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. 

Join Becker Shareholders Steven H. Mezer, J. David Ramsey, and Senior Attorney JoAnn Nesta Burnett for this online class: 2/17 at 1:00 PM EST!  Emotional support animals on the property despite pet or animal restrictions.

Join Becker Shareholders Steven H. Mezer, J. David Ramsey, and Senior Attorney JoAnn Nesta Burnett for this online class: 2/17 at 1:00 PM EST!  Emotional support animals on the property despite pet or animal restrictions.

  • Posted: Feb 15, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Join Becker Shareholders Steven H. Mezer, J. David Ramsey, and Senior Attorney JoAnn Nesta Burnett for this online class: 2/17 at 1:00 PM EST!  Emotional support animals on the property despite pet or animal restrictions.

Join Becker Shareholders Steven H. Mezer, J. David Ramsey, and Senior Attorney JoAnn Nesta Burnett for this online class:

2/17 at 1:00 PM EST!

Emotional support animals on the property despite pet or animal restrictions.

Register Today!

2/17 at 1:00 PM EST! Join Becker Shareholders Steven H. Mezer, J. David Ramsey, and Senior Attorney JoAnn Nesta Burnett for this online class where you will learn about the Fair Housing laws on the state, federal and local level that impact community operations and actions with respect to requests to maintain emotional support animals on the property despite pet or animal restrictions.

Participants will learn about the Fair Housing laws on the state, federal and local level that impact community operations and actions with respect to requests to maintain emotional support animals on the property despite pet or animal restrictions.
Some topics to be discussed:
• Fair Housing Act and Disability Accommodations
• Evolving Law of “Prescription Pets”
• Establishing a Handicap
• Competing Definition of Service Animal Under ADAAA and FHAA
• What to do When the Disability is Not Obvious
• What a Disabled Person Needs to Provide in Order to Own a Service Animal
• Innate Qualities of Service Animal
• Failing to Make Reasonable Accommodations and Modifications
• What to do when “Skeptical” Information is Provided
• Damages and Penalties for Discrimination
• Register Now
CEU INFORMATION
Florida
Provider: #0000811
Course: #9630287
Credit: 1 ELE
Tags: , ,
Attention to detail. A simple phrase that’s not always so simple to comply with, especially in a community association context.

Attention to detail. A simple phrase that’s not always so simple to comply with, especially in a community association context.

  • Posted: Feb 09, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Attention to detail. A simple phrase that’s not always so simple to comply with, especially in a community association context.

Attention to detail. A simple phrase that’s not always so simple to comply with, especially in a community association context.

by Howard J. Pearl / Becker

There are several technical provisions in the statutes governing community associations that
must be complied with. Chapters 607, 617, 718, 719, and 720, Florida Statutes have numerous
requirements that associations must adhere to. A few examples include meeting notice
requirements, board member eligibility requirements, record inspections, and others.
Associations must be cognizant of changes to the statutes regarding such requirements, some of
which pertain to regular or recurring events.
As associations go through the process of annual and election meeting notices, budget meeting
notices, etc., one cannot just blindly use the previous year’s notice as a template for the current
year’s notice. Associations must review any changes in the statutes to ensure this year’s notices
are still in compliance. Having your association attorney prepare, or at least review, all such
notices before they are sent out will help ensure the association is in compliance with the most
recently enacted statutes.
For example, Section 718.112(2)(d)(2.), Florida Statutes, previously provided that a person who
is delinquent in the payment of any monetary obligation due to the association, is not eligible to
be a candidate for board membership and may not be listed on the ballot. That provision was
changed in 2021 to now provide that a person who is delinquent in the payment of any
assessment due to the association, is not eligible to be a candidate for board membership and
may not be listed on the ballot. A small but significant difference. If your election meeting notice
includes any information about candidate eligibility, blindly copying the previous year’s notice
would have the association sending out inaccurate information regarding board member
eligibility. Attention to detail.
Another example pertains to a condominium unit owner’s suspension of voting rights due to a
delinquency. Section 718.303(5), Florida Statutes, previously provided an association may
suspend the voting rights of a unit or member due to nonpayment of any fee, fine, or other
monetary obligation due to the association which is more than 90-days delinquent. That
provision was changed in 2017 and now provides that an association may suspend the voting
rights of a unit owner or member because of nonpayment of any fee, fine, or other monetary
obligation due to the association which is more than $1,000 and more than 90-days delinquent.
While this change went into effect a few years ago, unfortunately I still run across associations
attempting to suspend voting rights of owners who are more than 90-days delinquent, but such
delinquency is not more than $1,000. Again, attention to detail.
Another area where attention to detail is necessary is the preparation of limited proxies. When
voting on a waiver of reserves in a condominium, Section 718.112(2)(f)(4), Florida Statutes,
provides that proxy questions relating to waiving or reducing the funding of reserves or using
existing reserve funds for purposes other than those for which the reserves were intended must
contain the following statement in capitalized, bold letters in a font size larger than any other
used on the face of the proxy ballot: “WAIVING OF RESERVES, IN WHOLE OR IN PART,
OR ALLOWING ALTERNATIVE USES OF EXISTING RESERVES MAY RESULT IN
UNIT OWNER LIABILITY FOR PAYMENT OF UNANTICIPATED SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS REGARDING THOSE ITEMS.” When reviewing limited proxies prepared by
associations for such votes, very frequently I notice that while the disclaimer language is in
capitalized, bold letters, it is not in a font size larger than any other used on the face of the proxy
ballot. Attention to detail.
Posting of meeting notices is required by the statutes. Forty-eight (48) hours’ notice for a regular
board meeting; fourteen (14) days for some board meetings; 60-days for election meetings, etc.
Only mailing, or emailing notices is not sufficient. Some meeting notices require an association
to execute a proof of meeting notice (usually an affidavit signed by an association board member
or manager). While these notice requirements may seem trivial, especially since the notices are
mailed and/or emailed to owners, they are required by statute. Failure to properly post such
notices may result in any action taken at said meeting being void. Failure to maintain proof of
meeting notices when required may have the same effect, if any action taken at said meeting is
challenged. Attention to detail.
In regard to homeowner associations, Section 720.306, Florida Statutes, previously provided that
official notices were to be sent to the address on the property appraiser’s website. That provision
was changed to provide that official notices once again are to be sent to the mailing address in
the official records of the association under section 720.303(4), Florida Statutes. Attention to
detail.
There have been technical changes in how associations must notify owners of delinquent
assessments before the owner can be sent to the attorney for collections. These are technical
requirements that should be discussed with your association attorney. Blindly following previous
practices in regard to such collection notices and actions will result in delays and owner defenses
to association collection actions. Attention to detail.
In regard to budgets, remember that budgets mailed to association members must contain the
period of the budget year (for example, Jan 1, 2022 – Dec 31, 2022). I have seen many
associations go through the arduous process of preparing and adopting a budget, only to have
such budget challenged by a member because it did not contain the actual budget period, even
though there was enough information on the budget to know what period it was for. Attention to
detail.
While some of the above matters may seem minimal in regard to their impact on the association
or its members, the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of
Condominiums, Timeshares and Mobile Homes (“Division”) has recently changed its approach
in regard to association education versus fining. In the past, a first violation of one of the above
provisions, or another what would appear to be “minor” violation, was generally resolved by the
issuance of a warning letter from the Division, recounting the violation, the remedial measures,
and a warning to the association that future similar violations could result in a fine. Those
“warning” days appear to be over, as the Division has adopted a much more stringent
enforcement posture, which usually results in a fine to the association, even for a first violation
of a seemingly minor provision. Fines range from $10 to $30 per unit, with a maximum fine of
$5,000. I have seen recent cases where the Division initially sought to impose the maximum
$5,000 fine for an initial, minor violation (minor in accordance with Rule 61B-21, Florida
Administrative Code.)

