also required to take reasonable steps to protect the property from further damage. For example, if the roof of a property is damaged by a hurricane, the property owner must attempt to place temporary covering to protect the interior. However, the exact conduct that is considered “reasonable steps” will often be subject to interpretation.
  • Proof of Loss: After making a claim, the property owner will need to submit a proof of loss statement. This statement is generally signed under penalty of perjury and itemizes the damages. A typical deadline for the proof of loss is 60 days after a request by the insurance carrier.

How a Fort Lauderdale Property Damage Lawyer Can Help You with Your Homeowner’s Insurance Claim

Unfortunately, even if you have paid your homeowners’ insurance premiums on time for decades, this does not guarantee that your insurance company will treat you fairly if you need to file a claim. Bad-faith insurance claim denials are common, and homeowners can run into various other issues with their property damage claims as well. As a result, if you need to file a homeowners’ insurance claim, it is a good idea to hire an attorney. Here are just a few examples of the ways an experienced Fort Lauderdale property damage lawyer like Joseph Maus can help:

1. Determining If Your Claim is Covered

Before you devote the time, energy and resources to pursuing a property damage claim, you first need to determine if your claim is covered. An experienced Fort Lauderdale property damage lawyer will be able to review your homeowners’ insurance policy and assess the damage to your home in order to determine if your insurance company is liable.

2. Dealing with Your Insurance Company On Your Behalf

If you have a claim, your attorney will be able to deal with your insurance company on your behalf until your claim has been fully and finally resolved. This important for a few different reasons: (i) Florida’s insurance laws are complicated, and asserting your legal rights can be difficult; (ii) in some cases, there will be a legitimate dispute as to whether a homeowners’ insurance policy applies; and, (iii) successfully pursuing a homeowners’ insurance claim for significant property damage takes time, and you will need someone to handle your claim while you focus on work and your day-to-day life.

3. Overcoming Bad-Faith Coverage Delays and Denials

As we mentioned above, insurance companies routinely deny policyholders’ property damage claims in bad faith. If your insurance company is not handling your claim appropriately, you may need your attorney to take legal action on your behalf. If you have a claim for insurance bad faith, then you can seek compensation above and beyond the amount of coverage to which you are entitled under your policy.

Common Claims for Property Damage in Fort Lauderdale

When can you file a property damage claim? As a homeowner, it is important to know when you are entitled to insurance coverage and when you may need to come out of pocket to cover repairs to your home. With this in mind, here are some examples of common property damage claims in Fort Lauderdale:

  • Storm Damage Claims – While homeowners’ insurance policies do not cover flood damage caused by hurricanes and tropical storms, they do cover other types of storm damage.
  • Tree Damage Claims – If a tree in your yard fell on your home, your homeowners’ insurance policy should provide coverage.
  • Water Damage Claims – Water damage caused by leaking pipes, HVAC system failures and other similar types of issues should be covered under your homeowners’ insurance policy.
  • Fire Damage Claims – Fires from lightning strikes and other causes are generally covered as well, and your policy should cover your home as well as its contents.
  • Mold Claims – Mold claims are often disputed; but, if your house has mold from a “covered peril,” then the costs of remediation should be covered.
  • Theft Claims – If your home has been burglarized, your homeowners’ insurance policy may provide coverage for any damage that occurred during the break-in in addition to the value of your stolen property.

Here are 6 common property damage claims;

#1 Storm Damage, #2 Tree Damage, #3 Water Damage., #4 Fire Damage, #5 Mold, #6 Theft.

Where do you turn to get help?

The Maus Law Firm has been successfully handling insurance-related claims since 1993. We will competently and aggressively represent you in your homeowner property damage insurance claim, or commercial business insurance claim.

Call 954-784-6310 or

visit our website now, for a free consultation.

SFPMA & Members are ready to Handle Storm Damage & Claims for Condo and HOA Properties!

Trusted Members are; Legal Firms, Public Adjusters, Roofing, Engineering & Restoration Service Companies that work with you on Solutions to Storm Related Damage.

