Become a Member: JOIN SFPMA TODAY   LogIn / Register: LOGIN/REGISTER

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

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

August 24th at 12 Noon Est, Allison Hertz, Esq., BCS will teach “Conflicts of Interest: What You Need to Know” in this webinar

August 24th at 12 Noon Est, Allison Hertz, Esq., BCS will teach “Conflicts of Interest: What You Need to Know” in this webinar

  • Posted: Aug 22, 2023
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on August 24th at 12 Noon Est, Allison Hertz, Esq., BCS will teach “Conflicts of Interest: What You Need to Know” in this webinar

On August 24th at 12 Noon  (Webinar)

Est, Allison Hertz, Esq., BCS of KBRLegal will teach “Conflicts of Interest: What You Need to Know”

this webinar hosted by GRS Community Management. It’s free to enroll and happens via Zoom.

Click the link to RSVP:  

Course provided by Kaye Bender Rembaum. Course# 9630141 | Provider# 0005092 | 1 CEU in HR or ELE Instructor: Allison L. Hertz, Esq. BCS Attendees will learn to identify potential conflicts of interest (plus definitions), how to document disclosures, internal controls and training staff, directors and officers, new statutory requirements and penalties and best practices for associations.
Tags: , , , ,
MAKE SURE YOUR DOCS DON’T COST YOU MONEY By Eric Glazer, Esq.

MAKE SURE YOUR DOCS DON’T COST YOU MONEY By Eric Glazer, Esq.

MAKE SURE YOUR DOCS DON’T COST YOU MONEY

By Eric Glazer, Esq.

Let’s start with what some of you already know……..foreclosures are on the rise.  Incredibly, this is happening before huge special assessments are kicking in for many of you and before mandatory reserves go into effect.  If foreclosures are already on the rise, what’s going to happen when special assessments and reserves take hold of most communities?

If a bank forecloses on either a home in an HOA or on a unit in a condominium, the association is likely to take a huge financial hit if that home or unit is also delinquent to the association.  When a bank forecloses on a property, most of the time that bank winds up becoming the owner of that property because nobody bids against the bank at a foreclosure sale.  For example, if an owner fails to pay the mortgage, the bank eventually forecloses and gets a final judgment against the owner for the amount of the delinquency plus interest and attorney’s fees.  The judge sets an auction date.  At the auction, the bank usually bids the amount of their final judgment, there are no other bids and the bank winds up owning the property.

Now that the bank owns the property, do they have to pay all of the assessments that are owed to the association on that home or condominium unit?  Not even close.  The law states that the bank would only have to pay the lesser of:

  • One year of assessments or;
  • One percent of the original mortgage debt;

So, let’s say the bank is foreclosing on a $300,000.00 mortgage.  One percent of that mortgage is $3,000.00.  Let’s say the assessments are $600.00 per month.  One year of assessments is $7,200.00.  Therefore, at most the bank is responsible for $3,000.00 and not $7,200.00 and this is even if the prior owner has not paid for several years.  There can be $15,000.00 in delinquent assessments owed on the unit —the bank would still only have to pay $3,000.00 at most.

Here’s where the association can really get stung.  If the governing documents let the bank off the hook and state that the bank does not have to pay anything if they wind up foreclosing and owning the property.  Even though the law would require the bank to pay $3,000.00 in the above example, the association’s governing documents may allow the bank to pay zero!  SO……………MAKE SURE YOUR GOVERNING DOCUMENTS DO NOT CONTAIN SUCH A PROVISION AND IF THEY DO – AMEND IT IMMEDIATELY BEFORE FORECLOSURES IN YOUR COMMUNITY POSSIBLY BECOME ROUTINE!  DON’T LET THE BANKS OFF THE HOOK!

Next week we’ll talk about what happens when a third party buys the property at a foreclosure sale and not the bank.  You definitely will want to find out the good and the potential for disaster.

 

You can read more articles from Eric Glazer on his Blog. 

 

Tags: , ,
ANOTHER NEW LAW:  HB 437 — FLAGS, TURFS AND BOATS

ANOTHER NEW LAW:  HB 437 — FLAGS, TURFS AND BOATS

ANOTHER NEW LAW:  HB 437

By Eric Glazer, Esq.

I can’t tell you how may fights I have been involved in regarding flags other than the U.S. flag flying above someone’s home and the fact that someone put down fake grass or stored a boat, that nobody can see, in their backyard.  Well, here’s a new statute that solves both of those problems:

Florida Statute 718.113

If any covenant, restriction, bylaw, rule, or requirement of an association prohibits a homeowner from displaying flags permitted under this paragraph, the homeowner may still display one portable, removable United States flag or official flag of the State of Florida in a respectful manner up to two of the following, and one portable, removable flags official flag, in a respectful manner, not 48 larger than 4 1/2 feet by 6 feet:, which represents

