Become our 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. 

HOUSE BILL 913 – Part Three

HOUSE BILL 913 – Part Three

HOUSE BILL 913 – Part Three by Eric Glazer

This bill, filed by Representative Vicki Lopez is even bigger than I originally thought and is going to take up more than 3 blogs.  It is packed with many potential changes to Florida Statute 718.  It already has passed one House Committee and there may be no stopping it.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

It is a conflict of interest for any person who performs a structural integrity reserve study or a milestone inspection to provide or contract to provide services for the repair or replacement of the condominium property that was the subject of such structural integrity reserve study or milestone inspection, or to have a financial interest with the person or entity providing the repair or replacement services.

RECALLS

Rejection of a unit owner’s recall agreement under this section applies when the recall agreement:

a. was improperly served;

b. was executed by a person who was not a unit’s record  owner or designated voter;

c. was previously marked for the removal of any board member;

d. does not contain any markings that indicate the selection by a unit owner to either remove or retain a board member; or 

e. does not contain the signature of the unit owner.

3. there is a rebuttable presumption that a unit owner executing the recall agreement is the designated voter for the unit.

An association may not enforce a voting certificate requirement if the association has not enforced such requirement in all matters requiring the use of voting certificates in the year immediately preceding service of the recall agreement.

4. A rescission or revocation of a unit owner’s recall  agreement must be in writing and delivered to the association before the association is served with the written recall agreement. this subparagraph must be liberally construed to ensure a unit owner is not disenfranchised by an association in a recall and to prevent an association from failing to certify a recall agreement on a technical omission which is not a part in the discharge of the unit owner’s voting rights.

Even if your right to vote was suspended — you still have the right to vote in a recall.

HURRICANE PROTECTION

Unless otherwise provided in the declaration as originally recorded, or as amended, a unit owner is not responsible for the cost of any removal or reinstallation of hurricane protection, including exterior windows, doors, or other apertures, if its removal is necessary for the maintenance, repair, or replacement of other condominium property or association property for which the association is responsible.

The board shall determine if the removal or reinstallation of hurricane protection must be completed by the unit owner or the association if the declaration as originally recorded, or as amended, does not specify who is responsible for such costs. if such removal or reinstallation is completed by the association, the costs incurred by the association may not be charged to the unit owner. if such removal or reinstallation is completed by the unit owner, the association must reimburse the unit owner for the cost of the removal or reinstallation or the association must apply a credit toward future assessments in the amount of the unit owner’s cost to remove or reinstall the hurricane protection.

Tags: ,
HOUSE BILL 913 – Part Two

HOUSE BILL 913 – Part Two

HOUSE BILL 913 – Part Two by Eric Glazer

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

BOARD MEETINGS

Board of administration meetings.—in a residential condominium association of more than 10 units, the board of administration shall meet at least once each quarter. At least four times each year, the meeting agenda must include an opportunity for members to ask questions of the board, including questions relating to the status of any construction or repair projects, the status of all revenue and expenditures during the current fiscal year, and any other issues affecting the condominium..

RIGHT TO OBTAIN A LINE OF CREDIT

For an annual budget adopted on or before December 31, 2027, the members of a unit-owner-controlled association may approve, by a majority vote of the total voting interests of the association, the provision of a secured line of credit for up to 35 percent of the amount of the reserves required to meet the reserve funding schedule recommended by a structural integrity reserve study with respect to items with an estimated remaining useful life of greater than 10 years.

So if in the 2026 budget you have to reserve $200,000 for items with an estimated useful life of greater than 10 years —- the association can take out a $70,000.00 line of credit.

POOLING RESERVES

An association’s structural integrity reserves may be pooled for two or more required components. But may only be pooled with other components in the structural integrity reserve study. 

So what do you think?

Tags: ,
A Differing Tale of Two Terminating Condominiums by Rembaum’s Association Roundup

A Differing Tale of Two Terminating Condominiums by Rembaum’s Association Roundup

  • Posted: Nov 11, 2024
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on A Differing Tale of Two Terminating Condominiums by Rembaum’s Association Roundup

A Differing Tale of Two Terminating Condominiums

Have an association related question?

Find your answer at RembaumsAssociationRoundup

An extremely similar fact pattern leads to diametrically opposed results between Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal and Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal.

In the case before the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Fellman v. Mission Viejo Condominium Association, Inc., Case No. 4D22-1260, (Fla. 4th DCA April 6, 2023), 175 of the 176 condominium units were acquired over time by a bulk owner, and the bulk owner sought termination of the condominium. However, Fellman as the single holdout objected to the plan of termination. At trial, the trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of terminating the condominium, which Fellman then appealed to the Fourth District Court of Appeal.