This is a Division of SFPMA – http://FloridaAdjusting.com

 

Tags: ,
“Notice of Board Meeting Must Include Agenda” by Becker

“Notice of Board Meeting Must Include Agenda” by Becker

Q: The board of directors of my condominium association recently voted on an issue that was not on the posted agenda. Following the meeting, the board realized that this was an error and there is a question as to how to correct the mistake. Should the board address this at the next board meeting and vote to undo what they voted on? (S.G., via e-mail)

A: Section 718 112(2)(c) of the Florida Condominium Act requires that notice of board meetings be posted on the condominium property at least 48 hours in advance (certain notices must be posted and sent to all owners 14 days in advance). The law goes on to say that the posed notice specifically must identify all agenda items. The public policy is that if owners know what the board will be voting on, they can decide if they would like to come to the meeting to observe or offer input.

The statute goes on to provide that an item not included on the notice may be taken up on an “emergency” basis by a vote of at least a majority plus one of the board members. Any emergency action so taken must be noticed and ratified at the next regular board meeting.

It is not suggested that the issue taken up was an emergency, but rather it was just a mistake. While there is no way to go back in time and cure the mistake, the most appropriate cure would be for the association to add the issue on the agenda at the next board meeting and have the board properly address the issue and revote on the motion.

Interestingly, for homeowners’ associations, while there is a requirement that notice of board meetings generally be posted at a conspicuous place in the community at least 48 hours in advance, there is no requirement that an agenda for the meeting must be posted. However, given that the Homeowners’ Association Act, Chapter 720, Florida Statutes, provides that members have the right to speak on all “designated items,” posting an agenda is a “best practice” and an agenda should be available at the meeting to confirm what issues owners may address.

Q: What does “plurality of the votes” mean when there are five seats up for election in a homeowners’ association? (J.Y., via e-mail)

A: Plurality means that the candidates who get the most votes win, whether they received votes from a majority of those who cast ballots or not.

Q: From what I understand, Florida law does not require directors to reside in the community, but our condominium documents do require residency within the community to be eligible to serve on the board of directors. Which would control? (S.F., via e-mail)

A: Florida law controls over your condominium documents in this instance, and the residency requirement in your condominium documents are not enforceable as being contrary to Florida law.

Section 718.112(2)(d)4 of the Florida Condominium Act states that every unit owner has the right to serve on the board. There are also certain limitations on board eligibility within the Act itself. For example, certain convicted felons are ineligible for board service. Certain financial defaults to the association can also disqualify a person from running for or serving on the board.

Other than the criteria for ineligibility set forth in the Act, limitations on the right to serve on the board are not legally valid. The Division of Florida Condominiums, Timeshares, and Mobile Homes, the state agency which has specified regulatory oversight of condominiums, has also ruled that “residency requirements” for board service contained in association bylaws are invalid. However, term limits contained in bylaws are valid in condominiums.

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.

 

Florida Legislature Considering Bills Proposing Changes to Condo Safety Reforms, Construction Defect Lawsuits

Florida Legislature Considering Bills Proposing Changes to Condo Safety Reforms, Construction Defect Lawsuits

Florida Legislature Considering Bills Proposing Changes to Condo Safety Reforms, Construction Defect Lawsuits

As the 2023 Florida legislative session gets underway, there are several bills impacting associations and real estate

Senate Bill 154 and House Bill 1395

Perhaps the most important of these are Senate Bill 154 and House Bill 1395, which deal with issues such as inspections and condominium association financial reserves that were addressed in the condo safety reform law that was passed last May with the adoption of Senate Bill 4D during a special legislative session. Under the new law, inspections are required for buildings that have been occupied for 30 years — or 25 years if they are within three miles of a coastline. After these initial inspections, the buildings will have to go through the process again every 10 years.

Flalegislature-300x169If adopted, the new bills could result in changes to the time by which buildings, including those within three miles of a coastline, will have to be inspected. The two bills include different timeframes by which the initial milestone inspection may have to be performed (e.g., SB 154 triggering all such inspections at 30 years with discretion for local officials and authorities having jurisdiction to compel some at 25 years depending on “local circumstances, including environmental conditions such proximity to salt water”; or HB 1395 requiring the initial inspections at 25 years for all buildings regardless of proximity to salt water).

 

SB 154 also includes provisions that would allow local officials to extend inspection deadlines if building owners have entered into contracts with architects or engineers but the inspections cannot be finished in time.

HB 1395 further proposes to increase the types of professionals that may perform phase 1 of the milestone inspections from architects and engineers to also include general contractors licensed under Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, with at least five years of experience in building/constructing threshold buildings, or as a building code administrator or licensed building code inspector.

