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. 

Architectural Committees Formal Procedures, Published Standards, and Self Help by REMBAUM’S ASSOCIATION ROUNDUP

Architectural Committees Formal Procedures, Published Standards, and Self Help by REMBAUM’S ASSOCIATION ROUNDUP

  • Posted: Apr 29, 2026
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Architectural Committees Formal Procedures, Published Standards, and Self Help by REMBAUM’S ASSOCIATION ROUNDUP

Architectural Committees Formal Procedures, Published Standards, and Self Help

by REMBAUM’S ASSOCIATION ROUNDUP

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.

 

[AdSense-A]

 

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-C]

 

Tags: , , ,
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION WEBSITES By Eric Glazer, Esq.

COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION WEBSITES By Eric Glazer, Esq.

COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION WEBSITES

By Eric Glazer, Esq.

As you all know by now, Florida condominiums having 150 or more units must have a website that only owners can access and which posts the official records of the association.  Here’s a little background as to how the law was passed.  When originally drafted, the law was only to apply to condominiums with 500 or more units.  That was ridiculous.  So, I flew up to Tallahassee and met with the then Speaker of the House and informed him that the law was a fake, inasmuch as less than one percent of all condominiums in the state contained 500 or more units.  I suggested 50 units.  The compromise was 150.

I never heard one person tell me this was a bad law.  In fact, it’s a great law.  It’s about transparency.  It takes the burden off of managers having to respond to requests for records.  It prevents lawsuits or arbitrations, as long as the website is kept up to date.

Just because the law requires condominiums of 150 units or more to have a website does not mean that condominiums of less than 150 units cannot have a website.  In fact, in this attorney’s opinion, if your condominium contains 50 units or more, you can and should have a website for the same reason that condominiums with 150 units should.

Think about how large some HOAs are.  Many contain well in excess of 500 homes and are sprawling mini cities.  You would think that those communities should be required to post their records on an official website as well.  But no.  HOAs are not required to have a website.  There is simply a hands off approach when it comes to HOAS.

Again, just because the law requires condominiums of 150 units or more to have a website does not mean that HOAs cannot have a website.  In fact, in this attorney’s opinion, if your HOA contains 50 homes or more, you can and should have a website for the same reason that condominiums with 150 units should.

This is one law the legislature should amend.  All communities, both condos, co-ops and HOAs with 50 or more units or homes should be required to have a community association website where the official records and notices of meetings are posted.  Bottom line…….it will make the residents less suspicious and happier.

Community associations, whether condominiums, co-ops, or HOAs, are responsible for providing transparency to their owners. One way to achieve this is through a community association website. In Florida, the state recognizes the importance of transparency in community associations and requires condominiums with 150 or more units to have an owners-only website that posts official records. However, this requirement should extend beyond just large condominiums.

Community associations of all sizes should consider having their website to give owners transparency. Even if a community does not meet the state-mandated requirement, having a website is still a good idea.

A website can provide owners with easy access to official records, notices of meetings, and other important information. It can also help reduce the burden on managers to respond to document requests. Additionally, it can prevent lawsuits or arbitrations if the website is kept up-to-date. It’s about more than just meeting legal requirements. It’s about providing owners with a sense of transparency and openness. This can build trust between the board, management, and owners and foster a happier community.

However, it’s important to note that the community association website should be more comprehensive than just the required information. It should also include commonly asked questions, how to apply to the association, how to pay fees, and other relevant information owners may need. This will help to make the website more user-friendly and informative for owners.

In conclusion, having a community association website is essential for transparency, no matter the size of the community. It can build trust and create a more positive living experience for all owners. The state of Florida has recognized the importance of transparency in condominiums, and it is time for all community associations to follow suit by establishing their websites with informative content.

I guess the Florida Legislature thought they did a great job to assure transparency in condominiums when they enacted bills in 2017 and 2018 [FS 718.111(12)(g)], that required condominium associations with more than 150 units to operate a website featuring all so-called “public documents”.

They would have done a great job — the bills were actually well intended – if there would be as well some sort of enforcement.

In the real world we are seeing lots of totally incomplete websites, only showing what board members and CAMs want the owners to see – and otherwise it’s business as usual.

