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. 

Preparing for Extreme Heat: The New Natural Disaster by Donna DiMaggio Berger of Becker

Preparing for Extreme Heat: The New Natural Disaster by Donna DiMaggio Berger of Becker

  • Posted: Jul 28, 2023
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Preparing for Extreme Heat: The New Natural Disaster by Donna DiMaggio Berger of Becker

Preparing for Extreme Heat: The New Natural Disaster

by Donna DiMaggio Berger / Becker

The word “hot” has many connotations: it can reveal anger when you say someone is “hot around the collar”; it can invoke personal appeal or desirability “he’s so hot”; it can refer to a disorganized person or situation, hence the description as “a hot mess”; and can also be used to describe an emotional issue or topic as a “hot button”. However, since the earliest of times, the word hot has been used to describe the temperature and we’ve been hearing this word a lot lately in many parts of the US given the ongoing heat waves. More than 61,000 people died in 2022 because of the heat waves that swept the European continent. We won’t know for some time how many US fatalities have occurred due to our extreme heat during the summer of 2023.

Extreme heat can cause dehydration, heat exhaustion, exacerbation of existing medical and mental health conditions, respiratory distress, and heatstroke. Dehydration can cause dizziness, fatigue, and muscle weakness. Heat exhaustion may result in heavy sweating, nausea, headache, rapid heartbeat, faintness, and muscle cramps. Extreme heat can more greatly affect people with underlying respiratory, cardiovascular and kidney disorders with extreme heat being tied to an increased risk of heart attacks or other cardiovascular events. Heatwaves have also been linked to diminished air quality in urban areas which can worsen respiratory conditions such as asthma. Lastly, extreme heat can impact mental well-being, leading to irritability, mood swings and difficulty concentrating, all of which can make communal living more stressful.

Dealing with extreme heat events in a multifamily building, especially for those on fixed incomes, can be challenging. What should your association board and management team be doing in response to an extreme heat event? Certainly, including preparation for heat waves into your emergency disaster plan is recommended. The following are some items you may wish to consider:

  • If your association has employees, work with counsel to review your employee guidebook particularly for employees whose work requires them to be outdoors. For those employees, you will want to be sure that they have access to plenty of water throughout the day to stay hydrated and replace fluids lost through perspiration. If those employees are required to wear a certain uniform that is not well suited to an extreme heat event, you should consider an alternate uniform for extreme heat event. You may also want to be confirm that your outside vendors who provide services outdoors have provided adequate water and protection from the sun for their workers.
  • Create shade around the building by using umbrellas, awnings, or strategically placed vegetation to reduce the impact of direct sunlight. Bear in mind that some of these shade additions may require advance membership approval.
  • Revisit any architectural control guidelines you have in place which may restrict or prohibit the use of fans on patios, balconies and lanais. Fans are used to circulate air and can create a cooling effect. Consider how curtains, blinds and blackout shades may reduce the temperature inside units particularly if a unit owner is not running the AC at reasonable temperatures. Allow people to close their blinds and/or their hurricane shutters during the day to block out direct
    sunlight and prevent heat from entering the living space.
  • Consider limiting daytime hours of play for outdoor tennis and pickleball courts as well as any other outdoor recreational areas when temperatures are soaring. Installing thermometers on the common areas may also help remind your residents about climbing temperatures.
  • Consider purchasing a whole building generator if you don’t already have one. In the event that increased electric demands during a heat wave cause a blackout or brownout that generator may save lives in your building. Naturally, a generator will also help in the aftermath of a windstorm which knocks out electricity.
  • Check in with your residents who may be living alone and dealing with physical or mental health challenges as well as economic burdens. These residents may not be running their A/C as often or at a
    temperature that is needed for their wellbeing. This is also the time to confirm that you have emergency contacts for your residents.
  • Reach out to local community organizations, social services, or government agencies that provide assistance during extreme weather events. They may offer cooling centers, fan distribution programs, or other resources for your residents.

The strategies your board and management team use in response to an extreme heat event depends, in large part, on your building’s location and infrastructure as well as the available monetary and personnel resources. However, there are some basic steps all associations can take to educate their residents about the dangers of extreme heat. The phrase, “we’re having a heat wave” doesn’t have to spell disaster in a well-prepared community.

For additional information please listen to my podcast conversation with Jane Gilbert, Miami-Dade’s Chief Heat Officer which can be found here.

 

 Donna DiMaggio Berger is a Shareholder with the Becker law firm, is Board-certified, is a Fellow with the College of Community Association Lawyers (CCAL) and is a keynote speaker and the host of the popular Take It To The Board podcast on association issues.

Donna DiMaggio Berger is a Shareholder in Becker’s Community Association Practice in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. She is a member of the College of Community Association Lawyers (CCAL), a prestigious national organization that acknowledges community association attorneys who have distinguished themselves through contributions to the evolution or practice of community association law and who have committed themselves to high standards of professional and ethical conduct in the practice of community association law. She is also one of only 190 attorneys statewide who is a Board Certified Specialist in Condominium and Planned Development Law.

As Founder and Executive Director of Becker’s Community Association Leadership Lobby (CALL), Ms. DiMaggio Berger has led various community association advocacy initiatives, working with legislators and other public policymakers on behalf of those who live, serve, and work in common interest ownership communities. She has testified before the Florida Legislature regarding community association law and frequently appears on radio talk shows and in print media discussing these issues.

Tags: , , ,
NEW LAW MAKES IT CLEAR THE ASSOCIATION MUST MAKE THE REPAIRS. BUT SUPPOSE MONEY IS TIGHT AND THE DOCS ARE RESTRICTIVE?