The bills also include changes to portions of the statutes governing the financial reserves studies and requirements that were implemented under last year’s law. Some of the changes provided in SB 154 include clarification as to which building components must be included as part of the required reserve funding. It would also allow reserve studies to “recommend that reserves do not need to be maintained for any item for which an estimate of useful life and an estimate of replacement cost or deferred maintenance expense cannot be determined.” The bill’s sponsor says that provision could apply to building foundations.

HB 1395 includes different proposed changes pertaining to the structural integrity reserve items, such as providing for modified deadlines to the December 31, 2024, deadline established under last year’s reforms.

These are just a sampling of the various changes being considered by the legislature this session. As is usually the case with the legislative process, the provisions of SB 154 and HB 1395 will likely undergo various changes and may become mirror images of each other via lawmakers’ negotiations resulting in a final version that may be voted into law. Condominium association stakeholders should keep an eye on these bills given that their adoption by the legislature could surely result in significant changes to the monumental laws adopted last year affecting condominium associations in Florida.

House Bill 85

The legislature is also considering changes to the state’s statute of repose for construction defect lawsuits, which is used to determine how long a party has to file a claim for latent construction defects after a structure or improvement has been completed.

Currently, the state’s 10-year period of repose starts to run from the latest of these four events: 1) the date of actual possession by the owner, 2) the date of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, 3) the date of abandonment of construction if not completed, or 4) the date of completion of the contract or termination of the contract between the professional engineer, registered architect, or licensed contractor and his or her employer. After the 10-year period expires, a claim for latent defects can no longer be brought.

If adopted, House Bill 85 would revise the triggering events for the period of repose for suits brought for latent construction defects to the earliest of: 1) the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy, 2) the date of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, 3) or the date of issuance of a certificate of completion, or 4) the date of abandonment if construction is not completed.

The repose period would start to run seven years from the earliest of the foregoing four events. These changes, if adopted, could have significant changes to the time frame within which an association may assert a claim against parties responsible for construction defects.

As the legislative session unfolds and reaches its conclusion on May 5th, our firm’s attorneys will continue to monitor these and other bills impacting the state’s community associations and real estate industry.

Tags: ,
A FEW BIG CHANGES IN THE LAW By Eric Glazer, Esq.

A FEW BIG CHANGES IN THE LAW By Eric Glazer, Esq.

A FEW BIG CHANGES IN THE LAW

By Eric Glazer, Esq.

Believe it or not, it’s getting harder to sue someone or to sue a business in the State of Florida.

First, it’s more risky now to sue your insurance company.  The typical case that comes to mind is the one where a condominium association sues its own insurance company for failing to pay for roof damage because the insurance company does not believe the storm caused all that damage.  Until now, there was no risk for the condominium association.  The attorney took the case on a contingency and, if the association won the case the association would be entitled to an award of attorney’s fees against the insurance company.  And, even if the association lost, the association did not have to pay attorney’s fees to the lawyers for the insurance company.  In other words, the risk of paying attorney’s fees only ran one way.  No longer.  Now the association has no right to collect attorney’s fees against their insurer even if the case is settled or won.  The association bears the risk of not having their fees paid by their carrier which should ultimately result in a smaller recovery.

Perhaps the biggest change to the law since I’m in practice went into effect last week.  The statute of limitations regarding negligence actions went from four (4) years to two (2) years.  That is a bombshell.

The law is primarily intended to go after personal injury lawyers and prevent personal injury cases from winding up in the courtroom.  From a condominium and HOA perspective the change in the law will also have major effects.  For example, all claims for damages to condominium or HOA property caused by someone else now have to be filed in two years and not four.  This could be damage caused by contractors the association hire, or unit owners who live or rent on the property.

There are some other bills of interest that may pass during the legislative session and if they do, I’ll let you know.

 

Tags:
THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE – AFRAID TO PASS REQUIRED EDUCATION

THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE – AFRAID TO PASS REQUIRED EDUCATION

THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE – AFRAID TO PASS REQUIRED EDUCATION

DOES THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE WANT YOU TO REMAIN DUMB?

By Eric Glazer, Esq.

For those of you who are intelligent and decided to come to a Board Certification class in the last few months and learn all about the new safety and reserve laws, I applaud you.  It was my honor meeting you and teaching you all over the state.

I love that look in your eyes and the groan that comes over the crowd when I tell you that you do not need to be here today.  You did not have to get certified by taking what I believe is both a board certification and a life safety class.  The Florida Legislature still allows Board members to get certified by signing a ridiculous form that says you have read your governing documents and you promise to enforce them.

