It’s the Manager’s Fault…Or Is It? by rembaumlaw

Posted: Dec 13, 2021
By: KBR Legal
Comments: Comments Off on It’s the Manager’s Fault…Or Is It? by rembaumlaw

It’s the Manager’s Fault…Or Is It?

Posted on October 4, 2021 by rembaumlaw

Few professions have more demands placed upon them than that of the Florida licensed community association manager (CAM). Depending on whom you ask, the CAM is the organizer, rules enforcer, keeper of secrets (meaning confidential and statutorily protected information not limited to the medical record of owners and attorney-client privileged information), best friend, the “bad guy” (a frequent misconstruction), and the first person in the line of fire when things go wrong; in other words, the one who takes all the blame and gets little credit when things go right.

When things at the association go wrong, what comment is most likely heard? “It’s the manager’s fault!” But, is it? Unless the manager failed to carry out a lawful directive from the board, breached a management contract provision, or violated a Florida statute, then in all likelihood, the manager has no culpability. CAMs are licensed by the State of Florida pursuant to Part VIII of Chapter 468 of the Florida Statutes, and there are statutory standards by which CAMs must conduct themselves.

Pursuant to §468.4334, Florida Statutes, “[a] community association manager or a community association management firm is deemed to act as agent on behalf of a community association as principal within the scope of authority authorized by a written contract or under this chapter. A community association manager and a community association management firm shall discharge duties performed on behalf of the association as authorized by this chapter loyally, skillfully, and diligently; dealing honestly and fairly; in good faith; with care and full disclosure to the community association; accounting for all funds; and not charging unreasonable or excessive fees.”

As set forth herein, statutory standards provide guidance to CAMs as to how they should conduct themselves. They must discharge their duties with skill and care and in good faith. They must act with loyalty to their association employer and deal with the association both honestly and fairly. They must provide full disclosure, which can be interpreted as both keeping the board informed of current events and providing disclosures of any conflict of interests. They must be able to account for all funds, too, which means both assessment income and expenditures; in other words, they must mind the budget.

Best practices for CAMs include becoming extremely familiar with the governing documents of the association (including the declaration, articles of incorporation, bylaws, and rules and regulations) and the financials of the association, walking the physical property, engaging with their team and residents, as well as providing weekly status updates to the board regarding all ongoing association business. If you are a CAM and do these things, then you have an opportunity to shine and stand head and shoulders above your peers and competition. This weekly status report is an excellent communication tool yet seems to be a rarity. CAMs should also make themselves available to owners. However, when an owner becomes offensive or insulting, the CAM should politely and firmly request that the owner communicate respectfully and in a professional manner. A CAM should always be financially transparent and should be extremely familiar with the management contract to fully understand her obligations and authority; for example, the limitation to spend association funds. Finally, the CAM should strive to keep a written record of her activities.

The two most obvious and biggest ways to get in trouble include committing acts of gross misconduct or gross negligence in connection with the profession or contracting on behalf of an association with any entity in which the CAM has a financial interest that is not disclosed. Disciplinary actions against a CAM fall under the purview of the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR). Section 455.227, Florida Statutes, governs grounds for discipline, penalties, and enforcement.

For example, the following activities constitute grounds for which disciplinary actions may be taken by the DBPR (this list is not all inclusive):

(i) making misleading, deceptive, or fraudulent representations in or related to the practice of the CAM’s profession; (ii) intentionally violating any rule adopted by the DBPR; (iii) being convicted or found guilty of, or entering a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (“I do not wish to contend”) to, a crime in any jurisdiction which relates to the practice of, or the ability to practice, a CAM’s profession; (iv) having been found liable in a civil proceeding for knowingly filing a false report or complaint with the DBPR against another CAM; (v) attempting to obtain, obtaining, or renewing a license to practice a profession by bribery, by fraudulent misrepresentation, or through an error of the DBPR; (vi) failing to report to the DBPR any person who the CAM knows is in violation of the laws regulating CAMs or the rules of the DBPR; (vii) aiding, assisting, procuring, employing, or advising any unlicensed person or entity to practice a profession contrary to law; (viii) failing to perform any statutory or legal obligation; (ix) making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; (x) making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in or related to the practice of a profession or employing a trick or scheme in or related to the practice of a profession; and (xi) performing professional responsibilities the licensee knows, or has reason to know, the licensee is not competent to perform.