Howard J. Perl

Shareholder

 HPERL@beckerlawyers.com

 

 

Tags:
Tree Maintenance and the Potential Impact of Section 163.045, Florida Statutes by Sarah Wilson of Becker

Tree Maintenance and the Potential Impact of Section 163.045, Florida Statutes by Sarah Wilson of Becker

  • Posted: Feb 02, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Tree Maintenance and the Potential Impact of Section 163.045, Florida Statutes by Sarah Wilson of Becker

Tree Maintenance and the Potential Impact of Section 163.045, Florida Statutes

by Sarah Wilson of Becker

 

In general, a community association is responsible for operating and maintaining the common areas of the community (in the case of homeowners’ associations), and the common elements (in the case of condominium associations). If there are trees located on these common areas/elements, the association’s maintenance duties will include trimming and even the removal of trees that may be dead or dying.  Before performing any significant trimming or removal of trees, however, an association must determine whether any prior governmental approval is required.

It is common for counties and/or cities to have ordinances regulating the planting, removal, and replanting of trees in residential areas and requiring a permit prior to the removal of certain trees. Section 163.045, Florida Statutes, which went into effect on July 1, 2019, appears to change the extent to which local governments can enforce such tree regulations. Interpretation issues, however, leave the true scope of the statute unknown, particularly as it relates to community associations.

The statute, which was intended to strengthen property owners’ rights against local government overreach, prohibits local governments from requiring notice, application, approval, permit, fee, or mitigation for the pruning, trimming, or removal of a tree on residential property if the property owner obtains documentation from an arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture or a Florida licensed landscape architect that the tree presents a danger to persons or property.  Additionally, under the statute a local government may not require a property owner to replant a tree that was pruned, trimmed, or removed in accordance with this section.  [Note: Section 163.045, Florida Statutes, does not apply to the exercise of specifically delegated authority for mangrove protection pursuant to ss. 403.9321-403.9333, Florida Statutes.]

In applying this statute, it is important to note that it only applies to “residential property” and only to trees which are documented by a certified arborist or a Florida licensed landscape architect as “present[ing] a danger to persons or property.” Both exemption requirements present interpretation issues. The fact that “residential property” is not defined has caused some governmental authorities to question whether this exemption would even apply to common areas/elements in the community association setting.  Additionally, the requirement that a certified arborist or licensed landscape architect must document that a tree “presents a danger to persons or property” is problematic in that dangerous is not a term that is normally used or defined in the tree care industry’s risk assessment standards. Rather, assessments of tree safety by such professionals focus on the qualified risk of trees, and how this relates to the statute’s use of the word “danger” remains to be seen.

Local governments have acknowledged that the statute sets up some interpretation issues, and it has been reported that different jurisdictions are reaching different results.  The consequences of an association, without prior approval, trimming or removing trees in a jurisdiction that is interpreting this statute as not applying to common areas/elements could be code enforcement actions, costly fines, or other remedial measures. For this reason, before trimming or removing trees from the common areas/elements, it is recommended that associations consult with their association attorney to discuss how their local governments are interpreting this statute and whether or not local ordinances must still be followed before pruning, trimming, or removing trees.

 

 Sara K. Wilson

Attorney at Law

 SWILSON@beckerlawyers.com

 

 

Tags: ,
Condo Craze and HOAs Radio Show on 850 WFTL every Sunday 11am – 12pm  Is now live on YouTube!

Condo Craze and HOAs Radio Show on 850 WFTL every Sunday 11am – 12pm  Is now live on YouTube!

  • Posted: Jan 10, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Condo Craze and HOAs Radio Show on 850 WFTL every Sunday 11am – 12pm  Is now live on YouTube!