Are the new safety and reserve laws found in your governing documents?  Of course not.  You have to be taught them to know what you are now required to do in order that another Champlain Towers disaster never happens again.  You don’t learn these laws by staying home in your pajamas, printing a form off the computer and signing it.  When the members of your Board can get certified by signing that self-serving form, lives are at risk.

It’s ironic that they placed language in the new laws requiring the directors to follow them or face breach of fiduciary duty charges.  So…..according to The Florida Legislature, you must apply these new laws in your condominium, you just don’t have to learn them and know what is actually required of you.

Every legislator I have ever spoken to about a mandatory educational course in order to get Board certified is in favor of it.  Yet, it remains a mystery why in the past it has been removed from the statute.  The classes are free and are even accessible via ZOOM.  This year, there are several condominium bills floating around at the moment.  Not a single one has any mention of mandatory education for Board members.

Back to the title “Does The Florida Legislature Want You To Remain Dumb?”  How else would you explain it?

Tags: , ,
Florida Condo Building Inspections (SB4d) It’s a confusing time for everyone affected, and we can all use some extra clarity.

Florida Condo Building Inspections (SB4d) It’s a confusing time for everyone affected, and we can all use some extra clarity.

Florida Condo Building Inspections (SB4d)

It’s a confusing time for everyone affected, and we can all use some extra clarity.

Florida state legislature took swift action to implement inspection reform to mitigate the risk of a similar tragedy in the future. As of May 27th, 2022, Florida passed several laws to keep building safer in the state by requiring specific inspections and funding mechanisms. These new Florida condo laws mean significant changes for building owners across Florida, all within a relatively short time.

 

  • Under the new legislation, a licensed engineer or architect must visually evaluate condominiums older than 30 years, or 25 years if the building is within 3 miles of the shore, and every 10 years thereafter.

 

  • A secondary inspection will be required if there is evidence of significant structural damage.

 

  • The new rule also mandates that condo organizations review their reserve money every ten years to ensure that they can cover substantial repairs.

 

This is a great Video to start your education on SB-4D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QdEqUgL1CM&t=51s

Milestone Inspections

Addition of F.S. 533.889 – Milestone Inspections

 

What buildings does this law affect, and what does the new law say? 

Structural inspections are now mandatory for condominium and cooperative buildings that are 3 stories or greater in height.

 

What do I have to do?

Have a Milestone Inspection performed when a building is 30 years old and every ten years after the initial inspection. If your building is within 3 miles of the coastline, a Milestone Inspection must be performed when the building is 25 years old and every ten years after the initial inspection.

 

What else do I need to know about this inspection? 

The purpose is to verify the safety and adequacy of the structural components of the building. There are two possible phases of this Milestone Inspection. If you pass the first, you don’t need the second. If you don’t pass the first, you’re required to have the second performed, which is much more extensive.

Phase 1is a visual examination and qualitative assessment. Ideally, this will be all you have to complete.

Phase 2is a full assessment of distress to determine if the building is structurally sound and safe for its intended use. The inspector is to recommend a program for complete evaluation and repair of distressed and damaged portions of the building.

On SFPMA.COM find the top rated engineers for your SB-4D Inspections.

A Florida Licensed Engineer or Architect must perform both phases of this Milestone Inspection.

Find the Top rated Engineers on our State of Florida Members Directory. Members are located all over Florida, Boards, Managers, Owners, Investors can view our open directory and find these companies to start the Inspections.

 

When is the deadline?

If your building is over 30 years old (or 25 if you’re within 3 miles of the coast), you must complete this inspection by December 31st, 2024.

 

We at SFPMA recommend you know about this new Florida condo law?

Don’t wait to get started on this. If you act now, you can likely avoid a Phase 2 inspection by correcting any items that might force you into a Phase 2, before the December 31st, 2024 date. Those who wait may be forced into a more expensive Phase 2 can’t make necessary repairs in time. (*If a building is less than 3 miles from the coastline, these inspections start at year 25). 

Tags: , ,
JUST WALK AWAY – By Eric Glazer, Esq.

JUST WALK AWAY – By Eric Glazer, Esq.

JUST WALK AWAY

By Eric Glazer, Esq.

I was recently watching an interview of a black belt in karate.  In addition he was built like The Hulk.  He started to say what he does when someone curses him out and even challenges him to a fight.  I was certainly expecting him to describe how he turns others into rubble.  On the contrary, he said that whenever he finds himself in that position, instead of fighting back, he simply walks away.  To say I was originally surprised is an understatement.  I mean this guy could pulverize any opponent.  Instead, he chooses to just walk away.