The fights over record requests are keeping arbitrators and courts busy – and the attorneys are still smiling at their bank account statements.

If the legislators thought that they finally found a solution to end litigation about association records they were dead wrong.

Everybody knows that laws without enforcement are pretty useless and all these laws created each year are only laws for the rich, meaning the folks who have enough money to hire attorneys and fight for their rights, given to them by these kinds of laws, in district and appeals courts.

Wouldn’t that mean that all these laws, created year for year adding to the community association statutes, are only LAWS FOR THE  RICH?

Every other owner who might dare to mention at a board meeting that the board is violating statutes can still be told by the association attorney: “Sit down and shut up. You don’t have the money to sue the association!”

 

Read more industry articles on Florida HOA & Condo Blog – 

 

Tags: , ,
“FIDUCIARY DUTY: What it Means to Your Community Association” by KBR Legal

“FIDUCIARY DUTY: What it Means to Your Community Association” by KBR Legal

We have all read about Board Members Stealing or misusing association funds, but what happens when that duty is breached?

REMBAUM’S ASSOCIATION ROUNDUP | The Community Association Legal News You Can Use

 

What duty does a community association board member owe to their association?

What happens if that duty is breached? During the legislative session, legislation was proposed that would have made directors criminally liable for failure to timely respond to official record requests, among other provisions. The legislation in House Bill 919 was proposed by Representative Porras in response to the alleged $3.4 million dollar embezzlement scheme that took place at the Hammocks Community Association, located in Miami-Dade County. Parts of this proposed bill were well-intentioned; however, several provisions were commonly viewed as too broad and expansive.

Case:  November 15, 2022, the Miami-Dade State Attorney’s Office announced charges related to the Hammocks’ criminal case, including racketeering, organized scheme to defraud, money laundering, grand theft, and fabricating physical evidence against five board members. These board members have been accused of the following:

i) running a scheme in which they used HOA checks and HOA credit cards from 55 bank accounts to pay for “no-show” work by shell companies or vendors, who would funnel money back to the directors for their personal use;

ii) withholding official records from members; and,

iii) failure to hold valid elections, among other bad acts.

If found guilty these board members overtly breached their fiduciary duty to their association.

During the 2023 legislative session, House Bill 919 initially contained significant criminal penalties to punish board members who failed to provide official records when they otherwise should have, criminal penalties for kickbacks, and criminal penalties for improper election interference, among other provisions. Such laws, while well intended, went overboard as evidenced by the creation of criminal penalties for failure to provide official records, as such severe criminal penalties for operational matters would likely only deter good people from running for the board. Recognizing this potential issue, parts of HB 919 were tempered a bit prior to it becoming law. That said, in the opinion of this author, new laws with new criminal penalties are not the answer. Bad people do bad things, and no amount of laws will likely significantly change that. So, what is the answer?

One answer is to shore up the educational and certification requirements for board members. At present, there are two ways to be certified as a board member. One method is to take a State-approved class, which provides an overview of the voluminous information board members need to know in order to perform their duties. The other method is to sign a piece of paper that the board member has read the governing documents, will abide by them, and will faithfully discharge their duties. This second method should be eliminated as there is no method to confirm compliance, and this method does not have any educational component. In addition, continuing education requirements should be required for any board member serving consecutive years.

During a board certification class, time should be spent discussing the term “fiduciary duty.” While the term is repeatedly used in Chapters 718 and 720 of the Florida Statutes, it is not expressly defined in these statutes. Section 718.111, Florida Statutes, makes reference to Section 617.0830, Florida Statutes, which provides for general standards for directors of not-for-profit corporations, such as community associations.

Section 617.0830, Florida Statutes, provides the following:

      1. A director shall discharge his or her duties as a director, including his or her duties as a member of a committee i) in good faith; ii) with the care an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would exercise under similar circumstances; and iii) in a manner he or she reasonably believes to be in the best interests of the corporation.
      2. In discharging his or her duties, a director may rely on information, opinions, reports, or statements, including financial statements and other financial data, if prepared or presented by: i) One or more officers or employees of the corporation whom the director reasonably believes to be reliable and competent in the matters presented; ii) legal counsel, public accountants, or other persons as to matters the director reasonably believes are within the persons’ professional or expert competence; or iii) a committee of the board of directors of which he or she is not a member if the director reasonably believes the committee merits confidence.
      3. A director is not acting in good faith if he or she has knowledge concerning the matter in question that makes reliance otherwise permitted by subsection (2) unwarranted.
      4. A director is not liable for any action taken as a director, or any failure to take any action, if he or she performed the duties of his or her office in compliance with this section.