The Florida Administrative Code, in Rule 61E14-2.001, also provides standards for professional conduct which are deemed automatically incorporated as duties of all CAMs into any written or oral agreement for community association management services. A CAM must adhere to the following standards:

comply with the requirements of the governing documents by which a community association is created or operated
only deposit or disburse funds received by the CAM or management firm on behalf of the association for the specific purpose or purposes designated by the board, community association management contract, or the governing documents of the association
perform all community association management services required by the CAM’s contract to professional standards and to the standards established by §468.4334(1), Florida Statutes
in the event of a potential conflict of interest, provide full disclosure to the association and obtain authorization or approval; and
respond to, or refer to the appropriate responsible party, a notice of violation or any similar notice from an agency seeking to impose a regulatory penalty upon the association within the timeframe specified in the notice.

In addition, during the performance of community association management services pursuant to a contract with a community association, a CAM cannot withhold possession of the association’s official records or original books, records, accounts, funds, or other property of the association when requested in writing by the association to deliver the foregoing to the association upon reasonable notice. However, the CAM may retain those records necessary to complete an ending financial statement or report for up to 20 days after termination of the management contract. Additionally, a CAM cannot (i) deny or delay access to association official records to an owner, or his or her authorized representative, who is entitled to inspect and copy the association’s official records within the timeframe and under the applicable statutes governing the association; (ii) create false records or alter the official records of an association or of the CAM except in such cases where an alteration is permitted by law (e.g., the correction of minutes per direction given at a meeting at which the minutes are submitted for approval); or (iii) fail to maintain the records for a CAM, management firm, or the official records of the association as required by the applicable statutes governing the association.

How do you know if your association requires a licensed community association manager? Pursuant to §468.431, Florida Statutes, if the association has 10 or more units or has a budget of $100,000 or more and the person is conducting one or more of the following activities in exchange for payment, the person must be a licensed CAM:

controlling or disbursing funds of a community association
preparing budgets or other financial documents for a community association
assisting in the noticing or conduct of community association meetings
determining the number of days required for statutory notices
determining amounts due to the association
collecting amounts due to the association before the filing of a civil action
calculating the votes required for a quorum or to approve a proposition or amendment
completing forms related to the management of a community association that have been created by statute or by a state agency
drafting meeting notices and agendas
calculating and preparing certificates of assessment and estoppel certificates
responding to requests for certificates of assessment and estoppel certificates
negotiating monetary or performance terms of a contract subject to approval by an association
drafting pre-arbitration demands
coordinating or performing maintenance for real or personal property and other related routine services involved in the operation of a community association, or
complying with the association’s governing documents and the requirements of law as necessary to perform such practices.

However, a person who performs clerical or ministerial functions under the direct supervision and control of a CAM or who is charged only with performing the maintenance of a community association and who does not assist in any of the management services described above is not required to be licensed.

So, whose fault is it when things go awry? A CAM’s role is far different than that of a rental complex manager who often has decision-making authority. The CAM does not have that same type of decision-making authority. The CAM must take direction from the board and perform pursuant to the obligations set out in the management agreement and Florida law. It is the board of directors of the community association that actually makes the decisions. So, while the uninformed might blame the CAM, you now know that the buck stops with the board of directors. If you have further questions regarding a CAM’s responsibility, then please discuss this with your association’s lawyer.

Tags: Condo and HOA Laws, Management News

Legal: Comcast of Florida LP v. L’Ambiance Beach Condominium Association, Inc.

Posted: Dec 13, 2021
By: Becker Lawyers
Comments: Comments Off on Legal: Comcast of Florida LP v. L’Ambiance Beach Condominium Association, Inc.

Comcast of Florida LP v. L’Ambiance Beach Condominium Association, Inc.

17 So.3d 839 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)

By: Jay Roberts, Esq.

The ability for condominium associations to terminate certain contracts using a statutory procedure is at the heart of THIS CASE. In 2002, Comcast of Florida, L.P. (“Comcast”) entered into an agreement with the condominium developer (on behalf of the Association) that granted Comcast an easement to install cables and offer cable television services to residents at a bulk-discount rate. Every unit owner received and paid for the cable service as part of a monthly maintenance fee. The termination provision in the agreement stated it would be subject to the conditions and regulations required under Chapter 718, Florida Statutes. Following turnover from the developer to the unit owners, the Association voted to terminate the agreement and sent written notice to Comcast in accordance with F.S. 718.302.

Section 718.302, Fla. Stat. (2002), provided in part:

(1) Any grant or reservation made by a declaration, lease, or other document, and any contract made by an association prior to assumption of control of the association by unit owners other than the developer, that provides for operation, maintenance, or management of a condominium association or property serving the unit owners of a condominium shall be fair and reasonable, and such grant, reservation, or contract may be canceled by unit owners other than the developer:
(a) … the cancellation shall be by concurrence of the owners of not less than 75 percent of the voting interests other than the voting interests owned by the developer….