He spelled out why.  If he beats someone up he faces both criminal and civil charges.  And for what?  Because some dope said a few nasty words about him?  Much better to just walk away from any situation that allows for it.  Wow, I was impressed by this guy’s brain, not just his muscle.

It got me to thinking about my career in condominium and HOA law.  How much time in my life did I spend hearing board members and unit owners verbally go at each other.  How much time in my life did I spend hearing unit or homeowners argue with other unit or homeowners?  It’s ridiculous.

In none of these arguments was anything accomplished whatsoever.  They were all a waste of time for those arguing and everyone who unfortunately had to listen to the nonsense.  I’ve seen physical fights break out and even walkers and canes fly through the air.  And for what?  What was accomplished?  Nothing.

So, board members, unit owners, home owners and even managers, I’m talking to you.  Next time someone is looking for a fight, do what the karate guy does, walk away.  It will probably drive the other person crazy.

[AdSense-A]

 

Tags: ,
HOA Architectural Committees Required Statutory Procedures Requirement For Published Standards Required Self Help

HOA Architectural Committees Required Statutory Procedures Requirement For Published Standards Required Self Help

HOA Architectural Committees

Required Statutory Procedures, Requirement For Published Standards and Required Self Help.




REQUIREMENT OF FORMAL PROCEDURES

There are strict legal requirements that a homeowners’ association’s (HOA) architectural review committee (ARC) must follow, most especially if the ARC intends to deny an owner’s request. As this author has witnessed countless times, it is likely that many ARCs do not conduct their activities in conformity with Florida law such that an ARC denial may not withstand judicial scrutiny. If these legal requirements are not followed, and the ARC denies the owner’s architectural request, then it would be quite easy for the owner to challenge the ARC’s decision and prevail. Upon prevailing, the owner would be entitled to their prevailing party attorney’s fees and costs, as well. It is so easy to avoid this outcome, yet so few associations take the time to do it right.

Pursuant to §720.303(2), Florida Statutes, a meeting of the ARC is required to be open and noticed in the same manner as a meeting of the association’s board of directors. Notice of the ARC meeting must be posted in a conspicuous place in the community at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting, and the meeting must be open for all members to attend. Further, pursuant to §720.303(2)(c)(3), Florida Statutes, members of the ARC are not permitted to vote by proxy or secret ballot. Also, bare bone minutes should be taken to create a record of ARC decisions—especially denials.

We often hear from many HOAs that the ARC does not meet openly and does not notice their meetings. This leaves decisions made by the ARC vulnerable to challenge. If the ARC denies an application but fails to do so at a properly noticed board meeting, the owner can challenge the denial, claiming that it is not valid because the ARC did not follow proper procedure. In such cases, the ARC’s denial of an application is not valid because the ARC failed to comply with the procedural requirements for the meeting even if an application violates the declaration or other association-adopted architectural standards. However, by complying with the provisions of Chapter 720, Florida Statutes, your HOA can work to avoid this debacle.

PUBLISHED STANDARDS

Often a top priority for an HOA is ensuring that homes in the community maintain a harmonious architectural scheme in conformity with community standards and guidelines, and because the ARC is at the frontline of owners’ alterations and improvements to their homes, it is instrumental in ensuring that the community standards and guidelines are met. Pursuant to §720.3035(1), Florida Statutes, an HOA, or the ARC, “has the authority to review and approve plans and specifications only to the extent that the authority is specifically stated or reasonably inferred as to location, size, type, or appearance in the declaration or other published guidelines and standards.” But not every owner request is typically addressed in the declaration or other published guidelines and standards. If not, then the association may not be in a good position for proper denial. Therefore, the ARC is only as effective as the objective guidelines and standards (set forth in the declaration and other published guidelines and standards) are inclusive. So, what is the association to do when the ARC receives an owner’s application for an alteration to the home, but the association does not have any architectural guidelines or standards regulating the requested alteration?

While not court tested yet, a possible solution for this conundrum is to include a “catch-all” provision in the declaration to proactively address those ARC applications where a member may request a modification that is not directly addressed by the governing documents. Such a “catch-all” provision stands for the proposition that, if such a request is made, then the existing state of the community is the applicable standard by which the ARC application is to be judged. For example, imagine if an owner applies to the ARC to paint the owner’s house pink. If there are no architectural guidelines or standards that address what color a house must be, and there are no pink houses in the community, then the existing state of the community may provide a lawful basis for the ARC to deny the request because there are no existing pink houses in the community.