The Mission Viejo Declaration of Condominium was recorded in 1980 and required 100 percent consent of all unit owners as necessary to terminate the condominium form of ownership. Forty-one years later, on February 5, 2021, the bulk owner amended the required vote to terminate the condominium from 100 percent to 80 percent, using the general amendatory provision set out in the Declaration of Condominium, which required only 80 percent consent of the voting interests. Therefore, notwithstanding the original 100 percent requirement necessary to terminate the condominium, only 80 percent of the owners had to vote in favor of lowering the consent needed from 100 percent to 80 percent, which resulted in fully divesting Fellman of the right to object to the termination of the condominium.

Obviously, Fellman did not vote in favor of the amendment. Fellman argued that by allowing 80 percent of the unit owners to amend the otherwise required 100 percent consent of all owners to terminate the condominium, it fully eviscerated his right to object to the termination of the condominium and his voting rights—a right bestowed upon him when he purchased the unit. There are few things more sacrosanct than an owner’s right to vote. Nevertheless, neither the trial court nor the Fourth District Court of Appeal agreed.

While Fellman should have been able to rely on the 100 percent termination approval requirement as originally required in the declaration of condominium, the trial court believed that if the 100 percent requirement was to be protected from being amended with a lower percentage of voting interests, then the provision in the declaration of condominium should have clarified that it could only be amended by nothing less than 100 percent approval of the unit owners. Since it did not, the trial court found no issue with the bulk buyer eviscerating the 100 percent vote needed to terminate the condominium with 80 percent of the voting interests casting their vote in favor of the amendment.

Fast forward eleven months to March 13, 2024, when Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal, in Avila v. Biscayne 21 Condominium, Inc., Case No. 3D23-1616 (Fla. 3d DCA Mar. 13, 2024), noted that the provision in the Biscayne 21 Declaration of Condominium (requiring 100 percent of the voting interests to vote in favor of the termination could NOT be amended using the lower vote threshold needed to amend the declaration of condominium) was likely to prevail. As you will note, this decision diametrically opposes the outcome in the Fellman case. In this case, Avila sought a temporary injunction to stop the plan of termination. The trial court denied it. Avila appealed, and the Third District Court of Appeal agreed with Avila that Avila’s claim stood a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. The declaration of condominium at issue in the Avila case had an additional provision that required “100 percent approval for amendments that alter the voting power of unit owners.” However, it should be axiomatic that to obliterate an owner’s right to vote by terminating the condominium where the declaration had required 100 percent of the owners to vote in favor of termination could not be amended by a termination provision of anything less than 100 percent of the owners.

The Third District Court of Appeal commented that the change to the termination vote threshold materially altered the unit owners’ voting rights. By requiring a unanimous vote for termination, the declaration of condominium originally gave every unit owner an effective “veto” over any termination plan, which would be lost if the amendment adopted by using the general amendatory powers set out in the declaration of condominium were to stand. The Court even cited the Tropicana Condominium Association, Inc. v. Tropical Condominium , LLC, 208 So. 3d 755 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016), finding that nonunanimous amendments to a declaration reducing the vote threshold for termination of condominium could not be applied where the declaration expressly required the unanimous vote to amend the termination provision, and the amendment, if retroactively applied, would eviscerate the unit owners’ contractually bestowed veto rights.

In fact, Fellman also argued the Tropicana case to the trial court, which rejected the argument; and to add insult to injury, such decision was affirmed by the Fourth District Court of Appeal. So, in the world of inconsistent decisions, Fellman was denied by the Fourth District Court of Appeal the right to veto the plan of termination and is in process of potentially losing his unit, while the Avila court found his right to veto the plan of termination seemingly protected by the Third District Court of Appeal as evidenced by issuance of the temporary injunction in his favor. Unfortunately, even once the Avila case reaches a final judgment, and if in Avila’s case that decision is appealed and upheld by the Florida Supreme Court, Fellman still loses his right to veto the plan of termination as initially bestowed upon him and, even more unfortunately, will lose ownership of the unit.


Sign up for the upcoming courses.