Still, though, there is no express definition of the term “fiduciary duty.” The purpose of studying fiduciary relationships is to identify the areas where it exists and gain an insight into the duties of a fiduciary. After all, every board member is a fiduciary for their community association. Common definitions of the term “fiduciary” include:

      • A fiduciary relationship is a relation between two parties wherein one party (fiduciary) has the duty to act in the best interest of the other party (beneficiary or principal).
      • A fiduciary is a person who holds a legal or ethical relationship of trust with one or more other parties. Typically, a fiduciary prudently takes care of money or other assets for another person.
      • A fiduciary duty is a relationship in which one party places special trust, confidence, and reliance in and is influenced by another who has a fiduciary duty to act for the benefit of the party.
      • Most importantly, and germane to this discussion, a fiduciary is a person or organization that acts on behalf of another person or persons, putting their clients’ interests ahead of their own, with a duty to preserve good faith and trust.

In other words, a good community association board member puts the interest of their association above their own personal interests. Thus, while we may not be able to stop bad people from doing bad things, through continuing education we can help good people do better.

To recap, there are three things that can be readily accomplished that would make a positive difference for Florida’s community associations.

      1. Remove the ability of a board member to be “certified” by signature alone.
      2. Require continuing education for board members serving continuous years.
      3. Amend Florida Statutes, Chapters 718 and 720, to include express definitions of fiduciary duty so that it is made patently clear that every board member must put their community association above and ahead of their own personal interests.

 

 

Tags: ,
The Florida Legislature just passed a 191-page bill that brings major changes for condo associations—especially when it comes to reserve funding.

The Florida Legislature just passed a 191-page bill that brings major changes for condo associations—especially when it comes to reserve funding.

FLORIDA LEGISLATURE GOES OUT WITH ONE BIG BILL FOR CONDOS

by Eric M. Glazer

The Florida Legislature ended in a real blockbuster way in regards to new condo legislation.  In the end The Florida House and The Florida Senate agreed on ONE BIG BILL that is 191 pages long.  It passed the Senate unanimously and in the House there were only 2 opposed.  Obviously, we can’t talk about the entire contents of the bill in one blog.  It will take several, but today let’s discuss the big RESERVE FUND CHANGES.

As we know………….In 2021, The Champlain Towers collapsed in Surfside, killing 98 innocent men, women and children.  After that collapse The Florida Legislature did the right thing and for the first time, mandated that Florida condominium owners contribute toward funding a reserve account each year.  The vote was 110-0. 

Well…..that vote didn’t hold up to some extent.  Now, you can pay reserve funds by taking out loans, and in some circumstances you don’t have to pay reserves at all.  Let’s explain.

RESERVES BEING PAID BY LINES OF CREDIT

The Bill will allow funding reserves by using lines of credit. 

So year one you take out a line of credit to fund reserves.  You have to start paying it back with interest immediately, over a few years.

Year two you take out another line of credit to fund reserves……NOW YOU HAVE 2 LOANS WITH INTEREST

Year three you take out another line of credit to fund reserves…….NOW YOU HAVE 3 LOANS WITH INTEREST.

And this would now be allowed to go on year after year after year. 

As I previously wrote,  THIS IS LIKE PAYING YOUR MONTHLY CONDOMINIUM ASSESSMENTS BY USING A CREDIT CARD. 

AND………………….The money in reserves will eventually be used to pay for repairs, but all of these lines of credit  still need to be repaid each month.  It will be a never-ending process.  A never ending loan that all of the owners will have to re-pay with interest.  Eventually, the monthly payments will far exceed what the payments would have been if everyone was simply required to pay what the reserves required in the first place.   This is playing with fire and condominium owners will forever be in debt.  Count on it.

INVESTMENT OF RESERVE FUNDS

The Florida Legislature did agree with a blog we posted two weeks ago and which would have allowed reserve funds to be invested anywhere.  But as we stated – that was a bad idea and would have required an investment committee as well.