  1. The United States flag.
  2. The official flag of the State of Florida.
  3. A flag that represents the United States Army, Navy,  Air Force, Marine Corps, Space Force, or Coast Guard., or
  4. A POW-MIA flag.
  5. A first responder flag. A first responder flag may incorporate the design of any other flag permitted under this paragraph to form a combined flag. For purposes of this subsection, the term “first responder flag” means a flag that recognizes and honors the service of any of the following: a. Law enforcement officers as defined in s. 943.10(1).
  6. Firefighters as defined in s. 112.191(1).
  7. Paramedics or emergency medical technicians as those terms are defined in s. 112.1911(1).
  8. Correctional officers as defined in s. 943.10(2).
  9. 911 public safety telecommunicators as defined in s. 401.465(1).
  10. Advanced practice registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, or registered nurses as those terms are defined in s. 464.003.
  11. Persons participating in a statewide urban search and rescue program developed by the Division of Emergency Management under s. 252.35.
  12. Federal law enforcement officers as defined in 18 U.S.C. s. 115(c)(1), regardless of any covenants, restrictions, bylaws, rules, or requirements of the association.

In addition, in an HOA, the homeowner may erect a 20 foot flagpole on any portion of their property and fly the U.S. flag and any of the flags mentioned above.

Florida Statute 720.3045 now states:

Regardless of any covenants, restrictions, bylaws, rules, or requirements of an association, and unless prohibited by general law or local ordinance, an association may not restrict parcel  owners or their tenants from installing, displaying, or storing any items on a parcel which are not visible from the parcel’s frontage or an adjacent parcel, including, but not limited to, artificial turf, boats, flags, and recreational vehicles.

I’m getting ready for lots of fights regarding visibility of boats as boat owners will look to save the costs of monthly storage.

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: , ,
Is There Liability for Dangerous Wild Animals in Your Community?

Is There Liability for Dangerous Wild Animals in Your Community?

Is There Liability for Dangerous Wild Animals in Your Community?

by JEFFREY REMBAUM, ESQ., KAYE BENDER REMBAUM

With the ever-increasing development in Florida, especially in South Florida, we are once again reminded that we live in close proximity to a number of native, exotic, invasive, and at times dangerous wild animals.

Tragically, and all too recently, in St. Lucie County an 85-year-old woman died while trying to rescue her dog from an alligator. Whether her community association will be held liable will largely depend upon what the association knew and when they knew it regarding the existence of alligators within the association’s property.

Simply put, if there is a foreseeable zone of risk, then the association’s members should be made aware of it. Phrased differently, where the association, acting by and through its board of directors, is aware or should reasonably be aware of a dangerous animal within association property, then there is a duty to act. Such action should minimally include notice to the entire community, and for those situations where reoccurrence is a likely possibility, then posting signs could be warranted, too.

What can and should happen when your community association is confronted with that unexpected wild animal that causes a disturbance or, even worse, the wild animal has become a source of imminent danger to the members of the association or their guests? Guidance is presented from Hanrahan v. Hometown America, LLC, 90 S.3d 915 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), decided on June 20, 2012, by Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal. In this case, the personal representative of a deceased resident, Ms. Hanrahan (Hanrahan), sought damages for the negligent death of Mr. Hanrahan, who died from fire-ant bites sustained on the common areas of Pinelake Gardens and Estates, a mobile home park (Pinelake Gardens).

By way of background, Mr. Hanrahan was walking his dog in the common area of Pinelake Gardens known as the “Preserve.” Mr. Hanrahan claimed that he brushed up against a bush, at which point the fire ants gained access to his body. Mr. Hanrahan attempted to wash the fire ants off of his body but collapsed on the shower floor. He died two days later. During the trial, the Pinelake Gardens community manager testified that she was not aware of any resident in Pinelake Gardens being exposed to or attacked by fire ants on the premises, nor was she aware of any fire ants in the area of Pinelake Gardens where the incident allegedly occurred. She testified that Pinelake Gardens regularly contracted with an exterminator to spray insecticide, which included killing ants (not specifically fire ants). She further testified that maintenance employees would treat observed ant mounds with granules and would contact the exterminator if there was anything out of the ordinary observed.

The trial court ruled in favor of Pinelake Gardens. The trial court determined that Pinelake Gardens was not on sufficient notice of a fire-ant infestation at the area of the alleged incident, and therefore did not have a duty to Mr. Hanrahan to guard against the fire ants or otherwise take action in this situation. As a result, Hanrahan appealed. On appeal, Hanrahan claimed that the trial court improperly determined whether Pinelake Gardens could foresee the specific injury that actually occurred, instead of, as Hanrahan claimed, whether Pinelake Gardens’ conduct created a “foreseeable zone of risk.”

The general rule in regard to wild animals in Florida, as explained by the appellate court citing another case, Wamser v. City of St. Petersburg, 339 So.2d 244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), is that

…the law does not require the owner or possessor of land to anticipate the presence of, or guard an invitee against harm from, animals “ferare naturae” (which is a common law doctrine where wild animals are considered owned by no one specifically but by the people generally) unless such owner or possessor harbors such animals or has introduced wild animals to the premises which are not indigenous to the locality.