November Board Member Certification Courses

  1. Condominium Nov. 13 – Click Here
  2. HOA Nov. 19 Daytime – Click Here
  3. HOA Nov. 21 Evening – Click Here

If you plan to enroll in any of the free courses above, please note the following:

All Board Members who attend must conduct their own webinar registration and, on the day of the webinar, log in/join in on their own, with their own unique link (or phone in information) provided by Zoom. This must take place even if you watch with other people. This assures you will appear on the attendance sheet, providing proof of attendance.

 

Tags: ,
Should Your Condo Association Adopt Online Voting? by Becker / BECKERBALLOT

Should Your Condo Association Adopt Online Voting? by Becker / BECKERBALLOT

  • Posted: Nov 04, 2024
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Should Your Condo Association Adopt Online Voting? by Becker / BECKERBALLOT

Should Your Condo Association Adopt Online Voting?

by Becker / BECKERBALLOT

Many associations are considering whether to adopt online voting (or “E-Voting”). Legislation took effect enacting Section 718.128, back in July 2015.  Florida Statutes, permitting condominiums, cooperatives and homeowners’ associations to conduct elections and other owner votes through the use of “an Internet-based online voting system.” This article will discuss how to do so and what the advantages are.

The first step is for a Board to decide if they wish to offer electronic voting to their members. Florida Statutes 718.128 requires associations to adopt a board resolution approving electronic voting before they can utilize this type of voting process. The resolution must determine the manner in which online voting will be conducted such as procedures, deadlines, opportunities to consent to and participate, or opt out. The resolution must be considered at a board of directors meeting on 14 days of notice. A copy of the resolution must be provided to owners.

 

The resolution must provide that:

All unit owners receive notice of the opportunity to vote through an online voting system prior to each election or other unit owner vote in which the association authorizes online voting;
The deadline to consent, in writing, to online voting must be no less than 14 days before the election or other unit owner vote;
A method to authenticate the unit owner’s identification to the online voting system;
A method to transmit an electronic ballot to the online voting system that ensures the secrecy and integrity of each ballot; and,
A method to confirm, at least 14 days before the voting deadline, that the unit owner’s electronic device can successfully communicate with the online voting system.

The first of these requirements will ensure continual notice under circumstances in which online voting is conducted on an ongoing basis, avoiding situations where new owners are unaware of their right to opt in, and the latter prevents issues arising from last minute consents, and protects against fraud.

 

The following are other significant requirements contained in the legislation:

The e-voting system must provide the owner with a receipt, including the specific vote cast, the date and time of submission, and the user identification.
The e-voting system must also produce an official record for the association identifying the specific votes cast on each ballot and the date and time of the receipt of each electronically submitted ballot. The association must then maintain this record.
Votes in an election of directors shall not be accessible to the association prior to the scheduled election. Failure to comply will void the election.

In associations where voting participation is an issue, online voting can greatly increase participation and generate enthusiasm for the voting process. Online voting can also lessen the risk of fraudulent elections. While the costs for use of online voting software are likely to exceed mail out costs in many associations, such costs can be mitigated over time, and associations have flexibility in determining whether particular meetings will utilize online voting (i.e. – it is not an all or nothing decision).

Associations choosing to move forward must take care to confirm that they are using a vendor that understands and complies with the technical requirements. Like all other vendor contacts, it is critical to discuss the terms with legal counsel, who can also determine whether the system to be utilized is compliant. As meetings approach where online voting will be conducted, the use of online voting will require certain additional disclosures and instructions to members in relation to the process. Contact an attorney with experience in condominium and homeowners association (HOA) law with any questions.

 

Our industry has a few that we looked into: one comes out as a leader

BECKERBALLOT  

Today is the day you’ve been waiting for BeckerBALLOT.com is LIVE! We have partnered with SHYFT digital to offer an easy-to-use, secure, electronic-voting solution for community associations across the state of Florida and beyond. It’s the same great software – only better!
What you can look forward to upon signing up:

  • Increase membership participation and significantly reduce the labor involved in tallying paper votes.
  • Members can cast their votes from the convenience of their home, office, or anywhere they have access to an internet connection.
  • Admins can tally votes electronically, making the process faster, more accurate, and less prone to human error.
  • Eliminate typical errors and judgment calls associated with manual paper votes.
  • Easily solicit opinions using our survey tool to make informed decisions for your association membership.

We now offer flexible pricing, as well as a survey feature when you sign up for annual unlimited voting. The survey tool allows you to poll your community association without conducting an official vote.

Also, did you know that if you become a Becker annual retainer client, you will receive, among other benefits, a significant discount on BeckerBALLOT?