NEW LAW MAKES IT CLEAR THE ASSOCIATION MUST MAKE THE REPAIRS. BUT SUPPOSE MONEY IS TIGHT AND THE DOCS ARE RESTRICTIVE?

  • Posted: Jul 27, 2023
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on NEW LAW MAKES IT CLEAR THE ASSOCIATION MUST MAKE THE REPAIRS. BUT SUPPOSE MONEY IS TIGHT AND THE DOCS ARE RESTRICTIVE?

NEW LAW MAKES IT CLEAR THE ASSOCIATION MUST MAKE THE REPAIRS. BUT SUPPOSE MONEY IS TIGHT AND THE DOCS ARE RESTRICTIVE?

NEW CONDO LAW MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE CONDO MUST MAKE THE REPAIR

By Eric Glazer, Esq.

I get so many calls and e-mails each week about whether the condominium or the unit owner is responsible to fix something that’s broken.  Florida Statute 718.113 was recently amended and here’s what it says:

 

(1)   Maintenance of the common elements is the responsibility of the association, except for any maintenance responsibility for limited common elements assigned to the unit owner by the declaration. The association shall provide for the maintenance, repair, and replacement of the condominium property for which it bears responsibility pursuant to the declaration of condominium.

 

That kind of clarifies it, doesn’t it?  The association shall provide for the maintenance, repair, and replacement of the condominium property for which it bears responsibility pursuant to the declaration of condominium.  Notice the word shall is used.  In simple terms, shall means must.  So there is no argument……if the declaration says the association is responsible, the association must repair it.

But suppose the association does not have money to make the repair?  Now what?  The association can certainly special assess right?  But suppose the docs place a limit on the amount of the special assessment or require a unit owner vote to approve a special assessment and the unit owners won’t vote in favor of it?  Now what can you do?

Of course you may be able to borrow money.  Florida’s not for profit statute allows condominiums to borrow money.  So, the condo is in the clear right?  Not so fast.  Suppose the condo docs require a vote of the owners in order for the condo to borrow money and the owners won’t vote in favor of a loan?

 

How can the condominium make the repairs it is required by law to make if it can’t assess or borrow?

So here is this attorney’s opinion.  I don’t care about any language in a declaration that prevents an association from passing an assessment in order to make mandatory repairs.  The board can and must pass the assessment in order to comply with their statutory obligation to repair and maintain the common property.

On the other hand, if the governing documents do not prevent an association from borrowing money, the association certainly can.  However……if the governing documents will not allow the association to borrow money unless a certain number of the owners approve, the association cannot borrow unless the owners vote to approve.  No bank will approve a loan if the governing documents require the owners to vote in order to borrow, and the vote has not been obtained.  Get legal advice if you need money and you feel tied up by your docs.

 

Tags: ,
ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS – CONDOMINIUMS GOING GREEN/ KBR Legal

ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS – CONDOMINIUMS GOING GREEN/ KBR Legal

  • Posted: Mar 03, 2023
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS – CONDOMINIUMS GOING GREEN/ KBR Legal

ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS – CONDOMINIUMS GOING GREEN

Is your condominium association prepared to accommodate unit owners who request EV charging stations?

The purchase and use of electric vehicles (EVs) are forecasted to grow exponentially in the next decade. To accommodate the need for new facilities associated with EVs, Florida law has required condominium associations to accommodate owner’s requests for EV charging stations.

While gasoline powered vehicles are still dominant on Florida’s roads, the ever-growing presence of electric vehicles cannot be ignored. The number of electric vehicles on our highways and streets continue to climb as they become more and more affordable. As consumers continue to embrace a greener lifestyle, Florida’s lawmakers have paved the way for condominium unit owners’ need to have access to electric vehicle charging stations. Effective July 1, 2018, new legislation, section 718.113(8) of the Florida Statutes, became effective which facilitates a unit owner’s ability to install and use an electric vehicle charging station within the unit owner’s limited common element parking space.

This new legislation prohibits the condominium association’s board of directors and a declaration of condominium provision or other restrictive covenants from prohibiting (or being enforced to prohibit) any unit owner from installing an electric vehicle charging station within the boundaries of the unit owner’s limited common element parking space, subject to certain conditions as laid out in this new legislation.

It is important to note that the right of installation of an electric vehicle charging station is ONLY applicable to the “limited common element” parking space and does not apply to a “common element” parking space. There is an important difference between a common element and a limited common element parking space. While all unit owners own an undivided interest in both, the limited common element parking space vests an individual use right to the owners of the unit to which the limited common element is appurtenant (connected to). Therefore, associations may prohibit the installation of electronic vehicle charging stations within the common elements or other portions of the condominium property that are maintained for the general use and benefit of all unit owners, but not as applied to a limited common element parking space, subject to the limitations and conditions of the legislation.

 

Thus, section 718.113(8) of the Florida Statutes, provides that, in considering a unit owner’s request to install an electric vehicle charging station, the association first must determine whether the charging station is to be installed within the boundaries of the requesting unit owner’s limited common element parking space. Whether a parking space is a limited common element is determined by the provisions of the declaration of condominium designating the parking space for the exclusive use and benefit of the owners of a specific unit.

 

If it is determined that the parking space is a limited common element, the unit owner may have the electric vehicle charging station installed subject to the requirements of the new legislation. These requirements provide that:

1) The installation cannot cause irreparable damage to the condominium property.

2) The unit owner is responsible for the costs of installation, operation, insurance, maintenance, repair, and removal of the charging station.

3) The electricity for the electric vehicle charging station must be separately metered and payable by the unit owner.

All of the above costs, if left unpaid by a unit owner, are enforceable by the association as any other assessment due pursuant to section 718.116, Florida Statutes, meaning if left unpaid their condominium unit can be foreclosed.