Condo Craze and HOAs Radio Show on 850 WFTL every Sunday 11am – 12pm  Is now live on YouTube!

Condo and HOA Boards and Owners you can now watch the show ask questions.  Each Sunday morning we will bring to you topics and discussions for out industry.

Subscribe to our YOU TUBE PAGE. 

Condo Craze and HOAs In 2009, Eric began a career in radio, starting and hosting the weekly Condo Craze and HOAs Radio Show on 850 WFTL. Eric answers questions from the callers week in and week out and the show has become incredibly popular throughout the state. For more information, and to listen to past shows.

Eric M. Glazer is a native of Brooklyn, New York Mr. Glazer obtained his B.A. in Political Science at New York University. While at N.Y.U., Mr. Glazer was employed in the Kings County District Attorney’s Office. Mr. Glazer obtained his Juris Doctorate at the University of Miami School of Law. In 1994 he established Glazer and Associates, P.A. and has focused his career on representation of community associations and their members.

Visit our Website: https://www.condocrazeandhoas.com Board Certification Classes Eric has certified over 12,000 board members in the State of Florida, who are now eligible to serve on either a condominium or homeowner association board.

 

Tags: , ,
Selective Enforcement: A Grossly Misunderstood Concept by KBRLegal

Selective Enforcement: A Grossly Misunderstood Concept by KBRLegal

  • Posted: Jan 06, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Selective Enforcement: A Grossly Misunderstood Concept by KBRLegal

Without exception, the affirmative defense of “selective enforcement” is one of the most misunderstood concepts in the entire body of community association law. How often have you heard something like this: “The board has not enforced the fence height limitation, so it cannot enforce any other architectural rules”? Simply put, nothing could be further from the truth.

When a community association seeks to enforce its covenants and/or its board adopted rules and regulations, an owner can, under the right circumstances, assert an affirmative defense such as the affirmative defense of selective enforcement. An affirmative defense is a “yes I did it, but so what” type of defense. In civil lawsuits, affirmative defenses include the statute of limitations, the statute of fraudswaiver, and more. However, it’s just not as simple as that. For example, a fence height limitation is a very different restriction than a required set back. Under most if not all circumstances, the failure to enforce a  fence height requirement is very different from the failure to enforce a setback requirement. Ordinarily, the affirmative defense of selective enforcement will only apply if the violation or circumstances are comparable, such that one could reasonably rely upon the non-enforcement of a particular covenant, restriction, or rule with respect to their own conduct or action.

In the seminal case of Chattel Shipping and Investment Inc. v. Brickell Place Condominium Association Inc., 481 So.2d 29 (FLA. 3rd DCA 1986), 45 owners had improperly enclosed their balconies. Thereafter, the association informed all of the owners that it would thereafter take “no action with respect to existing enclosed balconies, but prohibit future balcony constructions and enforce the enclosure prohibition.” As you might have already predicted, nevertheless, thereafter an owner of a unit, Chattel Shipping, enclosed their unit; and the association secured a mandatory injunction in the trial court requiring the removal of the balcony enclosure erected without permission. The owner appealed. In the end, the appellate court disagreed with the owner who argued that the association decision to enforce the “no enclosure” requirement only on a prospective basis was both selective enforcement and arbitrary. The court held that the adoption and implementation of a uniform policy under which, for obvious reasons of practicality and economy, a given building restriction will be enforced only prospectively cannot be deemed “selective and arbitrary.”

In Laguna Tropical, A Condominium Association Inc. v. Barnave, 208 So. 3d 1262, (Fla. 3d DCA 2017), the court again used the purpose of the restriction in its determination of whether the association engaged in selective enforcement. In Laguna Tropical, a rule prohibited floor covering other than carpeting unless expressly permitted by the association. Additionally, the rule provided that owners must place padding between the flooring and the concrete slab so that the flooring would be adequately soundproof. In this case, an owner installed laminate flooring on her second floor unit and the neighbor below complained that the noise disturbed his occupancy. As a result of the complaint, the association demanded that the owner remove the laminate flooring. However, the owner argued selective enforcement because the association only enforced the carpeting restriction against the eleven exclusively upstairs units in the condominium. The court noted that the remaining units in the condominium were either downstairs units only, or were configured to include both first-floor and second-floor residential space within the same unit.

Again, the court looked to the purpose of the prohibition on floor coverings other than carpet and found that the prohibition was plainly intended to avoid noise complaints. Therefore, no selective enforcement was proven because no complaints were shown to have arisen regarding any units except the eleven exclusively upstairs units.

What about cats and dogs? In another case, Prisco v. Forest Villas Condominium Apartments Inc., 847 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), the Fourth District Court of Appeals heard an appeal alleging selective enforcement regarding the association’s pet restrictions. The association had a pet restriction which stated that other than fish and birds, “no pets whatsoever” shall be allowed. In this case, the association had allowed an owner to keep a cat in her unit, but refused to allow another owner to keep a dog. The association argued that there was a distinction between the dog and the cat. However, on appeal, the court found that the restriction was clear and unambiguous that all pets other than fish and birds were prohibited. Therefore, the court reasoned that the facts which make dogs different from cats did not matter because the clear purpose of the restriction was to prohibit all types of pets except fish and birds. In other words, the court held that the plain and obvious purpose of a restriction should govern any interpretation of whether the association engaged in selective enforcement.

If an association has a “no pets” rule and allows cats, must it allow dogs, too? There is a long line of arbitration cases that have distinguished dogs from cats and other pets for purposes of selective enforcement. For example, in Beachplace Association Inc. v. Hurwitz, Case no. 02-5940, a Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Florida Condominium Arbitration case, the arbitrator found, in response to an owner’s selective enforcement defense raised in response to the association’s demand for removal of a dog, that even though cats were allowed, that comparison of dogs to cats was not a comparative, like kind situation. Further the arbitrator found that cats and dogs had significant distinctions such as barking versus meowing, and therefore the owner’s attempted use of the selective enforcement argument failed.