After receiving notice of the termination, Comcast refused to open the distribution lock boxes. Ultimately, Comcast sued for declaratory and injunctive relief for breach of contract and trespass. Before a hearing was held, the Association hired another provider to rewire the building and provide services to all residential units. The trial court ruled in favor of the Association. On appeal, Comcast argued that F.S. 718.302 did not apply to Comcast’s services, because the contract was not one for operation, maintenance, or management of the condominium as required under the statutory language.

On appeal the Fourth District Court of Appeal found that the agreement explicitly required Comcast to operate and maintain the wires and lock boxes it had installed. The Court also noted that under F.S. 718.115(1)(d), the cost of cable television service obtained pursuant to a bulk rate contract is deemed a common expense. In light of the fact that the agreement provided for a cable television service, and that the cost was part of a monthly maintenance fee, and that Comcast was required to service and maintain the cable television, the Court concluded that the agreement was one for “operation, maintenance, or management” subject to F.S. 718.302 (NOTE: the 2021 version of this statute is substantially the same as the 2002 version).

So why does THIS CASE matter? The Florida Condominium Act provides various rights to condominium associations which become effective upon turnover of the association from developer-controlled to unit owner-controlled, including, but not limited to, the ability to terminate certain contracts. It is vital for associations which recently have undergone turnover to discuss the various rights which accrued on the date turnover with the association’s legal counsel.

Tags: Condo and HOA Laws, Developer Issues

Financial Screening of Purchasers: How Far Is Too Far? by KBRLegal

Posted: Dec 03, 2021
By: KBR Legal
Comments: Comments Off on Financial Screening of Purchasers: How Far Is Too Far? by KBRLegal

Financial Screening of Purchasers: How Far Is Too Far?

A few months back a case came before the county court in the 20th Judicial Circuit for Collier County, wherein a prospective buyer challenged the validity of a board-adopted rule which required that all prospective buyers provide two years of tax returns with their application for ownership approval. This requirement was in addition to the background check and credit check that were also required. While this is only a county court case and, therefore, has no precedential value other than to the parties themselves, there are principles addressed of which associations and managers should be aware; even though many learned attorneys would opine that the conclusions of the court are legally flawed under the facts of the case and, if appealed, would likely be overturned. Nevertheless, there are still nuggets of knowledge that can be gleaned from this case.

In this case, Mech v. Crescent Beach Condominium Association, Inc., Case No. 19-SC-3498, decided June 2020, the purchaser, who was the plaintiff, was seeking to buy a unit at Crescent Beach Condominium for $400,000, which was to be paid in cash. The purchaser purportedly had a clean background and a credit score of 800. Nonetheless, the board required that, like all other prospective purchasers at the condominium, this purchaser needed to produce his tax returns in order for the association to approve the transfer. The purchaser refused to provide his tax returns and cited his good credit score and clean background as evidence enough for approval. Eventually, an impasse was reached, and the purchaser canceled the contract. Then he brought the county court lawsuit challenging the requirement. (Generally speaking, typically under current Florida law, the purchaser would not have legal standing to even bring the claim against the association; but it does not appear that this legal infirmity was raised by the association, which allowed the case to proceed.)

The purchaser challenged the rule, arguing that the rule was not within the scope of the association’s authority to adopt, nor did it reflect reasoned decision-making. (It is noteworthy to point out that, after the initiation of the lawsuit, the association amended its declaration of condominium to provide that the association may require tax returns in an application for approval of a sale. However, this is not relevant to the conclusions of the Court in this case since it occurred after the litigation was filed.)

The association argued that the tax returns are necessary because they provide more information than a credit report and could help ensure that the potential purchaser is “a good credit risk.” The Court, however, did not agree, calling the argument “nonsensical.” The Court goes on to identify what this judge considers to be the best indicator of a person’s financial history, and as a result, it is the only information the association is allowed to seek. (We note that this conclusion is also without a stated legal basis.)

In the final judgment, some might argue that the Court goes way beyond what proper judicial consideration and conclusions typically contain and indicates that she could find “NO justification for the invasive requirement that a full, or even partial, return would be required when, in fact, the board already requires a full background check and credit check.” While no legal support for the conclusion was provided, the Court held that the request for tax returns was invasive and unnecessary and that the requirement was “shocking.”