So the new law states:

A board shall, in fulfilling its duty to manage operating and reserve funds of its association, use best efforts to make prudent investment decisions that carefully consider risk and return in an effort to maximize returns on invested  funds.

(b) an association, including a multicondominium association, may invest reserve funds in one or any combination of certificates of deposit or in depository accounts at a community bank, savings bank, commercial bank, savings and loan association, or credit union without a vote of the unit owners.

A good bill – but it does leave open the question…..Suppose you do get the vote of the owners……can the owners vote to put the reserves in the stock market?   I don’t know.

AND HERE IS THE OTHER MASSIVE SURPRISE WHEN IT COMES TO RESERVE FUNDS

The new bill states:

For a budget adopted on or before December 31, 2028, (so this includes the association’s 2029 budget) if the association has completed a milestone inspection within the previous 2 calendar years, the board, upon the approval of a majority of the total voting interests of the  association, may temporarily pause, for a period of no more than two consecutive annual budgets, reserve fund contributions or reduce the amount of reserve funding for the purpose of funding repairs recommended by the milestone inspection. An association that has paused reserve contributions under this subparagraph must have a structural integrity reserve study performed before the continuation of reserve contributions in order to determine the association’s reserve funding needs and to recommend a reserve funding plan.

SO TO BE VERY CLEAR HERE……….THIS ONLY APPLIES TO ASSOCIATIONS THAT HAVE HAD THEIR MILESTONE INSPECTION, MEANING THEIR 25, 30, 35, 40, 45 OR 50 YEAR INSPECTION) WITHIN THE PREVIOUS 2 CALENDAR YEARS.  THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT STARTING IMMEDIATELY, EVERY CONDO GETS TO PAUSE RESERVE FUND CONTRIBUTIONS FOR TWO YEARS.  THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS NEW LAW IS SAYING……. YOU ONLY GET TO PAUSE RESERVE FUND CONTRIBUTIONS FOR UP TO TWO YEARS, IF YOU HAD YOUR MILESTONE INSPECTION WITHIN THE LAST TWO YEARS.

AND THIS IS BEING ALLOWED IN ORDER THAT YOU HAVE THE FUNDS AVAILABLE TO MAKE THE REPAIRS REQUIRED BY THE MILESTONE INSPECTION.

In all honesty, this is not as bad as I originally thought it to be.  It gives owners the ability to make and pay for the necessary repairs while not simultaneously paying reserves —– but only for a two year period.

BUT I’M GOING TO GET A MILLION CALLS AND E-MAILS ASKING ME IF IT’S TRUE THAT WE DON’T HAVE TO PAY RESERVES IN OUR CONDOMIINIUM FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS…….AND MY ANSWER IS GOING TO BE………..

ONLY IF YOU HAD YOUR MILESTONE INSPECTION WITHIN THE LAST TWO YEARS.

Again, this bill is massive.  We only scratched the surface.  Over the next few weeks, we’ll let you know what else is in the bill and we’ll let you know if Governor DeSantis signs it into law.

Tags:

Not all Expenditures Can Be Collected from Delinquent Owners as Part of the Collection/Foreclosure Process – Why Not?

Not all Expenditures Can Be Collected from Delinquent Owners as Part of the Collection/Foreclosure Process – Why Not?

Not all Expenditures Can Be Collected from Delinquent Owners as Part of the Collection/Foreclosure Process – Why Not?

It is clear that Florida’s community association collection/foreclosure legislation allows associations to foreclose an owner’s home for nonpayment of assessments. However, not all of the monies expended by an association fit into the definition of an assessment. For example, let’s say that an association has a right to correct a deficiency on an owner’s lot, but the declaration of covenants at issue does not support converting the money spent into an assessment. In that event, the monies expended by the association would have to be recovered as part of a breach of contract action rather than as part of an assessment/foreclosure action. Sometimes, however, the declaration will provide that the monies expended can be treated as an assessment. If that is the case, then before those expenditures can be included as a part of the collection/foreclosure process, the board would need to convert the expenditure into an assessment against the noncomplying owner. (As to how that is done, you can discuss it with your community association’s attorney.) Florida’s collection/foreclosure legislation also provides for recovery of certain costs incidental to the collection/foreclosure process, but recovery of such cost must be rooted in a statute or by contract (i.e., the declaration of covenants).