 

Additionally, as provided by the new legislation, the association can and should require that the unit owner:

1) comply with bona fide safety requirements, consistent with applicable building codes or recognized safety standards, for the protection of persons and property;

2) comply with reasonable architectural standards adopted by the association that govern the dimensions, placement, or external appearance of the electric vehicle charging station, provided that such standards may not prohibit the installation of such charging station or substantially increase the cost thereof;

3) engage the services of a licensed and registered electrical contractor or engineer familiar with the installation and core requirements of an electric vehicle charging station;

4) provide a certificate of insurance naming the association as an additional insured on the owner’s insurance policy for any claim related to the installation, maintenance, or use of the electric vehicle charging station within 14 days after receiving the association’s approval to install such charging station; and

5) reimburse the association for the actual cost of any increased insurance premium amount attributable to the electric vehicle charging station within 14 days after receiving the association’s insurance premium invoice.

 

A unit owner’s “right” to install a charging stations is not, however, without limits. An association may require that the unit owner comply with all safety requirements, applicable building codes or recognized safety standards for the protection of the association property and its members. An association may also require the unit owner to engage the services of a licensed and registered electrical contractor or an engineer that is familiar with the installation and requirements of an electric vehicle charging station. An owner wishing to install an electric vehicle charging station may also be required to comply with any reasonable architectural standards adopted by the association that govern the dimensions, placement or appearance of the electric vehicle charging station. However, such standards cannot substantially increase the cost of installation.

The new law also provides for additional safeguards for the association. For example, installation of an electric vehicle charging station may not cause irreparable damage to the condominium property. The electricity for the electric vehicle charging station must be separately metered and paid for by the unit owner making the installation. Cost of installation, operation, maintenance and repair of the electric vehicle charging station, including hazard and liability insurance, is the unit owner’s responsibility. Additionally, an association may require the unit owner to reimburse the association for the actual cost of any increased insurance premium attributable to the electric vehicle charging station. The law also shields condominium associations from construction liens resulting from the installation of electric vehicle charging stations by unit owners.

The new law does not, however, say anything about what happens if the association voluntarily opts to install “common” electric vehicle charging stations. In other words, if a condominium association opts to install these “common” electric vehicle charging stations (after complying with the necessary legal requirements) it does not mean that unit owners no longer have the right to install their own charging stations. The new law also does not address who is responsible for any costs associated with upgrading the condominium’s electrical system if an upgrade is necessary to handle the increased electrical usage. (The above 3 paragraphs Originally posted on floridacondohoalawblog.com and written by Jennifer Horan)

Just our Thought: It would be nice to see Condos installing Charging Stations, Separate Meters and then Charging Electric Car owners Fees to cover costs and a little extra for the Associations. We will see what happens?

 

Although your condominium association may not have received a request for the installation of an electric vehicle charging station as yet, your board of directors should be prepared for such a request. After all, it is only a matter of time. Therefore, condominium boards should consider adopting rules and regulations governing the process by which a unit owner is required to make such a request and provide for procedures by which the board of directors is to conduct its review and approval of the request.

While a unit owner desiring to install and use an electric vehicle charging station within his or her limited common element parking space will be able to do so by way of this new legislation, the association still has the authority to govern certain aspects of the installation and use and should be proactive in making rules and regulations in line with this authority. Your association’s legal counsel can be of great benefit to the board in creating a clear and concise process governing the electric car charging stations installation and use.

 

Keep up to date with Articles for Condo and Homeowners Associations

Rembaums Association Roundup

 

 

Tags: , , , ,
HOA Architectural Committees Required Statutory Procedures Requirement For Published Standards Required Self Help

HOA Architectural Committees Required Statutory Procedures Requirement For Published Standards Required Self Help

HOA Architectural Committees

Required Statutory Procedures, Requirement For Published Standards and Required Self Help.




REQUIREMENT OF FORMAL PROCEDURES

There are strict legal requirements that a homeowners’ association’s (HOA) architectural review committee (ARC) must follow, most especially if the ARC intends to deny an owner’s request. As this author has witnessed countless times, it is likely that many ARCs do not conduct their activities in conformity with Florida law such that an ARC denial may not withstand judicial scrutiny. If these legal requirements are not followed, and the ARC denies the owner’s architectural request, then it would be quite easy for the owner to challenge the ARC’s decision and prevail. Upon prevailing, the owner would be entitled to their prevailing party attorney’s fees and costs, as well. It is so easy to avoid this outcome, yet so few associations take the time to do it right.

Pursuant to §720.303(2), Florida Statutes, a meeting of the ARC is required to be open and noticed in the same manner as a meeting of the association’s board of directors. Notice of the ARC meeting must be posted in a conspicuous place in the community at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting, and the meeting must be open for all members to attend. Further, pursuant to §720.303(2)(c)(3), Florida Statutes, members of the ARC are not permitted to vote by proxy or secret ballot. Also, bare bone minutes should be taken to create a record of ARC decisions—especially denials.

We often hear from many HOAs that the ARC does not meet openly and does not notice their meetings. This leaves decisions made by the ARC vulnerable to challenge. If the ARC denies an application but fails to do so at a properly noticed board meeting, the owner can challenge the denial, claiming that it is not valid because the ARC did not follow proper procedure. In such cases, the ARC’s denial of an application is not valid because the ARC failed to comply with the procedural requirements for the meeting even if an application violates the declaration or other association-adopted architectural standards. However, by complying with the provisions of Chapter 720, Florida Statutes, your HOA can work to avoid this debacle.