The Wamser case involved a shark attack, in which the city did not have any knowledge of prior shark attacks and therefore did not have any foreseeability of the possibility of shark attacks nor a duty to guard against shark attacks. As in Wamser, the appellate court in Hanrahan v. Hometown America, LLC, ruled that there was no evidence in the record to show Pinelake Gardens had any knowledge of a “ferae naturae” attack in the alleged area. The appellate court held that the presence of the fire ants was not caused by any act of Pinelake Gardens and that Pinelake Gardens did not harbor or introduce them. Furthermore, Pinelake Gardens regularly attempted, by maintenance staff and exterminators, to treat the ant mounds and other manifestations of fire ants. To add a further caveat to its ruling, the appellate court quoted from another fire-ant case, State of Texas, Nicholson v. Smith, 986 S.W,2d 54 (Tex. App. 1999), in which it was stated:

…we do not say a landowner can never be negligent with regard to the indigenous wild animals found on its property. A premises owner could be negligent with regard to wild animals found in artificial structures or places where they are not normally found; that is, stores, hotels, apartment houses, or billboards, if the landowner knows or should know of the unreasonable risk of harm posed by an animal on its premises and cannot expect patrons to realize the danger or guard against it. [emphasis added]

Thus, in the end, the appellate court ruled that there was no evidence that Pinelake Gardens knew or should have known of the unreasonable risk of harm posed by the fire ants. Even though the Hanrahan case concerned fire ants, the case could be applied by analogy to any number of wild animals that you could encounter in your community association, including, without limitation, alligators.

When it comes to injuries caused by wild animals, the board of directors should examine whether there is a foreseeable zone of danger. The question is not whether an injury occurred (as strict liability does not exist), but rather was it foreseeable that an injury could occur? If so, then the board has a duty to act. Remember, the basic rule is that if the association is aware of a dangerous animal or if it is foreseeable that a dangerous wild animal could be within the lands governed by the association, then the association has a duty to act. Importantly, please be certain to discuss the situation with the association’s legal counsel for proper guidance.

 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: ,
PENNY WISE POUND FOOLISH By Eric Glazer, Esq.

PENNY WISE POUND FOOLISH By Eric Glazer, Esq.

PENNY WISE POUND FOOLISH

By Eric Glazer, Esq.

In light of the new laws requiring mandatory inspections, mandatory repairs and mandatory reserve studies, some associations are looking to cut back and save money. 

That’s not a bad idea; unless you’re cutting back on your legal counsel reviewing all of the contracts provided to you by those engineers, architects or general contractors who perform any of these inspections or repairs.

I’m starting to see more of this and it’s an alarming trend.  It boggles my mind that an association would spend millions of dollars on a contract for repair of their property, but won’t spend a few hours on their attorney reviewing that contract first.  No question in my mind that the failure of the Board to have that contract reviewed by counsel before signing, is a breach of their fiduciary duty to the unit owners they represent.

I teach a class called “Before You Sign That Contract.”  It talks about so many ways in which the association can suffer financial loss by having the wrong clauses in the contract or by failing to insert certain clauses into the contract.  Once sentence can potentially cost the association hundreds of thousands of dollars.  And you chose to cheap out on a few hours of attorney’s time?  Really?

Even smaller contracts need to be reviewed.  If the association does not have the proper remedies in the contract for the contractor’s breach, the situation can turn into a long lasting nightmare where the association will never be made whole.  And…….the association will have to spend its own attorney’s fees now to correct the problem with no chance of recovering them later on.

We are about to enter into a historic time here in Florida where these types of contracts will be flying off the shelves. 

They will be everywhere, in every condominium.  Be careful.  If you didn’t hear me the first time, I said BE CAREFUL AND DON’T BE CHEAP.  GET LEGAL HELP BEFORE SIGNING.

DON’T COME TO ME AFTER YOU SIGNED A CONTRACT AND SAY “HEY ERIC…OUR ASSOCIATION SIGNED THIS MULTI MILLION DOLLAR CONTRACT.  CAN YOU NOW GET US OUT OF IT?

THE ANSWER IS OFTEN TIMES……NO I CANNOT.  YOU SHOULD HAVE ASKED ME TO LOOK AT IT BEFORE SIGNING IT.

Tags: ,
Presented by Castle Group Season 4, Episode 7 of ‘Association Leadership’ Florida’a Newest Insurance Laws

Presented by Castle Group Season 4, Episode 7 of ‘Association Leadership’ Florida’a Newest Insurance Laws

Presented by Castle Group

Season 4, Episode 7 of ‘Association Leadership’

Florida’a Newest Insurance Laws

Wednesday, April 19, 2023 | 12 Noon to 1:00pm Est.

Webinar live via Zoom

REGISTER NOW

Castle Group invites you to join us for Season 4, Episode 7 of Association Leadership. This week’s discussion is on Florida’s newest insurance laws- how they could affect your association, and the proposed legislative changes to the milestone, structural integrity, and reserve study requirements.
Castle Group CFO Craig Vaughan will host the live webinar. He will be joined by Attorneys Jeffrey A. Rembaum & Michael S. Bender- Kaye Bender Rembaum, P.L.- Board Certified Specialists in Condominium and Planned Development Law.
Tags: , ,
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: ,
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: , ,