Let’s look at the fee charged by a management company for sending the notice of late assessment letter, often referred as a NOLA letter, as required by Florida Statute, and determine whether it is a recoverable cost in an association’s collection/foreclosure action and whether including the NOLA fee as a part of the association’s collection/foreclosure proceedings violates the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the Act).

The Act was passed into law because of abundant evidence of the use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices. It does not matter whether a debt collector used their best efforts to comply with the Act. Only strict compliance matters when it comes to the enforceability of the Act against a debt collector. Clearly, the association is not considered a “debt collector” pursuant to the Act and, for the most part, neither are management companies, with this caveat: the pendulum may swing in the future to the notion that management companies are, in fact, debt collectors. It seems that at least for the time being they are shielded from the Act. However, what is patently clear is that an attorney who provides collection/foreclosure services to assist their association clients with delinquent assessments is certainly considered a “debt collector.” Therefore, the attorney must be vigilant when reviewing the delinquent owner’s account ledger to ensure that the items set out in the ledger can lawfully be included in the association’s collection/foreclosure action. A recent case reminds us of this fact.

On February 4, 2025, in Glover v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, Case no. 23-12578 & 12579 (11th Cir. Fla. 2025), the 11th Circuit of the Federal Court of Appeals found that Ocwen as a debt collector violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act when it charged consumers an optional fee when making expedited mortgage payments because the loan servicer charged an amount that was not expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law. The takeaway from this case is that a debt collector can only collect debts that are authorized by law or by contract with the debtor.

It was only several years ago that the Florida legislature enacted into law the requirement that an association assessment debtor must be provided the NOLA correspondence from the association providing the debtor a final opportunity to pay their delinquent assessment debt prior to turning the matter over to the association’s legal counsel to commence collection/foreclosure proceedings where fees and costs accrue against the debtor. See S. 718.121 and S. 720.3085, Fla. Stat.

Management companies are typically tasked with preparing and sending the NOLA letter on behalf of the associations they manage before turning the file over for collections to the association’s attorney. In this regard, a management company that is charging such a fee but has not amended its contract with the association to provide for charging the fee for the notice of late assessment would be wise to consider amending its contract with the association they represent to provide for this charge. Doing so would ensure that the management company, even though it may not be considered a “debt collector,” would have a solid basis for charging the fee because it would be based on a contractual obligation charged to the association. This is important because the NOLA, as mandated by Florida Statutes, does not at all provide for the recovery of a fee in regard to sending such a letter. So, while management companies may not be considered a “debt collector” today, this could change in any new case at any time. Why take the chance?

Now, let’s analyze whether the attorney who is collecting the past due assessment debts for the association can include the management company’s NOLA fee paid by the association to the management company in the collection/foreclosure action against a delinquent owner. Keep in mind, as we go through the analysis, that the “debt collector” (in this case, the attorney) can only collect debts authorized by contract or by law, and also remember that the relevant laws governing the NOLA letter do not provide for a specific cost recovery for the management company sending of the notice of late assessment letter. Thus, at a minimum, there should at least be a contractual obligation that the association pay the management company for sending the NOLA letter. But that may not always be the case even though it is the better practice.

Part and parcel with the collection/foreclosure process is the recording of an association assessment lien. To be valid, such a claim of lien must state the description of the parcel, the name of the record owner, the name and address of the association, the assessment amount due, and the due date. The claim of lien secures all unpaid assessments that are due and that may accrue subsequent to the recording of the claim of lien and before entry of a certificate of title, as well as interest, late charges, and reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees incurred by the association incident to the collection process.

So, while the relevant statutes do not provide for the association to be able to recover a fee for the sending of the NOLA letter, it certainly should be considered a “reasonable cost incurred by the association incident to the collection process,” most especially when the fee charged for sending the NOLA letter is a contractual obligation between the association and the management company.

There even exists an argument that, even if the management contract between the association and the management company does not provide that the association is responsible to pay the management company for the preparation and sending of the notice of late assessment, it is still considered a “reasonable cost”; but when you plug in the holding of the aforementioned case, the collection of the cost associated with the NOLA letter by the debt collector (i.e., the attorney representing the association), the better practice is to ensure that the contract between the management company and the association contains a provision that the association is responsible to pay the management company a reasonable fee for each such notice of late assessment letter sent.