But, in Hallmark of Hollywood Condominium Association Inc. v. Andrews, Case 2003-09-2380, another Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Florida Condominium Arbitration case, the learned arbitrator James Earl decided that because the association has a full blown “no pets of any kind”  requirement and since cats were allowed, then dogs must be allowed, too. In other words, the defendant owner’s waiver defense worked. But, the arbitrator wisely noted in a footnote as follows: “The undersigned notes that there is a long line of arbitration cases that have distinguished dogs from cats and other pets for purposes of selective enforcement. However, the fourth district court of appeal has ruled that where the condominium documents contain particular language prohibiting all pets, any dissimilarity between dogs and cats is irrelevant and both must be considered. See Prisco.” The distinction between the two arbitration cases could be explained because of timing in that the 4th DCA’s decision in Prisco was not yet published when Hurwitz was decided.

From these important cases, it can be gleaned that

(i) even if an association has ignored a particular rule or covenant, that by giving written notice to the entire community that it will be enforced prospectively, the rule or covenant can be reinvigorated and becomes fully enforceable once again (though of course, prior non-conforming situations may have to be grandfathered depending on the situation),

(ii) if an association or an owner is seeking an estoppel affirmative defense, they must be sure all of the necessary elements are pled,

(iii) at times a court will look to the purpose of the rule itself where it makes sense to do so, and

(iv) dogs and cats are different, but they are both considered “pets.”

Remember to always discuss the complexities of re-enforcement of covenants and rules and regulations that were not enforced for some time with your association’s legal counsel in an effort to mitigate negative outcomes. The process (commonly referred to as “republication”) can restore the viability of a covenant or rule that may have been waived due to the lack of uniform and timely enforcement.

 


Kaye Bender Rembaum

We are dedicated to providing clients with an unparalleled level of personalized and professional service regardless of their size and takes into account their individual needs and financial concerns. Our areas of concentration include

1200 Park Central Boulevard South, Pompano Beach, FL. Tel: 954.928.0680
9121 North Military Trail, Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, FL. Tel: 561.241.4462
1211 N. Westshore Boulevard, Suite 409, Tampa, FL. Tel: 813.375.0731
  • Assessment collections
  • Construction defect claims
  • Contract drafting and negotiation
  • Cooperatives
  • Covenant enforcement
  • Fair Housing
  • Land Use and Zoning
  • Litigation and Arbitration
  • Master/ Sub Association Issues
  • Pre and Post Turnover Planning
  • Real Estate and Title Concerns
  • Review and amendment of covenants
Kaye Bender Rembaum is a full service commercial law firm devoted to the representation of more than 1000 community associations throughout Florida. Under the direction of attorneys Robert L. Kaye, Esq., Michael S. Bender, Esq., and Jeffrey A. Rembaum, Esq. Kaye Bender Rembaum is dedicated to providing clients with an unparalleled level of personalized and professional service regardless of their size and takes into account their individual needs and financial concerns.your interest in Kaye Bender Rembaum.

 

Tags:
Three Kaye Bender Rembaum Attorneys Receive New Florida Bar Certification as Specialists in Condominium and Planned Development Law

Three Kaye Bender Rembaum Attorneys Receive New Florida Bar Certification as Specialists in Condominium and Planned Development Law

  • Posted: Jun 23, 2018
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Three Kaye Bender Rembaum Attorneys Receive New Florida Bar Certification as Specialists in Condominium and Planned Development Law

The law firm of Kaye Bender Rembaum announced that the Florida Bar has confirmed that three of its attorneys, founding and managing member Robert L. Kaye, firm member Andrew B. Black and senior associate Allison L. Hertz, are among the inaugural class of esteemed attorneys to be officially certified in the new area of Condominium and Planned Development Law. The new certification is effective as of June 1, 2018.


Robert L. Kaye, Andrew B. Black and Allison L. Hertz

Board certification is the highest level of recognition by the Florida Bar and recognizes attorneys’ special knowledge, skills and proficiency in various areas of law and professionalism and ethics in practice. Only certified attorneys may utilize terms such as “specialist,” “expert” and/or “B.C.S.” (Board Certified Specialist) when referring to their legal credentials. Board Certified Florida Bar Members are rigorously evaluated for professionalism and tested for their expertise in their areas of law. According to the Florida Bar, certification is the highest evaluation of attorneys’ competency. Attorneys must meet stringent application criteria before officially becoming certified, including satisfactory peer review as it relates to character, ethics and professionalism, satisfying the certification area’s continuing legal education requirements and passing a rigorous examination.

“For more than 30 years, I focused my practice on community association law. I am honored and proud to be recognized by the Bar for this high level of expertise in this area, as demonstrated by being awarded this certification,” said Kaye. “I am also proud of Allison and Andrew joining me among The Florida Bar’s inaugural class to receive this particular certification. We are pleased to not only offer our clients the high-quality legal services that they are accustomed to receive from all of our attorneys but to also have available board certified legal services in this area of law.”

Kaye, Black and Hertz are among the first lawyers obtaining the Condominium and Planned Land Development Law certification by the Florida Bar. They account for less than one percent (1%) of nearly 118,000 Florida lawyers. Thus far, only 127 lawyers obtained this certification. The Florida Bar website maintains a free online directory of all board certified attorneys, categorized by specialty area. Find it at FloridaBar.org/certification.

Kaye Bender Rembaum is a full-service commercial law firm concentrating on the representation of more than 1,000 community associations throughout Florida. With offices in Broward and Palm Beach counties, the Firm was recently presented with the 2018 Readers’ Choice Award for Legal Services by the Florida Community Association Journal, an award they’ve received annually since 2014. Members of State of Florida Property Management Association (SFPMA.com) For more information, visit www.KBRLegal.comcall 954-928-0680 and follow the Firm on www.facebook.com/KayeBenderRembaum.