 

 

 

Tags: ,
VIDEO REPLAY webinar:  “Dollars & Sense | Milestone Inspections & Structural Integrity Reserve Studies (aka SIRS): Senate Bill 4-D, What’s Next?”

VIDEO REPLAY webinar: “Dollars & Sense | Milestone Inspections & Structural Integrity Reserve Studies (aka SIRS): Senate Bill 4-D, What’s Next?”

  • Posted: Oct 30, 2024
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on VIDEO REPLAY webinar: “Dollars & Sense | Milestone Inspections & Structural Integrity Reserve Studies (aka SIRS): Senate Bill 4-D, What’s Next?”

“Dollars & Sense | Milestone Inspections & Structural Integrity Reserve Studies (aka SIRS): Senate Bill 4-D, What’s Next?”

Today’s Requirements vs. Proposed Legislative Changes

Jeff Rembaum provided a thorough update covering the latest proposed changes to the Milestone and Structural Integrity Reserve Study (aka SIRS) requirements.

Jeff joined Kelly Britten (The Castle Group), Greg Main-Baillie and Jeremy Caldwell (Colliers) and Timothy Marshall (A.T. Designs), all of whom provided insight from the perspective of licensed CAMS, project management and engineering, respectively.


Milestone Inspections and Structural Integrity Reserve Studies (SIRS) | Senate Bill 4-D…What’s Next: Today’s Requirements vs. Proposed Legislation. Our panel of experts and professionals answered your questions concerning the new condo reserve laws, proposed legislation, responsibilities and roles of those involved.

    • Jeffrey A. Rembaum, Esq. (Kaye Bender Rembaum)
    • Greg Main-Baillie (Colliers)
    • Jeremy Caldwell (Colliers)
    • Kelly Britten (The Castle Group)
    • Timothy S. Marshall (A.T. Designs)

This webinar does not satisfy any requirements for manangers or board members, nor should it be considered legal advice.

For more great Videos view our YouTube page, view our members videos.

Tags: , ,
The Maus Law firm extends “5 Tips to maximize your compensation when filing an insurance claim”.

The Maus Law firm extends “5 Tips to maximize your compensation when filing an insurance claim”.

  • Posted: Oct 30, 2024
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on The Maus Law firm extends “5 Tips to maximize your compensation when filing an insurance claim”.

The Maus Law firm extends our heartfelt condolences and prayers to their families and friends who have lost so much.

Our area in East South Florida was fortunate to be spared, but you should always know your insurance rights and obligations. We are here to help.
Here are five important tips on how to build a winning case.
  1. #1: Retain an Attorney. …
  2. #2: Get Medical Treatment for Your Injuries. …
  3. #3: Preserve Evidence. …
  4. #4: Stay Off Social Media. …
  5. #5: Do Not Accept a Quick Settlement.
We are only a phone call away if you would like more information about filing a property damage insurance claim.

Tags: ,
Property damage claims encompass more than just the obvious cases. From water damage to fire damage and beyond,

Property damage claims encompass more than just the obvious cases. From water damage to fire damage and beyond,

  • Posted: Aug 06, 2024
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Property damage claims encompass more than just the obvious cases. From water damage to fire damage and beyond,

“Types of Property Damage Claims: Beyond the Obvious”

Property damage claims encompass more than just the obvious cases. From water damage to fire damage and beyond, we handle a wide range of property damage claims. If your property has been damaged, contact Maus Law Firm to discuss your options and seek the compensation you deserve.

WHY MAUS LAW FIRM?

 

Direct Contact with Experienced Attorneys

When you hire us, you speak one on one with our skilled Fort Lauderdale personal injury attorneys or property damage lawyers. We have decades of combined experience between us, and we make sure our clients understand their claim and the legal process.

 

We Accommodate Our Clients

No two clients are the same. Maus Law Firm wants to assist all of the clients who need our services, so we offer 24/7 phone service, free estimates, Spanish-speaking staff members, house calls, after hours appointments and more.

 

Results That Speak for Themselves

Our Fort Lauderdale injury lawyers handled thousands of accident and property damage claims and received settlements over $1 million. Our happy clients have left us wonderful reviews, and we strive for the best legal outcome for each case we represent.

Call For a Free Consultation   (855) 999-5297

Tags: , , ,
Fort Lauderdale Personal Injury Attorney at Maus Law Firm is here to support you.

Fort Lauderdale Personal Injury Attorney at Maus Law Firm is here to support you.

  • Posted: Feb 26, 2024
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Fort Lauderdale Personal Injury Attorney at Maus Law Firm is here to support you.