Perhaps now you have a better understanding of why, at times, the association’s collection/foreclosure attorney cannot include a particular line item on the delinquent owner’s account ledger in the collection/foreclosure action. If you have any questions regarding the collection/foreclosure process, most especially which charges can and cannot be included, please be sure to discuss them with your association’s attorney.

 

Tags: , , ,
HOUSE BILL 913 – Part One

HOUSE BILL 913 – Part One

HOUSE BILL 913 – Part One by

It should come as no surprise that Representative Vicki Lopez came right out of the gate this year and filed a massive condo bill.  House Bill 913 covers many categories and we’ll break the bill down over the next few issues.  It already has passed one House Committee and there may be no stopping it.

INSURANCE

Citizens Insurance (the state’s insurance provider and the insurance company of last resort) may not issue or renew an insurance policy for a condominium unit owner or a condominium association unless the condominium association has complied with the inspection requirements in ss. 553.899 (milestone inspections) (and 718.112(2)(g) (structural integrity reserve study).

If you’re an advocate of safety you can’t disagree with this bill.

SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND LOANS FOR MAINTENANCE

In the interest of public safety and allowing the board members to meet its’ fiduciary duty that the board members owe to the owners – notwithstanding any provision to the contrary contained in an association’s declaration, articles of incorporation, or bylaws, the board of administration of an association may levy special assessments and obtain a loan to perform necessary maintenance, repair, or replacement of the condominium property as required by the milestone inspection report and structural integrity reserve study report without the approval of the membership in order to protect the health and safety of the unit owners and tenants of the property.

The courts were going in this direction already.  Let’s face it.  If the Board had to wait until the owners approved assessments and loans, neither would ever happen.

THE ASSOCIATION’S WEBSITE

The adopted minutes of all meetings of the association, the board of administration, and the unit owners over the preceding 7 years must now be on the association’s website.

Makes total sense.  The more transparency, the better.

So what do you think about HB 913?

Tags: ,
FIDUCIARY DUTY: What it Means to Your Community Association. by REMBAUM’S ASSOCIATION ROUNDUP

FIDUCIARY DUTY: What it Means to Your Community Association. by REMBAUM’S ASSOCIATION ROUNDUP

  • Posted: May 11, 2025
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on FIDUCIARY DUTY: What it Means to Your Community Association. by REMBAUM’S ASSOCIATION ROUNDUP

What duty does a community association board member owe to their association? What happens if that duty is breached? During the legislative session, legislation was proposed that would have made directors criminally liable for failure to timely respond to official record requests, among other provisions.

The legislation in House Bill 919 was proposed by Representative Porras in response to the alleged $3.4 million dollar embezzlement scheme that took place at the Hammocks Community Association, located in Miami-Dade County. Parts of this proposed bill were well-intentioned; however, several provisions were commonly viewed as too broad and expansive.

On November 15, 2022, the Miami-Dade State Attorney’s Office announced charges related to the Hammocks’ criminal case, including racketeering, organized scheme to defraud, money laundering, grand theft, and fabricating physical evidence against five board members. These board members have been accused of the following:

i) running a scheme in which they used HOA checks and HOA credit cards from 55 bank accounts to pay for “no-show” work by shell companies or vendors, who would funnel money back to the directors for their personal use;

ii) withholding official records from members; and,

iii) failure to hold valid elections, among other bad acts.

If found guilty these board members overtly breached their fiduciary duty to their association.

During the 2023 legislative session, House Bill 919 initially contained significant criminal penalties to punish board members who failed to provide official records when they otherwise should have, criminal penalties for kickbacks, and criminal penalties for improper election interference, among other provisions. Such laws, while well intended, went overboard as evidenced by the creation of criminal penalties for failure to provide official records, as such severe criminal penalties for operational matters would likely only deter good people from running for the board. Recognizing this potential issue, parts of HB 919 were tempered a bit prior to it becoming law. That said, in the opinion of this author, new laws with new criminal penalties are not the answer. Bad people do bad things, and no amount of laws will likely significantly change that. So, what is the answer?