 

Tags: , , ,
Pros and Cons of Living in an HOA Community

Pros and Cons of Living in an HOA Community

  • Posted: May 29, 2018
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Pros and Cons of Living in an HOA Community

Pros and Cons of Living in an HOA Community

Pros:

  • The homeowners association pays for common areas like swimming pools, spas, tennis courts, parks, private roads, sidewalks and clubhouses you are able to enjoy a pool without having to maintain or clean it, or enjoy a playground or garden without the hassle of maintenance.
  • Some HOA’s also offer services like lawn maintenance to keep the neighborhood looking good all the time. You don’t have to hire someone yourself and your property always looks pristine.
  • Homes within HOA communities typically maintain their values better than non HOA deed restricted communities. By regulating the appearance of common areas your curb appeal and home price tend to be higher.
  • Often, HOAs promote a strong sense of community. Friends can gather at the clubhouse or common areas, people get to know their neighbors, and there are usually social functions planned year round.
  • Issues with neighbors like unwanted cars parked in front of your house are handled by the association, taking the pressure (and responsibility) off of residents.

 

Cons:

  • The price of your perfectly manicured lawns could be losing the freedom to choose your holiday decorations or the color of your house. There are rules and restrictions and the HOA documents can dictate what you can and cannot do in common areas.
  • A homeowner may encounter restrictions if they want to rent out their property. The association may require potential renters to be screened and approved by the HOA board, how much you charge for rent could also be regulated along with the duration of the rental. Some HOA’s ban rentals altogether.
  • The more amenities that are offered, the more the monthly dues can be. Sometimes the extra expense of monthly dues may more than some homeowners can afford.
  • Some HOAs are poorly managed by board members who don’t have enough time to devote to the community. Others too might be managed by a third party company (property manager) which can feel like giving up control of your neighborhood.

 

Before purchasing a property within an HOA or condo community it is very important that you find out how the association is run, how much the monthly association fees are, what the fees cover and how much money is in the reserve fund to cover any large expenses such as replacing a clubhouse roof. Always get a copy of the rules and regulations before you purchase so that you are completely aware of what you can and cannot do within the community. For example, if you purchase within a condo/townhouse community where there are zero lot lines, more than likely you won’t be able to touch the landscaping outside your home. If you are an avid gardener then this is definitely something you will want to consider before purchasing.

One thing that is a must is:  Education! Managers and Board Members can sign up via their Email Addresses we have Articles written by members that are sent weekly to our industry.

SFPMA and its members provide the industry with information, Events, Services, Forms, Legal for Condo and HOA’s, Our members are the Trusted Service Companies, Businesses and Management Professionals that help Condo & HOA’s all over Florida.

 

Tags: , ,
House Bill 841 containing this year’s community association legislation.

House Bill 841 containing this year’s community association legislation.

KAYE BENDER REMBAUM’S 2018 LEGISLATIVE GUIDE – HOUSE BILL 841 AFFECTING COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION IS SIGNED INTO LAW

House Bill 841 containing this year’s community association legislation (“HB 841” or “Bill”) has made its way through the 2018 Florida legislative session and was signed into law by Governor Scott on March 23rd. As the Bill is now signed into law, it becomes effective on July 1, 2018. The following is a digest explanation of these newest laws to affect Florida’s community associations:

Condominium Official Record-keeping: Certain official records must be permanently maintained from the inception of the association, including the following:

(i) a copy of the plans, permits, warranties, and other items provided by the developer;
(ii) a copy of the recorded declaration of condominium and all amendments thereto
(iii) a copy of the recorded bylaws and all amendments thereto;
(iv) a certified copy of the articles of incorporation and all amendments thereto;
(v) a copy of the current rules; and
(vi) all meeting minutes.

All other official records of the association must be maintained within the state for at least seven years, unless otherwise provided by general law. Notwithstanding, all election records, including electronic election records, must only be maintained for one year from the election.

 

Kaye Bender Rembaum
9121 N Military Trail #200,
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410

 

 

Condominium Website: As a result of the 2017 legislative session, the website posting requirement applies to condominiums containing 150 or more non-timeshare units. The deadline to post digital copies of the governing documents, association contracts, budget, financial report, and other required documents on the association’s website is extended to January 1, 2019. Of the documents to be posted to the website, a list of bids received by the association within the past year for contracts entered into by the association and any monthly income and expense statement must also be posted. Notwithstanding this requirement, the failure to post these documents on the website does not, in and of itself, invalidate any action or decision of the association. Additionally, in complying with the posting requirement, there is no liability for disclosing information that is protected or restricted unless such disclosure was made with a knowing or intentional disregard of the protected or restricted nature of such information.

 

Condominium Financial Reporting: In the event an association fails to comply with an order by the Division of Florida Condominiums, Timeshares, and Mobile Homes to provide an owner with a copy of the financial report within a specified amount of days, then the association is prohibited from waiving the financial reporting requirement for the fiscal year in which the owner’s initial request for a copy was made and for the following fiscal year, too.

 

Condominium/Cooperative Board Meeting Notices: Notice of any board meeting in which regular or special assessments against unit owners are to be considered must specifically state that assessments will be considered and provide the estimated cost and description of the purposes for such assessments.

 

Condominium/Cooperative Meeting Notices: The association may adopt a rule for conspicuously posting meeting notices and agendas on the association’s website for at least the minimum period of time for which a notice of a meeting is also required to be physically posted on the condominium property. This rule must include a requirement that the association send an electronic notice in the same manner as a notice for a meeting of the members, including a hyperlink to the website where the notice is posted. (As yet, it is not patently clear whether this is in place of the existing “posting in a conspicuous place” requirement or in lieu of it. The safer course of action is to do both.)