PUBLISHED STANDARDS

Often a top priority for an HOA is ensuring that homes in the community maintain a harmonious architectural scheme in conformity with community standards and guidelines, and because the ARC is at the frontline of owners’ alterations and improvements to their homes, it is instrumental in ensuring that the community standards and guidelines are met. Pursuant to §720.3035(1), Florida Statutes, an HOA, or the ARC, “has the authority to review and approve plans and specifications only to the extent that the authority is specifically stated or reasonably inferred as to location, size, type, or appearance in the declaration or other published guidelines and standards.” But not every owner request is typically addressed in the declaration or other published guidelines and standards. If not, then the association may not be in a good position for proper denial. Therefore, the ARC is only as effective as the objective guidelines and standards (set forth in the declaration and other published guidelines and standards) are inclusive. So, what is the association to do when the ARC receives an owner’s application for an alteration to the home, but the association does not have any architectural guidelines or standards regulating the requested alteration?

While not court tested yet, a possible solution for this conundrum is to include a “catch-all” provision in the declaration to proactively address those ARC applications where a member may request a modification that is not directly addressed by the governing documents. Such a “catch-all” provision stands for the proposition that, if such a request is made, then the existing state of the community is the applicable standard by which the ARC application is to be judged. For example, imagine if an owner applies to the ARC to paint the owner’s house pink. If there are no architectural guidelines or standards that address what color a house must be, and there are no pink houses in the community, then the existing state of the community may provide a lawful basis for the ARC to deny the request because there are no existing pink houses in the community.




THE TROUBLE WITH SELF-HELP PROVISIONS

What if an owner refuses to maintain the owner’s property, such as pressure washing a dirty roof, despite the HOA sending demand letters, levying a fine, and perhaps even suspending the owner’s right to use the HOA’s recreational facilities? What is the HOA’s next step? Is it time to file a lawsuit to compel compliance? Well, Chapter 718 (governing condominiums), Chapter 719 (governing cooperatives), and Chapter 720 (governing HOAs) of the Florida Statutes authorize the association to bring an action at law or in equity to enforce the provisions of the declaration against the owner. Additionally, many declarations contain “self-help” language that authorizes the association to cure a violation on behalf of the owner and even, at times, assess the owner for the costs of doing so. These “self-help” provisions generally contain permissive language, meaning the association, may, but is not obligated to, cure the violation. Sadly, in this instance the word “may” means “shall,” and to find out why, read on.

There is a general legal principal that, if a claimant has a remedy at law (e.g., the ability to recover money damages under a contract), then it lacks the legal basis to pursue a remedy in equity (e.g., an action for injunctive relief). Remember, too, that an association’s declaration is a contract. In the context of an association, the legal remedy would be exercising the “self-help” authority granted in the declaration. An equitable remedy would be bringing an action seeking an injunction to compel an owner to take action to comply with the declaration. Generally, a court will only award an equitable remedy when the legal remedy is unavailable, insufficient, or inadequate.

Assume that the association’s declaration contains both the permissive “self-help” remedy and the right to seek an injunction from the court. Accordingly, it would appear the association has a decision to make—go to court to seek the injunction or enter onto the owner’s property, cure the violation, and assess the costs of same to the owner. However, recent Florida case law affirmed a complication to what should be a simple decision. In two cases decided ten years apart, Alorda v. Sutton Place Homeowners Association, Inc., 82 So.3d 1077 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2012) and Mauriello v. Property Owners Association of Lake Parker Estates, Inc., 337 So.3d 484 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2022), Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal decided that an association did not have the right to seek an injunction to compel an owner to comply with the declaration if the declaration provided the association the authority, but not the obligation, to engage in “self-help” to remedy the violation. Expressed simply, this is because the legal contractually based “self-help” remedy must be employed before one can rely upon equitable remedy of an injunction. Therefore, even though the declaration provided for an optional remedy of “self-help,” it must be used before seeking the equitable remedy of an injunction.

In Alorda, the owners failed to provide the association with proof of insurance required by the declaration. Although the declaration allowed the association to obtain the required insurance, the association filed a complaint against the owners seeking injunctive relief, asking the court to enter a permanent mandatory injunction requiring the owners to obtain the requested insurance. The owners successfully argued that even though they violated the declaration, the equitable remedy of an injunction was not available because the association already had an adequate legal remedy—the “self-help” option of purchasing the required insurance and assessing them for same. The Court agreed.

In Mauriello, the declaration contained similar language as in Alorda but involved the issue of the owners failing to keep their lawn and landscaping in good condition as required by the declaration. The association filed a complaint seeking a mandatory injunction ordering the owners to keep their lawn and landscaping in a neat condition. However, the facts were complicated by the sale of the home in the middle of the suit when the new owners voluntarily brought the home into compliance with the declaration. The parties continued to fight over who was entitled to prevailing party attorney’s fees with the association arguing it was entitled to same because the voluntary compliance was only obtained after the association was forced to commence legal action. The owners, citing Alorda, argued that the complaint should have been dismissed at the onset because the association sought an equitable remedy (injunction) when a legal remedy was already available—the exercise of its “self-help” authority. The Court considered the award of attorney’s fees after the dismissal of the association’s action for an injunction. Ultimately, the Court held that the owners were the prevailing party as the association could not seek the injunction because it already had an adequate remedy at law.

Accordingly, if your association’s declaration contains a “self-help” provision, and your association desires to seek an injunction against an owner rather than pursue “self-help,” the board should discuss the issue in greater detail with the association’s legal counsel prior to proceeding. Also, remember that if the association wants to enforce architectural standards, then they must be published to the membership; and always remember to notice ARC meetings and take minutes.

Tags: , ,
Maus Law Firm is devoted to assisting people with insurance claims.

Maus Law Firm is devoted to assisting people with insurance claims.