One answer is to shore up the educational and certification requirements for board members. At present, there are two ways to be certified as a board member. One method is to take a State-approved class, which provides an overview of the voluminous information board members need to know in order to perform their duties. The other method is to sign a piece of paper that the board member has read the governing documents, will abide by them, and will faithfully discharge their duties. This second method should be eliminated as there is no method to confirm compliance, and this method does not have any educational component. In addition, continuing education requirements should be required for any board member serving consecutive years.

During a board certification class, time should be spent discussing the term “fiduciary duty.” While the term is repeatedly used in Chapters 718 and 720 of the Florida Statutes, it is not expressly defined in these statutes. Section 718.111, Florida Statutes, makes reference to Section 617.0830, Florida Statutes, which provides for general standards for directors of not-for-profit corporations, such as community associations.

Section 617.0830, Florida Statutes, provides the following:

      1. A director shall discharge his or her duties as a director, including his or her duties as a member of a committee i) in good faith; ii) with the care an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would exercise under similar circumstances; and iii) in a manner he or she reasonably believes to be in the best interests of the corporation.
      2. In discharging his or her duties, a director may rely on information, opinions, reports, or statements, including financial statements and other financial data, if prepared or presented by: i) One or more officers or employees of the corporation whom the director reasonably believes to be reliable and competent in the matters presented; ii) legal counsel, public accountants, or other persons as to matters the director reasonably believes are within the persons’ professional or expert competence; or iii) a committee of the board of directors of which he or she is not a member if the director reasonably believes the committee merits confidence.
      3. A director is not acting in good faith if he or she has knowledge concerning the matter in question that makes reliance otherwise permitted by subsection (2) unwarranted.
      4. A director is not liable for any action taken as a director, or any failure to take any action, if he or she performed the duties of his or her office in compliance with this section.

Still, though, there is no express definition of the term “fiduciary duty.” The purpose of studying fiduciary relationships is to identify the areas where it exists and gain an insight into the duties of a fiduciary. After all, every board member is a fiduciary for their community association. Common definitions of the term “fiduciary” include:

      • A fiduciary relationship is a relation between two parties wherein one party (fiduciary) has the duty to act in the best interest of the other party (beneficiary or principal).
      • A fiduciary is a person who holds a legal or ethical relationship of trust with one or more other parties. Typically, a fiduciary prudently takes care of money or other assets for another person.
      • A fiduciary duty is a relationship in which one party places special trust, confidence, and reliance in and is influenced by another who has a fiduciary duty to act for the benefit of the party.
      • Most importantly, and germane to this discussion, a fiduciary is a person or organization that acts on behalf of another person or persons, putting their clients’ interests ahead of their own, with a duty to preserve good faith and trust.

In other words, a good community association board member puts the interest of their association above their own personal interests. Thus, while we may not be able to stop bad people from doing bad things, through continuing education we can help good people do better.

To recap, there are three things that can be readily accomplished that would make a positive difference for Florida’s community associations.

      1. Remove the ability of a board member to be “certified” by signature alone.
      2. Require continuing education for board members serving continuous years.
      3. Amend Florida Statutes, Chapters 718 and 720, to include express definitions of fiduciary duty so that it is made patently clear that every board member must put their community association above and ahead of their own personal interests.

 

[AdSense-A]

 

Tags: , ,
Out With the Old, In With the New by Published by Eric Glazer, Esq.

Out With the Old, In With the New by Published by Eric Glazer, Esq.

The Presidential Inauguration is a reminder of how smoothly leadership transitions can happen at the national level. But in our community associations, things aren’t always so predictable. Discover insights into the often chaotic turnover of power in Florida condos and HOAs—and what it means for your community.

Whether you’re happy about today’s Presidential Inauguration or not, one thing is for sure and for certain; it’s going to happen. Since 1937, it has taken place at noon on January 20, the first day of the new term, except in 1957, 1985, and 2013, when January 20 fell on a Sunday. In those years, the presidential oath of office was administered on that day privately and then again in a public ceremony the next day, on Monday, January 21.

That consistency is a lot more than we can say for our community associations. How many of you have complained that our associations have not held an annual meeting or an election in forever, or at least not in the last year? What about complaints that the Board of Directors has simply changed the dates of our annual meeting on more than one occasion and extended their term in office?