 

Condominium Director Term: A director can serve a term longer than one year if permitted by the bylaws or articles of incorporation. However, a director cannot serve more than eight consecutive years, unless approved by two-thirds of all votes cast in the election or unless there are not enough eligible candidates to fill vacancies on the board. This part of the legislation replaces and fixes last year’s ridiculous new law that a director could not serve more than four consecutive two-year terms. (It appears that based on this year’s legislative changes, directors can serve any length of term so long as authorized by the articles or bylaws. At present, directors can only serve one or two year terms depending on the provisions of the articles and bylaws. Also, staggered terms remain permitted.)

 

Condominium/Cooperative Electronic Notice: A unit owner who consents to receiving notices by electronic transmission is solely responsible for removing or bypassing filters that block receipt of mass emails sent to members on behalf of the association in the course of giving electronic notices.

 

Condominium Director Recall: A recall is only effective if it is facially valid. (Of course, as what the term of art “facially valid” is intended to mean is left out of the legislation.) In any event, if the recall is determined to be facially invalid by the board, then the unit owner representative of the recall effort may file a petition challenging the board’s determination on facial validity. Similarly, a recalled board member may file a petition challenging the facial validity of the recall effort. If the arbitrator determines that the recall was invalid, the petitioning board member is immediately reinstated and the recall is null and void. In some instances, the arbitrator may award prevailing party attorney fees.

 

Condominium Material Alterations: In situations where the declaration as amended does not specify the procedure for approving material alterations or substantial additions to the common elements or association property, the already statutorily required approval of seventy-five percent of the total voting interests of the association must now be obtained before the material alterations or substantial additions to the common elements or association property are commenced. (Clearly then, if the declaration is silent as to the procedure for material alterations or substantial additions to common elements or association property, this new legislation implies that a curative vote of the members to approve the changes is a thing of the past. It does not make sense to force the association to restore the property to its prior condition where the members might vote to approve the change. Hopefully, this will be fixed in next year’s legislative proposals.)

 

Condominium Electric Vehicles: A declaration of condominium or restrictive covenant may not prohibit or be enforced so as to prohibit any unit owner from installing an electric vehicle charging station within the boundaries of the unit owner’s limited common element parking area. Moreover, the board may not prohibit a unit owner from installing an electric vehicle charging station for an electric vehicle within the boundaries of his or her limited common element parking area. The unit owner is entirely responsible for the charging station, including its installation, maintenance, utilities charges (which must be separately metered), insurance, and removal if no longer needed. The association may impose certain requirements upon the installation and operation of the charging station, including, for example, that the unit owner comply with all safety requirements and building codes, that the unit owner comply with reasonable architectural standards adopted by the association governing charging stations, and that the unit owner use the services of a licensed and registered electrical contractor or engineer knowledgeable in charging stations. Labor performed on or materials furnished for the installation of a charging station may not be the basis for filing a construction lien against the association, but such a lien may be filed against the unit owner.

 

Condominium Director Conflicts of Interest: The process allowing a director to enter into a contract with the director’s association has become better organized. Disclosure requirements that were set out in section 718.3026(3), Florida Statutes were deleted from that location and relocated to section 718.3027, Florida Statutes. In brief, directors and officers of non-timeshare condominiums must disclose to the board any activity that could be reasonably considered a conflict of interest. A rebuttable presumption of such a conflict exists if:

i) directors or officers of the association (including their relatives) enter into a contract for goods or services with the association;

ii) directors or officers of the association (including their relatives) holds an interest in a corporation. Limited liability corporation, partnership or other business entity that conducts business with the association.

In the event of such a conflict, then the proposed activity and all relevant contracts must be attached to the meeting agenda and the requirements of section 617.0832, Florida Statutes must be adhered to, as well. The relevant provisions of section 617.0832, Florida Statutes follow:

“No contract or other transaction between a corporation and one or more of its directors or any other corporation, firm, association, or entity in which one or more of its directors are directors or officers or are financially interested shall be either void or voidable because of such relationship or interest, because such director or directors are present at the meeting of the board of directors or a committee thereof which authorizes, approves, or ratifies such contract or transaction, or because his or her or their votes are counted for such purpose, if:

a) The fact of such relationship or interest is disclosed or known to the board of directors or committee which authorizes, approves, or ratifies the contract or transaction by a vote or consent sufficient for the purpose without counting the votes or consents of such interested directors;

b) The fact of such relationship or interest is disclosed or known to the members entitled to vote on such contract or transaction, if any, and they authorize, approve, or ratify it by vote or written consent; or

c) The contract or transaction is fair and reasonable as to the corporation at the time it is authorized by the board, a committee, or the members.”

In addition, section 718.3027, Florida Statutes, provides that the disclosures required by this section must be set out in the meeting minutes, and the contract must be approved by two-thirds of all of the directors present (excluding the conflicted director). At the next membership meeting, the existence of the contract must be disclosed to the members and then may be canceled by a majority vote of the members present. If the contract is canceled, the association is only liable for the reasonable value of the goods and services provided up to the time of cancellation and is not liable for any termination fee, liquidated damages, or other form of penalty for such cancellation. Finally, in the event of a failure to disclose a conflict or potential conflict, the contract is voidable and terminates upon the filing of a written notice terminating the contract which contains at least 20 percent of the voting interests of the association. (Note that section 718.112(2)(p) Florida Statutes, pertaining to service provider contracts still provides that “an association, which is not a timeshare condominium association, may not employ or contract with any service provider that is owned or operated by a board member or with any person who has a financial relationship with a board member or officer, or a relative within the third degree of consanguinity by blood or marriage of a board member or officer. This paragraph does not apply to a service provider in which a board member or officer, or a relative within the third degree of consanguinity by blood or marriage of a board member or officer, owns less than 1 percent of the equity shares.”)