THE TROUBLE WITH SELF-HELP PROVISIONS

What if an owner refuses to maintain the owner’s property, such as pressure washing a dirty roof, despite the HOA sending demand letters, levying a fine, and perhaps even suspending the owner’s right to use the HOA’s recreational facilities? What is the HOA’s next step? Is it time to file a lawsuit to compel compliance? Well, Chapter 718 (governing condominiums), Chapter 719 (governing cooperatives), and Chapter 720 (governing HOAs) of the Florida Statutes authorize the association to bring an action at law or in equity to enforce the provisions of the declaration against the owner. Additionally, many declarations contain “self-help” language that authorizes the association to cure a violation on behalf of the owner and even, at times, assess the owner for the costs of doing so. These “self-help” provisions generally contain permissive language, meaning the association, may, but is not obligated to, cure the violation. Sadly, in this instance the word “may” means “shall,” and to find out why, read on.

There is a general legal principal that, if a claimant has a remedy at law (e.g., the ability to recover money damages under a contract), then it lacks the legal basis to pursue a remedy in equity (e.g., an action for injunctive relief). Remember, too, that an association’s declaration is a contract. In the context of an association, the legal remedy would be exercising the “self-help” authority granted in the declaration. An equitable remedy would be bringing an action seeking an injunction to compel an owner to take action to comply with the declaration. Generally, a court will only award an equitable remedy when the legal remedy is unavailable, insufficient, or inadequate.

Assume that the association’s declaration contains both the permissive “self-help” remedy and the right to seek an injunction from the court. Accordingly, it would appear the association has a decision to make—go to court to seek the injunction or enter onto the owner’s property, cure the violation, and assess the costs of same to the owner. However, recent Florida case law affirmed a complication to what should be a simple decision. In two cases decided ten years apart, Alorda v. Sutton Place Homeowners Association, Inc., 82 So.3d 1077 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2012) and Mauriello v. Property Owners Association of Lake Parker Estates, Inc., 337 So.3d 484 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2022), Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal decided that an association did not have the right to seek an injunction to compel an owner to comply with the declaration if the declaration provided the association the authority, but not the obligation, to engage in “self-help” to remedy the violation. Expressed simply, this is because the legal contractually based “self-help” remedy must be employed before one can rely upon equitable remedy of an injunction. Therefore, even though the declaration provided for an optional remedy of “self-help,” it must be used before seeking the equitable remedy of an injunction.

In Alorda, the owners failed to provide the association with proof of insurance required by the declaration. Although the declaration allowed the association to obtain the required insurance, the association filed a complaint against the owners seeking injunctive relief, asking the court to enter a permanent mandatory injunction requiring the owners to obtain the requested insurance. The owners successfully argued that even though they violated the declaration, the equitable remedy of an injunction was not available because the association already had an adequate legal remedy—the “self-help” option of purchasing the required insurance and assessing them for same. The Court agreed.

In Mauriello, the declaration contained similar language as in Alorda but involved the issue of the owners failing to keep their lawn and landscaping in good condition as required by the declaration. The association filed a complaint seeking a mandatory injunction ordering the owners to keep their lawn and landscaping in a neat condition. However, the facts were complicated by the sale of the home in the middle of the suit when the new owners voluntarily brought the home into compliance with the declaration. The parties continued to fight over who was entitled to prevailing party attorney’s fees with the association arguing it was entitled to same because the voluntary compliance was only obtained after the association was forced to commence legal action. The owners, citing Alorda, argued that the complaint should have been dismissed at the onset because the association sought an equitable remedy (injunction) when a legal remedy was already available—the exercise of its “self-help” authority. The Court considered the award of attorney’s fees after the dismissal of the association’s action for an injunction. Ultimately, the Court held that the owners were the prevailing party as the association could not seek the injunction because it already had an adequate remedy at law.

Accordingly, if your association’s declaration contains a “self-help” provision, and your association desires to seek an injunction against an owner rather than pursue “self-help,” the board should discuss the issue in greater detail with the association’s legal counsel prior to proceeding. Also, remember that if the association wants to enforce architectural standards, then they must be published to the membership; and always remember to notice ARC meetings and take minutes.

[AdSense-A]

Tags: , ,