  • Posted: Aug 31, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Maus Law Firm is devoted to assisting people with insurance claims.

Maus Law Firm is devoted to assisting people with insurance claims.

Our Fort Lauderdale attorneys handle claims involving accidents and injuries as well as property damage.

 

Homeowner Condo and Business, Property Damage Claims and Personal Injury Claims.

A home or office building is the most significant purchase most of us will make during our lifetime. Most of us buy insurance coverage – windstorm, liability, flood, homeowners, and business interruption – to protect our homes and businesses. Yet, today’s insurance policies are lengthy, complex contracts full of exceptions, exclusions, deductibles, and conditions that make the policy difficult to read, and sometimes even more difficult to recover from for your damage.

The Maus Law Firm has the best attorneys to handle property damage claims. These are just a few of the questions you may deal with after suffering a house water damage claim, plumbing backup, or a broken pipe above your condominium unit:

In addition to these questions, there are several different types of policies offered by homeowner insurance companies that contain various types of coverage. There is a policy used for owner occupied properties, one for properties that are rented out, and yet another type policy used for condo units. Where do you turn to get help?

The Maus Law Firm has been successfully handling insurance related claims since 1993. The Firm is “AV” rated by Martindale Hubbell, the highest ranking for legal ability and ethics. The Maus Law Firm has been recognized continuously since 2011 by Florida Trend Magazine’s “Legal Elite” ranking, and named a “SuperLawer” by West Thompson Publishing. The attorneys at The Maus Law Firm will competently and aggressively represent you in your homeowner property damage insurance claim, or commercial business insurance claim.

Tags: , , ,
At Cohen Law Group, It’s About Justice!

At Cohen Law Group, It’s About Justice!

At Cohen Law Group, It’s About Justice!

It is more than a slogan, it is our firm’s mantra. The motto, developed by our founder Harvey V. Cohen was derived from our mission statement. We are aggressive, zealous advocates for our client’s rights. Our commitment to our clients is evident by our prompt reply to all phone calls and our 24 hour availability through our phone answering service.

Make sure your legal rights are protected by seeking the legal advice of an experienced Attorney. Contact Cohen Law Group.

Call us today at 407-890-0405 to see how we can help your legal needs. Or click here to fill out a free case evaluation.

 

Contractor Insurance Claim Dispute

Cohen Law Group stands up to these insurance carriers in valid contractor insurance claim disputes. Contractors have a right to be paid, just as the policy holder they are working for has a right to have a valid insurance claim paid.

Homeowner Insurance Claim Attorney

Have you had an insurance claim denied, partially paid, or reduced? If so, we may be able to help. Cohen Law Group stands up to these insurance carriers in valid homeowner insurance claim disputes.

Business Owners Insurance Claims Dispute

Cohen Law Group stands up to these insurance carriers in valid business/property owner insurance claim disputes. We possesses the experience and resources necessary to effectively guide you through each and every aspect of your business/property owner insurance claim dispute.

Tags: , ,
VIOLATION REMEDIES: SELF-HELP vs. INJUNCTION – Which to Use?

VIOLATION REMEDIES: SELF-HELP vs. INJUNCTION – Which to Use?

VIOLATION REMEDIES: SELF-HELP vs. INJUNCTION

Which to Use

Imagine this scenario: you are on the board of directors of your association. The association has repeatedly requested that an owner pressure wash their dirty roof to bring it into compliance with the community standards, but the owner refuses to do so. The association has already sent a number of demand letters and even levied a fine and perhaps a suspension of use rights, too, but the owner still will not comply. What is the association’s next step?

  • Is it time to file a lawsuit to compel compliance? Chapters 718 (governing condominiums), 719 (governing cooperatives), a 720 (governing homeowners associations), Florida Statutes, authorize the association to bring an action at law or in equity to enforce the provisions of the declaration against the owner.

OR

  • Is it time for the association to use its “self-help” remedy? In fact, many declarations contain such “self-help” language, which authorizes the association to cure the violation on behalf of an owner and even, at times, assess the owner for the costs of doing so. These “self-help” provisions generally contain permissive language, meaning that the association may, but is not “obligated” to, cure the violation.

Assume that the association’s declaration contains both the permissive “self-help” remedy and the right to seek an injunction from the court that orders the owner to clean their roof or else be in contempt of court. Thus, it would appear the association has a decision to make: (i) go to court to seek the injunction; or (ii) enter onto the owner’s property, pressure clean the roof, and assess the costs to the owner. Not so fast! Recent case law from Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal affirmed a complication to what should be a simple decision, discussed in greater detail below.

In two cases decided 10 years apart, Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal decided that an association did not have the right to seek an injunction to compel an owner to comply with the declaration if the declaration provided the association the authority to engage in “self-help” to remedy the violation. Prior to a discussion of the cases, a brief explanation of legal and equitable remedies is necessary.

There is a general legal principle that, if a claimant has a remedy at law (e.g., the ability to recover money damages under a contract), then it lacks the legal basis to pursue a remedy in equity (e.g., an action for injunctive relief). In the association context, a legal remedy would be to exercise the “self-help” authority granted in the association’s declaration. An equitable remedy would be to bring an action seeking an injunction to compel an owner to take action to comply with the declaration (e.g., compelling the owner to pressure wash their roof). A court will typically only award an equitable remedy when a legal remedy (such as “self-help”) is unavailable, insufficient, or inadequate.