The terms of Board members expire at the annual meeting. So when are you supposed to have an annual meeting and election? The date of your annual meeting is contained within your bylaws. But suppose the Board wants to have the annual meeting on another date for any variety of reasons? Can they do so? Not according to one court which held that the annual meeting must be held on the date contained in the association’s bylaws. Not to do so would be as if an amendment was made to those bylaws without the proper vote of the unit owners.

And despite this ruling, dozens, if not hundreds or maybe even thousands of condominium and HOAs won’t hold their annual meeting and election this year on the date mandated by their own documents.

The last few years has also brought drama to the country regarding the requirements of outgoing administrations to turn over official records. Trump got charged with a crime and Biden was found to have wrongfully retained official records but wasn’t charged with a crime.

When it comes to condominiums, “An outgoing board or committee member must relinquish all official records and property of the association in his or her possession or under his or her control to the incoming board within 5 days after the election. The division shall impose a civil penalty as set forth in s. 718.501(1)(d)6. against an outgoing board or committee member who willfully and knowingly fails to relinquish such records and property.” Surprisingly, there is no equivalent statute for HOAs, except if that director was removed by way of recall.

So today, pomp and circumstance and tradition will rule the day and like clockwork, one administration will hand off to the incoming administration. And in our community associations, no doubt tradition is likely to continue as well. Perhaps that’s a rare example of where the government works better than we think.

Eric is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Condominium and Planned Development Law.

Since 2009, Eric has been the host of Condo Craze and HOAs, a weekly one-hour show airing at 7 p.m. each Thursday on YouTube. This show allows viewers to engage in live chats with Eric and other participants but also enables a broader audience to access free advice, making valuable insights more widely available.

See: www.condocrazeandhoas.com

Eric is the first attorney in the State of Florida that designed a course that certifies condominium and HOA residents as eligible to serve on a Board of Directors and has now certified more than 20,000 Floridians all across the state. He is certified as a Circuit Court Mediator by The Florida Supreme Court and has mediated dozens of disputes between associations and unit owners. Eric also devotes significant time to advancing legislation in the best interest of Florida community association members.

 

Tags: , ,
HOW TO COLLECT WHAT’S DUE? By Eric Glazer, Esq.

HOW TO COLLECT WHAT’S DUE? By Eric Glazer, Esq.

We are already starting to see an uptick in the amount of owners falling behind on paying their assessments to their association.  It is wise for an association to know how the collections process works in for the board to put in place a policy that works best for the association.

In both condos, Co-ops, and HOAs, the procedure is the same.

  1. To start, the association must first deliver a thirty day written notice of late assessments to the unit owner which specifies the amount owed the association and provides the unit owner an opportunity to pay the amount owed without the assessment of attorney fees.
  2. If the owner fails to bring their account current, the association must then provide the delinquent unit owner with another letter which is a 45 day notice of its intent to file a lien and its intent to foreclose its lien. The association can demand attorney’s fees, interest and late fees in this letter.
  3. If the owner fails to bring their account current, the attorney can record a lien and threaten to foreclose on the lien if their account is not brought current within 45 days.  The association can demand attorney’s fees, interest and late fees in this letter.
  4. If after 45 days the owner still fails to bring their account current, the association may file a foreclosure action in court.

Keep in mind that because the unit owner must receive a 30 day letter, a 45 day letter and another 45 day letter, it takes a long time to bring a delinquent owner into court.  That is why associations may need to rethink their collection process and start it a little earlier.  If not, by the time it gets to court, the owner may by 9 or 10 months delinquent.

Especially in condominium buildings, things are about to get tough.  There are now mandatory inspections, mandatory repairs, mandatory fire sprinkler or ELSS installation, a tremendous rise in insurance and the inability to waive reserves.  Stay on top of your collections.

About HOA & Condo Blog

Read other industry Legal Articles

Eric Glazer

Eric Glazer graduated from the University of Miami School of Law in 1992 after receiving a B.A. from NYU. He has practiced community association law for three decades and is the owner of Glazer and Sachs, P.A. a five attorney law firm with offices in Fort Lauderdale and Orlando.

Eric is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Condominium and Planned Development Law.

Tags: , ,