The Court objected to the blanket requirement that applied to every applicant regardless of the results of their background and credit checks. Had the tax returns only been required when an applicant’s credit history showed a history of financial instability or delinquencies, the rule may have been upheld by the Court. How-ever, the Court held that “to take a position that ‘every person’ who applies to be a member at [the association] is patently unreasonable and shall be stricken.” Lastly, also without a legal basis or ability, the Court ordered the association to strike all reference in its condominium documents which require potential purchasers to produce tax returns unless the association can show good cause to request the information.

A brief discussion regarding the adoption of rules and regulations is necessary to highlight lessons that can be learned from this case. Generally, both condominium and homeowners association governing documents will typically provide that the board of the directors has the authority to adopt rules and regulations for the community. While some governing documents may contain restrictions requiring a membership vote to approve new rules, it is common for the governing documents to provide the board with the authority to adopt rules and regulations. (Careful review of the documentary authority for each community is recommended as some may limit the rule-making authority to common areas only and not to the residential property within the community.) Although the board is generally authorized to adopt rules and regulations, those rules and regulations must not conflict with any provision expressly set out in the governing documents or reasonably inferred from them, and they must be reasonable. (This should be contrasted with covenants recorded in the County’s official records, which may be unreasonable and still be legally enforceable under long-standing Florida case law.)

In Beachwood Villas Condominium v. Poor, et. al., a 1984 Fourth District Court of Appeal (4th DCA) case in which several owners challenged rules enacted by their association’s board of directors, the Court noted that there could be two sources of use restrictions: (i) those set out in the declaration of condominium and (ii) those adopted by the board. As to the use restrictions set out in the declaration, the court held that such restrictions are “clothed with a very strong presumption of validity,” as initially provided in Hidden Harbor Estates v. Basso (a 1981 4th DCA case).

In examining board-adopted rules, the court first must determine whether the board acted within its scope of authority—in other words, whether the board had the express authority in the documents to adopt the rule in the first place. If the answer is “yes,” the second question to determine is whether the rule conflicts with an express provision of the governing documents or one that is reasonably inferred. (If the documents are silent on an issue, the inference is that it is unrestricted. Adopting a rule to restrict a topic that the declaration is otherwise silent about would conflict with the inferred unrestricted use and therefore be unenforceable.) If these first two issues are found to exist, the court will then determine if the rule is reasonable. The board’s exercise of its reasonable business judgment in adopting a rule is generally upheld so long as the rule is not “violative of any constitutional restrictions and does not exceed any specific limitations set out in the statutes or condominium documents.”

In examining your own board-adopted rules, ask the following:

Did the board have the power to adopt the rule?
Is the rule in accord with with the declaration, articles of incorporation, or bylaws?
Is the rule reasonable under the circumstances? (While ultimately only a court can make this final determination, the board should use its best judgment, with assistance of its counsel, to reach this decision.)

If the answer to these three questions is “yes,” then the rule should be found to be valid and enforceable by the court upon an owner challenge.

Ultimately, what can be gleaned from Mech v. Crescent Beach Condominium Association Inc. is that even if the association acts reasonably when adopting rules and even when amending the declaration, a lower court judge can reach almost any decision it wishes. Had the provision at issue only required tax returns when the background or credit checks revealed that the prospective purchaser had a history of financial irresponsibility, the provision may have withstood judicial challenge by this particular judge. Additionally, had the provision requiring tax returns been set out in the declaration before the initiation of the lawsuit, the outcome may have been different under existing, well-established case law.

Bottom line, whenever the board is considering new rules, it is recommended that the board consult with the association’s legal counsel before adopting them.

(Reprinted with permission from KBR Legal)

Jeffrey Rembaum’s, 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: Condo and HOA Laws, Management News, Members Articles

Natural Gas Fuel Stations by Becker Lawyers

Posted: Dec 02, 2021
By: Becker Lawyers
Comments: Comments Off on Natural Gas Fuel Stations by Becker Lawyers

Natural Gas Fuel Stations

BY YELINE GOIN / of Becker

A few years ago, the Florida Legislature recognized that the use of electric vehicles conserves and protects the state’s environmental resources, provides significant economic savings to drivers, and serves an important public interest. As a result, the Legislature created Section 718.113(8), Florida Statutes, to allow unit owners to install electric vehicle charging stations within the boundaries of the unit owner’s limited common element parking area. During the 2021 legislative session, the Legislature expanded the statute to allow unit owners to also install natural gas fuel stations for a natural gas fuel vehicle. The term “natural gas fuel” is any liquefied petroleum gas product, compressed natural gas product, or a combination of these products used in a motor vehicle. The term includes all forms of fuel commonly or commercially known or sold as natural gasoline, butane gas, propane gas, or any other form of liquefied petroleum gas, compressed natural gas, or liquefied natural gas. However, the term does not include natural gas or liquefied petroleum placed in a separate tank of a motor vehicle for cooking, heating, water heating, or electricity generation.