This distinction is first illustrated in Alorda v. Sutton Place Homeowners Association, Inc., 82 So. 3d 1077 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). In Alorda, the owners failed to provide the association with proof of insurance coverage as required by the declaration. The association sent multiple demand letters to the owners, but they failed to comply. The declaration provided, in pertinent part, that “[t]he owner shall furnish proof of such insurance to the Association at the time of purchase of a lot and shall furnish proof of renewal of such insurance on each anniversary date. If the owner fails to provide such insurance the Association may obtain such insurance and shall assess the owner for the cost of the same in accordance with the provisions of this Declaration” (emphasis added). In accordance with the foregoing, the association had the option to purchase the insurance on behalf of the owners and assess them for the costs of same.

However, the association chose instead to file a complaint against the owners seeking the equitable remedy of injunctive relief, asking the court to enter a permanent mandatory injunction requiring the owners to obtain the required insurance coverage. The owners then filed a motion to dismiss the suit arguing that even though they had violated a provision of the declaration, the equitable remedy of an injunction is not available because the association had an adequate remedy at law. In other words, the owners argued that, because the association could have, pursuant to the declaration, undertaken the ”self-help” option by purchasing the required insurance and assessing it against the owners, they had an available legal remedy and, therefore, the equitable remedy sought (a mandatory injunction) was not available to the association. The court, citing to a different case, Shaw v. Tampa Electric Company, 949 So.2d 1006 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), explained that a mandatory injunction is proper only where a clear right has been violated, irreparable harm has been threatened, and there is a lack of an adequate remedy at law. As the association had an adequate remedy at law (the authority to purchase the insurance on behalf of the owners), the third requirement was not met. Therefore, the court held that the association failed to state a cause of action and dismissed the case. (This case might be decided differently today as it appears the insurance marketplace will not permit an association to purchase insurance for a unit that it does not own, so the legal remedy presumed available to the association would be inadequate).

Similarly, in the recent case of Mauriello v. The Property Owners Association of Lake Parker Estates, Inc., Case No. 2D21-500 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022), Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal considered the award of attorneys’ fees after the dismissal of the association’s action for an injunction. Ultimately, the court held that the owners were the prevailing party as the association could not seek an injunction because the association had an adequate remedy at law. In Mauriello, the owners failed to maintain their lawn and landscaping in good condition as required by the declaration. As such, the association filed a complaint seeking a mandatory injunction ordering the owners to maintain the lawn and landscaping in a “neat condition.” The association’s declaration contained similar language to the declaration at issue in Alorda. The declaration provided that, if an owner failed to perform any maintenance required by the declaration, the association, after written notice, “may have such work performed, and the cost thereof shall be specifically assessed against such Lot which assessment shall be secured by the lien set forth in Section 9 of this Article VI” (emphasis added). In other words, the association had the permissive “self-help” authority pursuant to the declaration.

The facts of this case were complicated by the sale of the home in the middle of the suit. The new owners voluntarily brought the home into compliance with the declaration, and the case became moot. However, the parties continued to fight over who was entitled to prevailing party attorneys’ fees. The association argued it was entitled to prevailing party attorneys’ fees because the voluntary compliance was only obtained after the association was forced to commence legal action. The owners, citing Alorda, argued that they were entitled to prevailing party attorneys’ fees as the association’s complaint never stated a cause of action in the first place. They argued that the complaint should have been dismissed at the outset because the association sought an equitable remedy (mandatory injunction) when a legal remedy was available to the association (exercise of “self-help” authority).

Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal agreed with the owners that Alorda was controlling. The Court explained that, as in Alorda, “the association’s declaration gave it the option of remedying the alleged violation itself, assessing the owner for the cost, and if the owner failed to pay, placing a lien on the property and foreclosing if it remained unpaid.” As such, the association had an adequate remedy at law and could not seek the equitable remedy of an injunction, which was initially sought by the association. Because the mandatory injunction was not available to the association, the association’s complaint failed to state a proper cause of action and, thus, should have been dismissed by the trial court at the outset. Therefore, the association was not entitled to its sought-after prevailing party attorneys’ fee award, which is otherwise granted if a party comes into compliance after the lawsuit is served.

Sections 718.303 (as to condominiums), 719.303 (as to cooperatives), and 720.305 (as to homeowners associations), Florida Statutes, contain similar language that specifically authorizes the association to bring actions at law or in equity, or both, in the event an owner fails to comply with the governing documents of the association. However, neither the Court in Alorda nor the Court in Mauriello addressed the association’s statutory authority to bring an injunction against an owner who fails to comply with the requirements of the declaration, but rather found that the association must use the “self-help” remedy since it was available to cure the violation.

Notwithstanding the Alorda and Mauriello decisions rendered by Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal, past appellate court decisions from other appellate jurisdictions in Florida have permitted community associations to pursue claims for injunctive relief against violating owners so long as a violation of the restrictive covenant is alleged in the complaint. As such, the Alorda and Mauriello cases appear to be departures from the established principle. Additionally, as both decisions came from Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal, the decisions are certainly binding on those associations within the jurisdiction of the Second District, but there has been no indication that other districts will follow suit. However, there is risk that other appellate district courts may be persuaded by the holdings of Alorda and Mauriello.

As such, if your association’s declaration contains a “self-help” provision, and your association chooses to seek an injunction against an owner rather than pursue “self-help,” the board should definitely discuss the issue in greater detail with the association’s legal counsel prior to proceeding.

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

 

Tags: ,
Event: Continued Discussion on SB-4D and more on How to Prepare Your 2023 Budget

Event: Continued Discussion on SB-4D and more on How to Prepare Your 2023 Budget

Continued Discussion on SB-4D and more on How to Prepare Your 2023

Wednesday, August 17, 2022 | 12 Noon to 1:00pm

Castle Group invites you to join us for Season 3, Episode 12 of Association Leadership. Join our continued discussion on SB-4D and more on how to prepare for your 2023 budget. The live webinar will be hosted by Craig Vaughan, Castle Group – Founder & CFO who will be joined by Attorneys Michael S. Bender and Jeffrey A. Rembaum – Kaye Bender Rembaum, P.L., Board Certified Specialists in Condominium and Planned Development Law, and special guest Steven Gladstone, Gladstone & Company, CPAs, Owner.