 

Condominium/Cooperative Grievance Committee: The grievance committee appointed by the board to conduct hearings for fines and use right suspensions for violations of the governing documents must be comprised of at least three members who are not officers, directors, or employees of the association, or the spouse, parent, child, brother, or sister of an officer, director, or employee. (The restriction against not allowing someone living with the director from serving on the committee was removed.) The fine or suspension can only be imposed if approved by a majority of the committee. If a fine is approved, the fine payment is due five days after the date of the committee meeting at which the fine is approved. (This seems illogical in that the offending member may not have received the required written notice of the confirmation of the fine from the association.) The association must provide written notice of the approved fine or suspension by mail or hand delivery.

 

Cooperative Official Records: The official records must be made available to a unit owner within ten working days after receipt of written request by the board or its designee.

 

Cooperative Director/Officer Eligibility: In a residential cooperative association of more than ten units, co-owners of a unit may not serve as members of the board at the same time unless the co-owners own more than one unit or unless there are not enough eligible candidates to fill the vacancies on the board at the time of the vacancy.

 

Cooperative Director/Officer Financial Delinquency: A director or officer more than 90 days delinquent in the payment of any monetary obligation due to the association shall be deemed to have abandoned the office, creating a vacancy in the office to be filled according to law.

 

Cooperative Bulk Communication Contracts: Cooperatives are now lawfully permitted to enter into bulk communication contracts which can include internet services and such expenses are deemed common expenses of the cooperative.

 

HOA/Cooperative Board Email Use: Members of the board may use email as a means of communication but may not cast a vote on an association matter via email.

 

HOA Fines: If a fine levied by the board is approved by the grievance committee, the fine payment is due five days after the date of the committee meeting at which the fine is approved. (This seems illogical in that the offending member may not have received the required notice of the confirmation of the fine from the association.)

 

HOA Amendments: A proposal to amend the governing documents must contain the full text of the provision to be amended with new language underlined and deleted language stricken. However, if the proposed change is so extensive that underlining and striking through language would hinder, rather than assist, the understanding of the proposed amendment, the following notation must be inserted immediately preceding the proposed amendment: “Substantial rewording. See governing documents for current text.” An immaterial error or omission in the amendment process does not invalidate an otherwise properly adopted amendment. (In other words, HOA proposed amendments must be presented in the same manner as proposed condominium amendments have been required to do for years and years.)

 

HOA Election by Acclamation: If an election is not required because there are either an equal number or fewer qualified candidates than vacancies exist, and if nominations from the floor are not required and write-in nominations are not permitted, then such qualified candidates shall commence service on the board of directors, regardless of whether a quorum is attained at the annual meeting. (This is a major change!)

 

HOA Application of Payments: The application of assessment payments received by the association is applicable regardless of any purported accord and satisfaction or any restrictive endorsement, designation, or instruction placed on or accompanying a payment

http://rembaumsassociationroundup.com/2018/03/26/kaye-bender-rembaums-2018-legislative-guide-house-bill-841-affecting-community-association-is-signed-into-law/

 

 

 

 

Tags: , , ,
DEFIBRILLATORS  Is the Liability Worth the Risk?

DEFIBRILLATORS Is the Liability Worth the Risk?

  • Posted: Mar 24, 2018
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on DEFIBRILLATORS Is the Liability Worth the Risk?

DEFIBRILLATORS

Is the Liability Worth the Risk?

About the Editor: Jeffrey Rembaum, Esq.

 

Jeffrey Rembaum, Esq.’s law 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.  He is a regular columnist for The Condo News, a biweekly publication.

Kaye Bender Rembaum, Attorneys at Law

The law firm of Kaye Bender Rembaum, with its 16 lawyers and offices in Broward and Palm Beach Counties, is a full service law firm devoted to the representation of more than 1,000 community and commercial associations, developers, and their members throughout the State of Florida. Under the direction of attorneys Robert L. Kaye, Michael S. Bender and Jeffrey A. Rembaum, the law firm of Kaye Bender Rembaum strives to provide its clients with an unparalleled level of personalized and professional service that takes into account their clients’ individual needs and financial concerns.

The Firm is ranked ninth in South Florida and 62nd in the Southern U.S. among “Top 300 Small Businesses” by Business Leader magazine.

 

According to the American Heart Association, sudden cardiac arrest (“SCA”) is a leading cause of death in the United States. It is estimated that more than 350,000 lives are taken each year due to the abrupt loss of heart function. However, with technological advances, the number of deaths due to SCA have been lowered through the use of an automated external defibrillator (“AED”). An AED is a portable medical instrument that delivers an electrical impulse to the heart to disrupt and correct an otherwise fatal irregular heartbeat (arrhythmia) and allows a normal rhythm to resume. Although AEDs have been credited with saving countless lives by making it possible for non-medical individuals to respond to a medical emergency, the question must be asked: “Is the liability worth the risk?”

The purchase and availability of AEDs is controlled by state and federal laws and regulations. Pursuant to Florida law, AEDs are required to be installed in public schools, dental offices, and assisted living facilities. AEDs are optional in state parks and state owned or leased facilities. There is no requirementthat community associations in Florida install AED devices on association property and/or association fitness facilities. Although not legally required, there is a growing trend of community associations considering installing AEDs on association property to better protect their residents. When considering whether or not to install an AED device, associations must ensure that all parties (i.e., association management, board of directors, residents, and any other authorized user) understand the potential liability associated with the use of an AED and the protections afforded to them under Florida law.

Continue reading

Tags: , , ,
Did He Really Write That about Our Association on Facebook?

Did He Really Write That about Our Association on Facebook?

  • Posted: Feb 25, 2018
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Did He Really Write That about Our Association on Facebook?

PRESENTS

Rembaum’s Association Roundup

The community association legal news that you can use!

The free e-magazine for Community Association Managers, Board Members, Owners & Developers

Have an association related question? Find your answer at

RembaumsAssociationRoundup.com

 

Did He Really Write That about Our Association on Facebook?

An interesting question that arises from time to time is whether the protections of the United States Constitution (and the Florida Constitution) apply within the gates of a community association. In most circumstances, in order to begin a constitutional analysis the very first step is whether there is any governmental action taking place. Clearly, in the context of a homeowners’ association resident publishing their own opinions on a blog, there is no governmental action. Even so, insofar as freedom of the press is concerned, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution reigns supreme, though not without certain limitations. In a recent Fifth District Court of Appeal case, Fox v. Hamptons at Metrowest Condominium Association, Inc., the Court had the opportunity to examine this issue.

 

In this case, association member, Fox, appealed the trial court’s order finding him guilty of civil contempt of court for violating a settlement agreement that he entered into with the association. He argued that portions of the trial court’s contempt order constituted a prior restraint on his protected speech rights under both the Florida Constitution and the United States Constitution. In short, the Court agreed.

 

The background of this case is a typical scenario where Fox failed to comply with the association’s declaration and its rules and regulations which caused irreparable harm to other owners and residents within the association. The association’s complaint also alleged that Fox was engaged in a continuous course of conduct “designed and carried out for the purpose of harassing, intimidating, and threatening other residents, the Association and its representatives.” The trial court had entered a preliminary injunction and then the parties reached a settlement agreement in which Fox agreed to cease certain activities.

 

It did not take long for Fox to violate the terms of the settlement agreement. As a result, the association filed a motion for contempt and argued that Fox willfully and intentionally violated the terms of the settlement agreement, and thus the final judgment, too. The trial court found Fox in civil contempt and, in so doing, also ordered that Fox stop posting, circulating, and publishing any pictures or personal information about current or future residents, board members, management, employees, or personnel of the management company, vendors of the association, and any other management company of the association on any website, blog, or social media. He was further ordered to take down all such information currently on any of his websites or blogs. The trial court’s order also prohibited Fox from starting any new blogs, websites, or social media websites related to the association. If anyone reached out to Fox with inquiries regarding the association, pursuant to the court’s order, he was not allowed to post a response online. Instead, he would have to call the person to express his concerns verbally.

 

On appeal, Fox argued to the Court that the trial court’s punishment violated his right to speak freely. In the end, the Court agreed that the trial court’s blanket prohibition of Fox’s online speech constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint on his free speech rights. In so doing, the Court noted that “[i]t has been established that ‘[p]rior restraints on speech and publication are the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights.’” The Court also noted that the United States Supreme Court has “consistently classified emotionally distressing or outrageous speech as protected, especially where that speech touches on matters of political, religious or public concern.” The Court then cited other cases finding that statements on an individual’s blog constituted opinion speech protected by the First Amendment.

 

However, the Court wisely noted that “the right to free speech and the freedom of the press are not without their limits” and, in so doing, cited to prior United States Supreme Court opinions which reminds readers of that “[f]reedom of speech does not extend to obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, true threats, and speech integral to criminal conduct. Speech that does not fall into these exceptions remains protected.” If the writer/publisher prints libelous, defamatory, or an injury story, the remedy does not lie with an injunction, but rather with a claim for damages or criminal action after publication.

 

With the aforementioned in mind, the Court determined that the trial court erred when it prohibited Fox from making any statements at all pertaining to the association on his websites, blogs, and social media. Therefore, the trial court order was reversed in part, but only in regard to the complete prohibition imposed on Fox on posting on any website, blog, or social media. However, the Court also opined trial court did not err in determining that the previously agreed-upon settlement agreement could be enforced and it affirmed the contempt order. The case was then remanded back to the trial court for determination of an order consistent with the opinions of the Court.

KBRLegal.com – Sponsors of SFPMA.  Legal and Laws for Community Associations.

Rembaum’s Association Roundup

The community association legal news that you can use!

The free e-magazine for Community Association Managers, Board Members, Owners & Developers

Have an association related question? Find your answer at

RembaumsAssociationRoundup.com

 

Tags: , ,
GET IN LINE – ASSOCIATION ASSESSMENT LIEN PRIORITY

GET IN LINE – ASSOCIATION ASSESSMENT LIEN PRIORITY

  • Posted: Feb 19, 2018
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on GET IN LINE – ASSOCIATION ASSESSMENT LIEN PRIORITY

GET IN LINE – ASSOCIATION ASSESSMENT LIEN PRIORITY

At issue in today’s column is a subject we recently addressed regarding whether an association must record its assessment lien in the public records of the County in which the community is located in order for it to be effective and whether such lien relates back to the initial date of recording of the declaration. At least, as to a surplus that results from a tax foreclosure sale, the answer, in most circumstances, is that the association does not need to record its assessment lien in order to argue entitlement to the surplus, and the lien will relate back to the date of initial recording of the declaration, as was the outcome of a recent Fourth District Court of Appeal case, Calendar v. Stonebridge Gardens Section III Condominium Association, Inc., decided December 17, 2017.

In this case, Mrs. Calendar was the unit owner who lost her home as a result of a tax foreclosure. After the foreclosure sale, Mrs. Calendar asserted that she, and not the condominium association, was entitled to the surplus that resulted from the tax foreclosure sale. The appellate court disagreed and affirmed the trial court’s decision to award the surplus to the condominium association. In so doing, the appellate court cited section 718.116(5)(a), Florida Statutes (2016), which provides:

Continue reading

Tags: ,