While the board may not prohibit a unit owner from installing an electric vehicle charging station or a natural gas fuel station within the boundaries of a limited common element or exclusively designated parking area, the board can impose certain requirements, including, but not limited to, a requirement that the electric vehicle charging station or natural gas fuel station must be separately metered or metered by an embedded meter and payable by the unit owner installing such charging or fuel station.

In addition to expanding the statute for natural gas fuel vehicles, the Legislature also amended the statute to give associations the authority to install or operate an electric vehicle charging station or a natural gas fuel station upon the common elements or association property as a common expense, and such installation does not constitute a material alteration to the common elements or association property. As alternative fuel vehicles become more and more popular and as car manufacturers continue to transition away from gas vehicles, condominium associations now have the ability to add electrical vehicle charging stations and/or natural gas fuel stations on the common elements or association property to accommodate these new types of vehicles by a vote of the board of directors only.

Associations should take a proactive approach to this issue and consider adopting a policy for unit owner installed electric vehicle charging stations and/or natural gas fuel stations. In addition, associations should start considering whether there are areas on the common elements or association property that would accommodate these installations by the association for the use of all owners as a common expense.

Tags: Condo and HOA Laws, Legal and Lobbing

ASK THE ATTORNEYS with KBR Legal 11/16/2021 6:30 pm – 8:00 pm

Posted: Nov 15, 2021
By: KBR Legal
Comments: Comments Off on ASK THE ATTORNEYS with KBR Legal 11/16/2021 6:30 pm – 8:00 pm

November 16 @ 6:30 PM – 8:00 PM

ASK THE ATTORNEYS with KBR Legal 11/16/2021 6:30 pm – 8:00 pm

WEBINAR Florida

Tags: Board of Directors, Condo and HOA Laws

Report of the Florida Bar Condominium Law and Policy Life Safety Advisory Task Force

Posted: Oct 30, 2021
By: Admin SFPMA
Comments: Comments Off on Report of the Florida Bar Condominium Law and Policy Life Safety Advisory Task Force

Report of the Florida Bar Condominium Law and Policy Life Safety Advisory Task Force

The mission of the Task Force is to engage in information-gathering and fact-finding through the review all aspects of Florida Condominium law, development , construction, association operations, and maintenance to determine if changes or additions to legislation and/or regulations could prevent or minimize the likelihood of another tragedy like the Champlain Towers South condominium collapse, or similar tragedies in the future. The Task Force is not a decision-making authority and will not be investigating the cause of the Champlain Towers South building collapse

Download the PDF: Condominium-Law-and-Policy-Life-Safety-Advisory-Task-Force-Report-1

READ on the FL Bar’s Website

Click to access Condominium-Law-and-Policy-Life-Safety-Advisory-Task-Force-Report-1.pdf

Tags: Condo and HOA Laws

Electronic Board of Directors and Membership Meetings in a Post-Covid-19 World

Posted: Oct 26, 2021
By: KBR Legal
Comments: Comments Off on Electronic Board of Directors and Membership Meetings in a Post-Covid-19 World

Electronic Board of Directors and Membership Meetings in a Post-Covid-19 World

Well, it is not quite a post-COVID-19 world yet, but hopefully, it will be one day soon. We are, however, living in a post-governor-ordered-state-of-emergency world, meaning that the emergency powers granted to condominium, cooperative, and homeowners’ associations’ boards of directors by virtue of the governor’s emergency orders have come to an end, with this caveat: The emergency authority granted to community association boards of directors after the expiration of the governor’s emergency orders is, generally speaking, “limited to that time reasonably necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the association and the owners and their family members, tenants, guests, agents, or invitees, and to mitigate further damage and make emergency repairs.” As such, each passing day diminishes the arguments supporting a board’s reasonable reliance on the utilization of these emergency powers. However, given the recent uptick in Covid cases plus ever evolving CDC guidance issued towards the end of July, 2021, some community associations may consider relying on the continuance of the emergency powers provision. If so, it is strongly recommended that such a community association receive proper guidance from its legal counsel.

Interestingly, until July 1, 2021, electronic meetings of community association members and boards of directors were not specifically addressed in the legislative grant of emergency powers which could be used during a governor-declared state of emergency. Rather, the emergency powers of days gone by provided that association boards of directors could conduct board meetings and membership meetings with notice given in as practicable a manner as possible, including publication, radio, United States mail, the Internet, public service announcements, and conspicuous posting on the common property or any other means the board deems reasonable under the circumstances. Notice of board decisions may be similarly communicated. In addition, the board could cancel and reschedule any association meeting. Under certain circumstances, decisions could be made on the spot, so to speak, without the need for a noticed meeting. The legislative emergency powers can be found in §718.1265, §719.128, and §720.316 of the Florida Statutes for condominium, cooperative, and homeowners’ associations, respectively. Nowhere in the pre-July 1, 2021 version of the emergency powers legislation did these powers set forth the clear right of the association to conduct solely electronic board and membership meetings, though due to life safety reasons, such power was inferred. However, it should be noted that effective July 1, 2021 the emergency powers legislation was significantly revised to provide for the use of electronic meetings during a governor declared state of emergency.

BOARD MEETINGS

With this as our backdrop, without a declared state of emergency can community associations continue to hold electronic board meetings via platforms such as zoom? Let us examine the relevant legislation that bears on this important inquiry. As to condominium board meetings,

[a] board or committee member’s participation in a meeting via telephone, real-time videoconferencing, or similar real-time electronic or video communication counts toward a quorum, and such member may vote as if physically present. A speaker must be used so that the conversation of such members may be heard by the board or committee members attending in person as well as by any unit owners present at a meeting… Meetings of the board of administration at which a quorum of the members is present are open to all unit owners… The right to attend such meetings includes the right to speak at such meetings with reference to all designated agenda items… [§718.112(2), Fla. Stat. (2020), Emphasis added]. Note that similar provisions are provided for cooperative associations in §719.106), Fla. Stat. (2020).]

As to homeowners’ association board meetings,

[a] meeting of the board of directors of an association occurs whenever a quorum of the board gathers to conduct association business. Meetings of the board must be open to all members, except for meetings between the board and its attorney with respect to proposed or pending litigation where the contents of the discussion would otherwise be governed by the attorney-client privilege. A meeting of the board must be held at a location that is accessible to a physically handicapped person if requested by a physically handicapped person who has a right to attend the meeting… Members have the right to attend all meetings of the board. The right to attend such meetings includes the right to speak at such meetings with reference to all designated items. [§720.303(2), Fla. Stat. (2020), Emphasis Added.]

In addition, the “Florida Not For Profit Corporation Act,” set out in Chapter 617, Florida Statutes, which applies, in large part, to condominium, cooperative, and homeowners’ associations, so long as not in conflict with Chapters 718, 719, and 720 of the Florida Statutes (and certain other exceptions not relevant to this analysis), provides that,

Unless the articles of incorporation or the bylaws provide otherwise, the board of directors may permit any or all directors to participate in a regular or special meeting by, or conduct the meeting through the use of, any means of communication by which all directors participating may simultaneously hear each other during the meeting. A director participating in a meeting by this means is deemed to be present in person at the meeting. [§617.0820(4), Fla. Stat. (2020).]

Mixing all of these ingredients together so that they all have meaning clearly implies that the community association board can conduct its board meetings via electronic means, like Zoom. However, in our opinion, a more prudent approach is to also make on-site accommodations available to those who wish to attend in person. This can be easily accomplished by ensuring the meeting is noticed in a physical location where the non-board member owners can listen and participate through use of an on-site speaker phone or computer that is preferably provided or otherwise arranged for by the association. (Reminder that Zoom also has a call in feature for those who do not access to, or are not comfortable with, a computer).

MEMBERSHIP MEETINGS

As to all community association membership meetings, members have a right to speak at meetings of the membership. Pursuant to §718.112(2)(d)7 and §719.106(1)(d)4, Florida Statutes, members of condominium and cooperative associations, respectively, have the right to participate in meetings of the unit owners with reference to all designated agenda items. Pursuant to §720.306(6), Florida Statutes, members of a homeowners’ association have the right to speak with reference to all items opened for discussion or included on the agenda. During elections and other meetings where a vote of the membership is at issue, members should be able to observe the tallying of ballots.

As to condominium associations, membership meeting requirements include the following:

An annual meeting of the unit owners must be held at the location provided in the association bylaws and, if the bylaws are silent as to the location, the meeting must be held within 45 miles of the condominium property… [§718.112(2)(d)1, Fla. Stat. (2020).]

As to cooperative associations, membership meeting requirements include the following:

There shall be an annual meeting of the shareholders… The bylaws must provide the method for calling meetings, including annual meetings… [§719.106(1)(d), Fla. Stat. (2020).]

As to homeowners’ associations, membership meeting requirements include the following:

The association shall hold a meeting of its members annually for the transaction of any and all proper business at a time, date, and place stated in, or fixed in accordance with, the bylaws. The election of directors, if one is required to be held, must be held at, or in conjunction with, the annual meeting or as provided in the governing documents… [§720.306(2), Fla. Stat. (2020).]

Furthermore, and of great importance, there is the following provision from the Florida Not For Profit Corporation Act, a/k/a Chapter 617, Florida Statutes:

If authorized by the board of directors, and subject to such guidelines and procedures as the board of directors may adopt, members and proxy holders who are not physically present at a meeting may, by means of remote communication participate in the meeting and be deemed to be present in person and vote at the meeting if:

1) the corporation implements reasonable means to verify that each person deemed present and authorized to vote by means of remote communication is a member or proxy holder; and

2) the corporation implements reasonable measures to provide such members or proxy holders with a reasonable opportunity to participate in the meeting and to vote on matters submitted to the members, including an opportunity to communicate and to read or hear the proceedings of the meeting substantially concurrent with the proceedings, and

3) if any member or proxy holder votes or takes other action by means of remote communication, a record of that member’s participation in the meeting must be maintained by the corporation in accordance with §617.1601.

[§617.0721(3), Fla. Stat. (2020); internal numbering, punctuation, capitalization, and formatting removed; emphasis added.]

Therefore, the members at a membership meeting can participate electronically so long as the board has authorized it and has adopted appropriate procedures. Consultation with the association’s attorney is strongly encouraged, most especially if there will be any “live” voting at the membership meeting.

How members vote at an electronic membership meeting when the member attends virtually is an interesting question. Presently, there is no definitive procedure set out in the law for the member to cast their vote “live” during a zoom meeting. Rather, §617.0721(3) Fla. Stat. (2020), places the burden on the board of directors to adopt procedures in this regard. Obviously, if your association has 400 members who all appear virtually at the membership meeting, live voting for all 400 members will prove to be logistically difficult, if not impossible. It may be far easier to have the members vote i) in advance by proxy, limited proxy, absentee ballot as the case may be, or, ii) if adopted by the association, vote electronically pursuant to the procedures as set out in §718.128, §719.129, or §720.317 (Fla. Stat. 2020). A hybrid approach could also be utilized where the association provides for electronic voting and proxy voting prior to the meeting and then only the remaining few voters who have yet to cast their ballot could cast their vote “live” during the meeting, subject to the requirements of §617.0721(3).

Practice tip 1: Remember, electronic voting can be used whenever a membership vote is needed, even if the meeting does not have a zoom type option for attendance so long as the association has followed the requirements to provide for electronic voting.

Practice tip 2 (For Homeowners’ Associations): If your association’s governing documents require or otherwise allow nominations from the floor of the election meeting, consider amending and removing this provision from the governing documents to clear the way for an electronic membership meeting and election.

IN SUMMARY

Perhaps the initial questions phrased above could be better asked as follows: Absent a declared state of emergency can a community association hold board and membership meetings exclusively via an electronic platform, such as Zoom? Unfortunately, this question has not been satisfactorily addressed by the legislature or the Florida Courts. However, in our opinion, the safer approach, and the one that will avoid the potential for a successful legal challenge by an owner, is to avoid holding meetings exclusively via Zoom when there is no declared state of emergency. Consider using the hybrid approach discussed above where both a physical location is provided along with an electronic component such as Zoom and where members are strongly encouraged to attend and participate electronically.

Can community association board meetings and membership meetings be both electronically and at a physical location for those that want to attend in person even if the business is primarily conducted electronically? The answer is “yes”, so long as certain procedural safeguards are put into place. e.g., the ability of the membership watching via Zoom to fully observe the counting of ballots.

Another approach is to consider amending the association’s bylaws to provide for electronic only board and membership meetings. However, doing so has not yet been legally tested in the Florida courts. Also, remember, too, that a homeowners’ association must provide for a physical location for its board meeting, if requested by a handicapped individual. Also, as these matters are not fully settled in the law, your association’s lawyer may have a different opinion and advise that the association may have electronic board and membership meetings without the need for a physical location.

This journey into the foray of electronic meetings demonstrates a clear need for the Florida Legislature to adopt legislation to make clear that both board and membership meetings may take place electronically without the need to also simultaneously provide for a physical location, most especially so long as the association provides a communal device on association property for not-so-tech-savvy members to observe and participate in the meeting. After all we are blessed to be living in the 21st century. Let’s take advantage of it and add a few tech savvy legislative provisions to our laws governing community associations.