Wednesday, August 17, 2022 | 12 Noon to 1:00pm
Tags: , , , ,
What is an Estoppel Certificate and Why do you need one when buying a Condo or Home in an HOA?

What is an Estoppel Certificate and Why do you need one when buying a Condo or Home in an HOA?

  • Posted: Jul 20, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on What is an Estoppel Certificate and Why do you need one when buying a Condo or Home in an HOA?

Estoppel – Why it costs money to figure out how much money you might owe

  by Evan Bradley, CFO, Campbell Property Management 

The word this week is Estoppel.

Generic legal definition that you should IGNORE: A legal principle that bars a party from denying or alleging a certain fact owing to that party’s previous conduct, allegation, or denial.

Layman’s description (not a legal description) of what estoppel means in a condo or homeowners association: an estoppel certificate is a document which describes outstanding fees that an owner owes to his/her association as of a certain date.

When a home is sold, the new owner and the old owner are “jointly and severally liable” for any amounts owed to the association. What this means in practice, is that any debt to the association stays with the property when a title transfers. These debts include: maintenance dues, late fees, fines, interest, legal fees and special assessments outstanding at the time of the transfer.

If the new owner does not obtain an estoppel certificate they will not be aware of any amounts owed to the association by the prior owner and they may be inheriting a huge debt which they are responsible for. This is why it is necessary to make sure any outstanding debt (or acknowledgement that no money is owed) is properly disclosed, via an estoppel certificate as a protection to the new owner. Often the title company will request an estoppel certificate on the owner’s behalf and any amounts owed will be paid off at closing.

Why does it cost money to get an estoppel? Someone has to take the time to do the research and prepare the certificate for the sale to happen. It is critical that the information is correct since the estoppel is legal proof of the amount owed. The owner (not the association) has to pay for this document, which is typically prepared by the management company, association staff, association attorney or bookkeeping company.

Estoppels are rarely as simple as providing an amount owed. In addition to listing any amounts owed to the association, the estoppel often contains other critical information such as:

  • Are there any outstanding violations on the property?
  • In addition to the regular maintenance, is there a special assessment ongoing?
  • Are there any pending special assessments that may not have been billed yet?
  • Is a capital contribution required?
  • Are there any other associations this property owner may owe money to?

These are just a few of the dozens of questions that are often asked by title companies on estoppel requests, which can become very time consuming.

Here is a short article that describes the law around estoppels.

Legal disclaimer: I am not an attorney. This should not be considered legal advice.

Thank You to Campbell Property Management

 

If you need help with an Estoppel Certificate and or Collection of outstanding Monies owed by an Owner for a Condo and or HOA:

Search our Directory: SFPMA Members Directory over 70 categories for everything you will need for your Florida properties.   Attorneys HOA Condo Associations   Accountants & Collections

 

Tags: , , ,
Violation Remedies: Self Help vs. Injunction by Jeffrey Rembaum, Esq. of Kaye, Bender, Rembaum

Violation Remedies: Self Help vs. Injunction by Jeffrey Rembaum, Esq. of Kaye, Bender, Rembaum

  • Posted: Jul 14, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Violation Remedies: Self Help vs. Injunction by Jeffrey Rembaum, Esq. of Kaye, Bender, Rembaum

Imagine this scenario: you are on the board of directors of your association. The association has repeatedly requested that an owner pressure wash their dirty roof to bring it into compliance with the community standards, but the owner refuses to do so. The association has already sent a number of demand letters and even levied a fine and perhaps a suspension of use rights, too, but the owner still will not comply. What is the association’s next step?

  • Is it time to file a lawsuit to compel compliance? Chapters 718 (governing condominiums), 719 (governing cooperatives), a 720 (governing homeowners associations), Florida Statutes, authorize the association to bring an action at law or in equity to enforce the provisions of the declaration against the owner.

or

  • Is it time for the association to use its “self-help” remedy? In fact, many declarations contain such “self-help” language, which authorizes the association to cure the violation on behalf of an owner and even, at times, assess the owner for the costs of doing so. These “self-help” provisions generally contain permissive language, meaning that the association may, but is not “obligated” to, cure the violation.

 

Assume that the association’s declaration contains both the permissive “self-help” remedy and the right to seek an injunction from the court that orders the owner to clean their roof or else be in contempt of court. Thus, it would appear the association has a decision to make: (i) go to court to seek the injunction; or (ii) enter onto the owner’s property, pressure clean the roof, and assess the costs to the owner. Not so fast! Recent case law from Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal affirmed a complication to what should be a simple decision, discussed in greater detail below.

In two cases decided 10 years apart, Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal decided that an association did not have the right to seek an injunction to compel an owner to comply with the declaration if the declaration provided the association the authority to engage in “self-help” to remedy the violation. Prior to a discussion of the cases, a brief explanation of legal and equitable remedies is necessary.

There is a general legal principle that, if a claimant has a remedy at law (e.g., the ability to recover money damages under a contract), then it lacks the legal basis to pursue a remedy in equity (e.g., an action for injunctive relief). In the association context, a legal remedy would be to exercise the “self-help” authority granted in the association’s declaration. An equitable remedy would be to bring an action seeking an injunction to compel an owner to take action to comply with the declaration (e.g., compelling the owner to pressure wash their roof). A court will typically only award an equitable remedy when a legal remedy (such as “self-help”) is unavailable, insufficient, or inadequate.

This distinction is first illustrated in Alorda v. Sutton Place Homeowners Association, Inc., 82 So. 3d 1077 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). In Alorda, the owners failed to provide the association with proof of insurance coverage as required by the declaration. The association sent multiple demand letters to the owners, but they failed to comply. The declaration provided, in pertinent part, that “[t]he owner shall furnish proof of such insurance to the Association at the time of purchase of a lot and shall furnish proof of renewal of such insurance on each anniversary date. If the owner fails to provide such insurance the Association may obtain such insurance and shall assess the owner for the cost of the same in accordance with the provisions of this Declaration” (emphasis added). In accordance with the foregoing, the association had the option to purchase the insurance on behalf of the owners and assess them for the costs of same.

However, the association chose instead to file a complaint against the owners seeking the equitable remedy of injunctive relief, asking the court to enter a permanent mandatory injunction requiring the owners to obtain the required insurance coverage. The owners then filed a motion to dismiss the suit arguing that even though they had violated a provision of the declaration, the equitable remedy of an injunction is not available because the association had an adequate remedy at law. In other words, the owners argued that, because the association could have, pursuant to the declaration, undertaken the ”self-help” option by purchasing the required insurance and assessing it against the owners, they had an available legal remedy and, therefore, the equitable remedy sought (a mandatory injunction) was not available to the association. The court, citing to a different case, Shaw v. Tampa Electric Company, 949 So.2d 1006 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), explained that a mandatory injunction is proper only where a clear right has been violated, irreparable harm has been threatened, and there is a lack of an adequate remedy at law. As the association had an adequate remedy at law (the authority to purchase the insurance on behalf of the owners), the third requirement was not met. Therefore, the court held that the association failed to state a cause of action and dismissed the case. (This case might be decided differently today as it appears the insurance marketplace will not permit an association to purchase insurance for a unit that it does not own, so the legal remedy presumed available to the association would be inadequate).

Similarly, in the recent case of Mauriello v. The Property Owners Association of Lake Parker Estates, Inc., Case No. 2D21-500 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022), Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal considered the award of attorneys’ fees after the dismissal of the association’s action for an injunction. Ultimately, the court held that the owners were the prevailing party as the association could not seek an injunction because the association had an adequate remedy at law. In Mauriello, the owners failed to maintain their lawn and landscaping in good condition as required by the declaration. As such, the association filed a complaint seeking a mandatory injunction ordering the owners to maintain the lawn and landscaping in a “neat condition.” The association’s declaration contained similar language to the declaration at issue in Alorda. The declaration provided that, if an owner failed to perform any maintenance required by the declaration, the association, after written notice, “may have such work performed, and the cost thereof shall be specifically assessed against such Lot which assessment shall be secured by the lien set forth in Section 9 of this Article VI” (emphasis added). In other words, the association had the permissive “self-help” authority pursuant to the declaration.

The facts of this case were complicated by the sale of the home in the middle of the suit. The new owners voluntarily brought the home into compliance with the declaration, and the case became moot. However, the parties continued to fight over who was entitled to prevailing party attorneys’ fees. The association argued it was entitled to prevailing party attorneys’ fees because the voluntary compliance was only obtained after the association was forced to commence legal action. The owners, citing Alorda, argued that they were entitled to prevailing party attorneys’ fees as the association’s complaint never stated a cause of action in the first place. They argued that the complaint should have been dismissed at the outset because the association sought an equitable remedy (mandatory injunction) when a legal remedy was available to the association (exercise of “self-help” authority).

Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal agreed with the owners that Alorda was controlling. The Court explained that, as in Alorda, “the association’s declaration gave it the option of remedying the alleged violation itself, assessing the owner for the cost, and if the owner failed to pay, placing a lien on the property and foreclosing if it remained unpaid.” As such, the association had an adequate remedy at law and could not seek the equitable remedy of an injunction, which was initially sought by the association. Because the mandatory injunction was not available to the association, the association’s complaint failed to state a proper cause of action and, thus, should have been dismissed by the trial court at the outset. Therefore, the association was not entitled to its sought-after prevailing party attorneys’ fee award, which is otherwise granted if a party comes into compliance after the lawsuit is served.

Sections 718.303 (as to condominiums), 719.303 (as to cooperatives), and 720.305 (as to homeowners associations), Florida Statutes, contain similar language that specifically authorizes the association to bring actions at law or in equity, or both, in the event an owner fails to comply with the governing documents of the association. However, neither the Court in Alorda nor the Court in Mauriello addressed the association’s statutory authority to bring an injunction against an owner who fails to comply with the requirements of the declaration, but rather found that the association must use the “self-help” remedy since it was available to cure the violation.

Notwithstanding the Alorda and Mauriello decisions rendered by Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal, past appellate court decisions from other appellate jurisdictions in Florida have permitted community associations to pursue claims for injunctive relief against violating owners so long as a violation of the restrictive covenant is alleged in the complaint. As such, the Alorda and Mauriello cases appear to be departures from the established principle. Additionally, as both decisions came from Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal, the decisions are certainly binding on those associations within the jurisdiction of the Second District, but there has been no indication that other districts will follow suit. However, there is risk that other appellate district courts may be persuaded by the holdings of Alorda and Mauriello.

As such, if your association’s declaration contains a “self-help” provision, and your association chooses to seek an injunction against an owner rather than pursue “self-help,” the board should definitely discuss the issue in greater detail with the association’s legal counsel prior to proceeding. 

Find out more about KBR Legal – If your community is looking for representation give us a call.

Kaye Bender Rembaum is a full service commercial law firm devoted to the representation of 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. Most of our attorneys are Board Certified in Condominium and Planned Development Law.

Tags: , ,