Suffering a personal injury is a daunting experience, and it requires an empathetic and personal approach.

Fort Lauderdale Personal Injury Attorney at Maus Law Firm is here to support you.

We believe in fighting for your rights and ensuring you get the compensation you deserve, tailoring our approach to your unique situation.

Personal Injury Lawyer
205 West Davie Blvd, Fort Lauderdale, FL, United States, Florida
(954) 784-6310
jmaus@mauslawfirm.com
mauslawfirm.com

 

Tags: ,
Deep Dive on Insurance Deductibles – by Cohen Law Group

Deep Dive on Insurance Deductibles – by Cohen Law Group

  • Posted: Feb 02, 2024
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Deep Dive on Insurance Deductibles – by Cohen Law Group

In almost every homeowner’s insurance contract, there is a deductible that the homeowner is
required to pay before insurance proceeds become due and owing. Many times, the amount of the
deductible is dependent on whether the claim is a hurricane loss or a non-hurricane loss. Although
homeowners can obtain lower deductible amounts, usually by paying higher premiums, a vast
number of policies in Florida contain higher deductibles for hurricane losses than non-hurricane losses.
A very basic way of looking at the deductible, if the homeowner has a deductible of $5,000 on a
hurricane claim, the loss must have a value of more than that $5,000 before the insurance company is
required to pay any funds for the loss. If the value of the claim is below $5,000 that is typically referred
to as being below deductible. If the claim is valued at $6,000 then the insurance company will reduce
the payment by the $5,000 deductible, as the homeowner is responsible for paying this for the repairs,
and will make a payment to the homeowner for $1,000.

I often speak with homeowners who will receive a small payment for their damages that was
reduced by the deductible. Many homeowners are under the impression that because the amount paid
was reduced by the amount of the deductible, that the deductible has been paid. This is not the case. In
its simplest form, if the homeowner needs $20,000 for the damages and there is a $5,000 deductible,
then the homeowner will receive $15,000 and will be required to pay out of pocket the $5,000
deductible.

Florida statute 489.147 (2023) addresses prohibited property insurance practices. The statute
states that the “consumer is responsible for payment of any insurance deductible.” Subsection (3) states
that it is a felony of the third degree to pay, waive, or rebate any part of the insurance deductible with
the intent to injure, defraud, or deceive.

It is important for homeowners to understand how their policy works and specifically, what type
of costs the homeowner could be liable for when shopping for insurance. Many times, I believe, it is
better to pay a little extra in premium for a lower deductible than to be subject to much larger hurricane
deductibles.

Brandon Pharis, Esq.

Cohen Law Group

Tags: , ,
THE FEDERAL CORPORATE TRANSPARENCY ACT REQUIREMENTS AFFECTING ALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS

THE FEDERAL CORPORATE TRANSPARENCY ACT REQUIREMENTS AFFECTING ALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS

  • Posted: Jan 26, 2024
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on THE FEDERAL CORPORATE TRANSPARENCY ACT REQUIREMENTS AFFECTING ALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS

What Every Board Member and Manager Must Know

In January 2021 the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) was enacted by Congress. In 2024 its far-reaching requirements are planned to go into effect. The CTA was adopted by Congress to provide additional transparency in entity structures and ownership in an effort to combat tax fraud, money, laundering, and other illicit activities. It is designed to capture more information about the ownership of specific entities operating in or accessing the United States marketplace. A recent Small Business Administration reports over 27 million small businesses that are considered non-employer firms and thus have no employees. Learning of the beneficial ownership of these entities, Congress hopes to crack down on their misuse. The CTA is particularly targeted to these types of small businesses operating as so called “shell companies.”

By the time you are finished reading this article, each reader should be familiar with some new terms, such as, “FinCen,” and “beneficial owner,” to name just a couple. While the practical enforcement procedures of the CTA are currently unknown, the reason why you must be familiar with the registration and continuing reporting requirements of the CTA is because failure to comply with requirements of the CTA can lead to fines from $500–$10,000 per violation and jail time of up to two years.

While there is little doubt that community associations do not pose a threat for terrorist activity, tax evasion, money laundering, and other illegal activity that is the target of the CTA, sadly, community associations are not currently exempt from the initial registration and continual updating requirements of the CTA. While the CTA requirements for compliance are not particularly difficult, they are onerous and will reveal certain personal information about board members and possibly managers, too. Also, at the present time there does not appear to be any type of exemption from the requirements of the CTA for law enforcement personnel and others who may have gone to extra lengths to keep certain personal information private. However, the CTA does require that this information remains confidential and only used for its intended purposes.