It is recommended you consult with your association legal counsel on the adoption of reasonable rules to ensure your virtual/electronic meetings run smoothly while also ensuring that they are in compliance with the association’s governing documents and Florida Statutes, and for further discussion regarding amending the governing documents of the association to provide clear authorization for electronic board and membership meetings.

The Kaye Bender Rembaum Team Remains Available To You and Your Community Association

Visit KBRLegal.com for awesome free resources, including 2021 Legislation, news with Legal Morsels and Rembaum’s Association Roundup, and our Event Calendar, including upcoming free classes.

Tags: Condo and HOA Laws, Management News, Members Articles

“Community Associations Affected by the 2021 Legislative Session Part X,” News-Press

Posted: Oct 26, 2021
By: Becker Lawyers
Comments: Comments Off on “Community Associations Affected by the 2021 Legislative Session Part X,” News-Press

Our attorneys are thought leaders in their field who keep our clients updated on the latest developments in their areas of interest. Explore our robust library of articles, blog posts, guidebooks, media commentary, and news.

“Community Associations Affected by the 2021 Legislative Session Part X,” News-Press

This week continues our review of the 2021 legislative changes affecting Florida community associations focusing on two bills that address COVID-19 pandemic legal issues.

Senate Bill 72 took effect on March 29, 2021. This law was initially reported in this column on April 25, 2021. SB 72 outlines the legal process a plaintiff must follow to bring a claim based on an alleged COVID-19 infection from the defendant’s premises. The new law creates several legal hurdles for a plaintiff seeking damages, including the requirement that the complaint (initial lawsuit filing) be accompanied by an affidavit signed by a physician licensed in the State of Florida stating the physician’s belief within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the plaintiff’s COVID-19 injury was the result of the defendant’s acts or omissions.

The statute requires that the court first hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the defendant made a good faith effort to comply with public health standards. If the court finds that the defendant did make such a good faith effort, the defendant is immune from liability.

If the court determines that the defendant did not make a good faith effort, the plaintiff may proceed with the lawsuit, but the plaintiff must show that the defendant committed gross negligence in order for the defendant to be held liable. Gross negligence is a much higher standard than is required in most civil lawsuits.

Senate Bill 2006 became effective July 1, 2021. Section 252.36 of Florida Statutes, which deals with the emergency management powers of the Governor, was amended to provide that an executive order, proclamation, or rule establishing a state of emergency must be limited to a duration of not more than 60 days and may be renewed as necessary during the duration of the emergency. If renewed, the order, proclamation, or rule must specifically state which provisions are being renewed. Further, at any time, the Legislature, by concurrent resolution, may terminate a state of emergency or any specific order, proclamation, or rule thereunder. Upon such concurrent resolution, the Governor shall issue an executive order or proclamation consistent with the concurrent resolution.

Section 252.38(4) of the Florida Statutes addresses emergency orders imposed by political subdivisions, meaning local governments such as counties, cities, towns, and villages. Local orders issued in response to hurricanes or other weather-related emergencies are not covered by this law. The new law vests the Governor with power, at any time, to invalidate an emergency order issued by a political subdivision if the Governor determines that such order unnecessarily restricts individual rights or liberties. The law grants broad discretion to the Governor in determining what local orders “unnecessarily restrict individual rights or liberties.” Obviously, these changes were the result of the plethora of sometimes complicated and occasionally contradictory local orders regarding COVID-19, especially during the early phases of the pandemic.

New Section 381.00316 of the Florida Statutes, states that a “business entity” may not require “patrons or customers” to provide any documentation certifying COVID-19 vaccination or post-infection recovery to gain access to, entry upon, or service from the entity’s business operations. The law does not otherwise restrict instituting screening protocols consistent with authoritative or controlling government-issued guidance to protect public health.

The term “business entity” includes not-for-profit corporations and would therefore include community associations. However, there is substantial debate whether the new prohibition against “vaccine passports” applies to owners, residents, or others in a community, specifically whether such persons are “customers” or “patrons.” If an entity violates the statute, the Department of Health may impose a fine not to exceed $5,000.00 per violation.

Joseph Adams is a Board Certified Specialist in Condominium and Planned Development Law, and an Office Managing Shareholder with Becker & Poliakoff. Please send your community association legal questions to jadams@beckerlawyers.com. Past editions of the Q&A may be viewed at floridacondohoalawblog.com.

Tags: Condo and HOA Laws, Management News

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