The CTA, amongst its other requirements, requires domestic reporting companies such as corporations, limited liability partnerships, and any other entity, created by the filing of a document with the secretary of state, or any similar office under the laws of the state, to comply with its reporting requirements. This includes community associations as they are organized as a business entity (i.e., a not-for-profit corporation). In addition to providing the information regarding the entity (meaning the association), the CTA requires certain information regarding the association’s “beneficial owners.” A “beneficial owner” is defined, in part, as a person who exercises substantial control of the reporting entity.

Therefore, minimally, according to the CTA, the president and vice president are deemed to “exercise substantial control over the entity” thereby seemingly requiring certain personal information to be provided to the federal “Financial Crimes Enforcement Network” or “FinCen” for short. These beneficial owners must report their name, date of birth, address, unique identifier number, such as a Social Security number, possibly a driver’s license number or passport number, and a photocopy of the non-expired document that evidences such information, too. Whether other officers and directors will be required to similarly provide personal information remains to be seen but it is likely.

Those filing the requisite documents to assist an entity with its compliance with the CTA must provide similar information too. Those qualified to file such documents for corporate entities with FinCen are as follows either:

i) the individual who directly files the document that creates the entity (this could be the attorney that files the articles of incorporation with the state to create the community association corporation); or,

ii) the individual who is primarily responsible for directing or controlling the filing of the relevant document by another (this prong could refer to the authorized individual as directed by the board of directors, such as the attorney, accountant, or management company personnel to file the necessary documentation with FinCen to comply with the CTA).

In addition to the initial compliance requirements, which must be accomplished within 2024 for already existing corporations, reports must also be updated within 30 days of a change to the beneficial ownership, or within 30 days after becoming aware of or having reason to know of inaccurate information previously filed. Under a strict reading of these provisions, this means that every time there is a change in board members and officers, a report of the change must be made to FinCen within 30 days of the event. As mentioned above, failure to comply with requirements of the CTA can lead to fines from $500–$10,000 per violation and jail time of up to two years.

There are procedures set out in the CTA for information sharing among the federal governmental agencies when in relation to terrorist activity and money laundering as well as requirements for compliance with FinCen when it seeks additional information in regard to such matters. The Internal Revenue Service, the Customs and Border Protection agency, and FinCen can all issue summons for purposes of civil enforcement of the CTA. There are even rewards for persons who report on another that lead to recovery of a criminal fine, civil penalty, or forfeiture that exceeds $50,000 where the payment of the reward is limited to 25 percent of the net amount of the fine or $150,000, whichever is less.

Federal community association lobbyists are seeking an amendment to the CTA so that community associations are expressly made exempt and not caught in its web. But, unless that happens, compliance with the CTA is required for Florida’s community associations. Whether such compliance will be performed by the community association‘s attorney, accountant, or manager remains to be seen, and hopefully additional guidance will be provided by the appropriate federal government agencies in the near future. Should you have the opportunity, please reach out to your federal legislators in regard to the need for an exception for community association compliance with the requirements of the CTA.

For those that would like to read up on the CTA, the starting point for the Act itself can be found at 31 U.S.C 5336. This is the CTA-enabling legislation passed by the United States Congress and signed into law by the President that provides lawful authority to executive departments and agencies of the federal government to both adopt and enact, after public notice and hearings, their own laws that have the same force and effect, as if our Congress enacted them. (As an aside in case you ever wondered how our country ended up with so many laws, it is because of this particular process.) Once 31 U.S.C 5336 was enacted into law, the requisite executive departments and agencies of the federal government went to work adopting all sorts of laws to carry out the intent of the enabling legislation. These laws are published in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).   The CTA is set out in section 1010 FCR 380 and is actually called “Reports of Beneficial Ownership Information;” however, its nickname is the “Corporate Transparency Act,” which has a better ring to it. The CTA can be cited to more fully as Part 1010 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Subpart C, section 380. It is a sub-part of CFR Title 31 titled “Money and Finance,” Subtitle B “Regulations Relating to Finance and Money,” Chapter X “Financial Crimes Enforcement Network Department of the Treasury.”

Due to the far reaching aspects of the CTA and its many nuances that could lead to many traps for the unwary, consultation with the association’s attorney and certified public accounting firm should be considered regarding any questions you may have in regard to the CTA, along with its registration and compliance requirements, too.

Read other great articles on:

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

 

Tags: