Become a Member: JOIN SFPMA TODAY LogIn / Register: LOGIN/REGISTER
Find Blog Articles for Florida’s Condo, HOA and the Management Industry.
|
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:
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
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: Condo and HOA, Estoppel Certificate, Law and Legal, Management News
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?
or
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: Law and Legal, Management News, SFPMA Articles
The Florida insurance marketplace is in complete disarray. Associations need to be prepared for what the next 18-24 months of a continued hard market will do for their budgets.
as they discuss the status of the insurance marketplace as it relates to property, liability, directors and officers, and umbrella/excess policies. #Webinar
Florida Condo & HOA Law – Powered by beckerlawyers.com
While each state must follow the FDCPA, most have additional laws that regulate how debt collectors interact with consumers. Use the map below to learn how your state regulates these laws.
Don’t see your state? Axela Technologies is licensed to do collections in every state. We are taking care to build out a comprehensive guide outlining collection laws for each state. Keep watching this space!
Axela Technologies provides no cost and no risk collections for community associations using best practice collections strategies, advanced proprietary technology, and highly trained customer service representatives. We are licensed in across the United States and compliant with the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA).
The FDCPA is a federal law that prevents debt collectors from harassing or misleading consumers. It covers debt collection for mortgages, credit cards, personal loans, medical debt and other types of debt for personal use. Many states have their own fair debt collection laws as well. Some of these laws mirror the FDCPA. However, some offer more protection to consumers by, for example, covering creditors as well as collectors, specifying additional types of behavior that violate state law, or providing for additional types of damages. Below you can learn about the fair debt collection laws in various states.
We are a specialized collections service which means a great deal in the community association industry. Understanding the nuances of how people fall behind in their maintenance fee payments and how to resolve their issues is a science and an art. At Axela Technologies we have what it takes to “move the needle” and recover 100% of what is owed to the association and the best part is that we are totally merit based. IF WE DON’T RECOVER YOUR MONEY WE DON’T GET PAID. A pretty simple concept but a bold promise at the same time.
Our proprietary software is second to none and we have the ability to keep the management and board of directors informed in real time 24/7. Our system never sleeps. The technology is fantastic and is only equaled by the people who will service your delinquent members and work with them to resolve their delinquency issues.
sfpma want to thank Geri Bell for always providing us with the top Articles for our Industry.
Becker’s Lawyers are members of sfpma, can be found on our Directory, Sponsors many events and is one of the top firms for Condo, Hoa and Management professionals for our industry.
Thank You from all of us at SFPMA.Org
|
Many Floridians live within a community operated by an association of some kind, be it a community of single-family homes under the jurisdiction of a homeowner’s or property owner’s association, or a condominium building maintained by a condominium association. These owners should be well-aware that many aspects of life within these communities are subject to restrictions outlined in a set of governing documents, which include a declaration, articles of incorporation, bylaws, and rules and regulations. While the declaration, articles of incorporation, and bylaws are typically recorded among the public records of the county in which the community is located, the rules and regulations are typically not recorded.
Because rules and regulations are usually amendable by the approval of the board of directors only (as opposed to the additional approval of the membership), allowing rules and regulations to be unrecorded provides the board of directors with the flexibility to amend the rules and regulations as the need arises without the added expense and time required to record these rule amendments among the county’s official records. However, this option has changed for homeowner’s associations as a result of recent legislative changes which took effect on July 1, 2018.
How has this changed? Pursuant to new provisions set out in Section 720.306(1)(e) of F.S., “[a]n amendment to a governing document is effective when recorded in the public records of the county in which the community is located.” While this has certainly always been the case for a declaration, articles of incorporation, and bylaws, this is new as to rules and regulations of a homeowner’s association because they were added to the definition of the term “governing documents” as set out in Section 720.301(8), F.S. when the Statute was amended in 2015, effective on July 1st of that year.
Due to the fact that many homeowner’s associations have not recorded their rules and regulations in the public records of the county, consideration should be given to record the all of the rules and regulations, particularly if there are plans to amend them. Failing to record the rules and regulations prior to (or at the same time as) recording an amendment will possibly create what is termed a “wild” amendment, which is not connected in the public records to the document it is trying to amend. Additionally, if an amendment to the rules and regulations must be recorded in order to be effective, it is logical to conclude that the initial rules and regulations must also be recorded in order to be effective. Under Section 720.303 F.S., all governing documents are required to be recorded in the public records. Therefore, a homeowner’s association should record its rules and regulations in the public records in order to avoid this possible claim against the legal effectiveness of the rules when it becomes necessary for the association to enforce its rules against an owner.
As with any other amendment to a homeowner’s association’s governing documents, within thirty (30) days after recording an amendment to the governing documents, the homeowner’s association must provide either a copy of the recorded amendment to the members or, if a copy of the amendment was provided to the members before they approved it (for those communities with owner approval requirements for rules) and the amendment was not changed before the vote, a notice providing that the amendment was adopted, identifying the official book and page number or instrument number of the recorded amendment, and that a copy of the amendment is available at no charge to the member upon written request to the association.
While the consequences of this new legislation may have been unintended, it is the law until amended otherwise or an appellate court makes a contrary ruling. Although this will likely result in some minor additional costs to homeowner’s associations, this is a good opportunity for a board of directors to examine their existing rules and regulations and update them prior to recording them among the public records.
Board members of an association subject to Chapter 720, Florida Statutes, should discuss the implications created by this recent legislative change with their association’s lawyer. It is recommended that you have experienced association counsel review any existing rules and regulations prior to recording them to ensure that they are enforceable and do not unnecessarily expose the association to liability (e.g., Fair Housing violations). As to any proposed rules not yet adopted the same holds true. Experienced association counsel should review them to both ensure enforceability and to steer clear of unintended negative consequences.
Jeffrey Rembaum, Esq. of Kaye, Bender, Rembaum attorneys at law, legal practice consists of representation of condominium, homeowner, commercial and mobile home park associations, as well as exclusive country club communities and the developers who build them. He is a regular columnist for The Condo News, a biweekly publication and was inducted into the 2012, 2013 & 2014 Florida Super Lawyers. He can be reached at 561-241-4462.
Re Published with Permission: JR / KBR Legal
Tags: Condo and HOA Board of Directors, Condo and HOA Laws, Law and Legal, Management News
We know that this headline reads like a Florida-specific issue, but Florida is often used as a guideline for other state laws and courts. For this reason, we think it’s important for homeowners and condo associations in other states to take note.
In Accardi v. Regions Bank, Florida’s 4th District Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling that awarded the bank a deficiency judgment and remanded the circuit court to enter an amended final judgment to include attorney’s fees and taxable costs only. The bank was not able to recover its deficiency judgment.
This happened because of a Florida Statute that states “Actions other than the recovery of real property shall be commenced as follows … within one year” (of a certificate of title being issued or acceptance of a deed in lieu of foreclosure, that is):
“An action to enforce a claim of a deficiency related to a note secured by a mortgage against a residential property that is a one-family to four-family dwelling unit. The limitations period shall commence on the day after the certificate is issued by the clerk of court or the day after the mortgagee accepts a deed in lieu of foreclosure.”
That’s a lot of legal jargon that most simply translates to say that there is a one-year statute of limitations period for which a claim for a deficiency may be acted upon (not to be confused with the timeframe for enforcing a deficiency judgment that has already been entered) in order to avoid the deficiency claim from becoming time-barred.
This Accardi v. Regions Bank ruling got us all thinking. Clearly, it reflects a problem for banks and lenders who have had to foreclose and were left with a sale that did not satisfy the judgment amount at foreclosure, but that isn’t really the takeaway here. The takeaway is that, in theory, this same statute could potentially be used to prevent delayed collections for HOAs and condo associations when attempting to recover assessments post-foreclosure.
Is your community association trying to recover outstanding debt post-foreclosure? You should be.
If the association was the foreclosing party, and they recovered less than the amount owed as a result of the sale of the property, then that would give rise to pursuing a claim for a deficiency. So it would be very worthwhile to enforce a claim for a deficiency within a year of the certificate of title being issued.
Again, this statute of limitations is specific to Florida, so if your own state already has statutes that have different time restrictions, you need to follow those to the letter of the law. But doing this seemingly small task in the right time frame could be the difference between getting your deserved monies owed or leaving it all on the table due to a dickered-out semantic technicality.
Similarly, if an association has debt that is uncollectable from a subsequent owner due to superior lien foreclosure or tax sale, the association should act quickly to enforce its collection rights on this debt. While the fact pattern under this scenario is different from pursuing a deficiency claim created by virtue of the association’s own foreclosure sale, it would be wise to take action to collect on this debt sooner rather than later, to avoid any potential argument that would suggest it is a deficiency and that it is time-barred.
Collections delayed are collections denied.
No HOA or Condo association should stop trying to collect the money it is owed to them until said debt has been declared uncollectible by a collection professional, and that may not be your community association attorney. Don’t leave money on the table and don’t accept HOA and condo delinquency write-offs. Let a professional Condo and HOA collection company recover the money that is owed to your community association.
Axela Technologies, the nation’s leading collection company for community associations, does know the laws nationwide and we suggest that pursuing that debt at no cost and no risk is a good strategy. A great strategy, you must send the file to collections before it is too late. Perhaps a court will say that beyond one year is too late.
Don’t write off debt that could have been recovered. Call us for a free review and collection analysis. Not only can we collect from debtors who have been foreclosed on, but we can also collect from homeowners who are behind on their assessments, all at no cost to the association.
Find us on SFPMA Learn more about the services we provide.
SFPMA works throughout the State of Florida, we are a multi-member organization for the Condo, HOA and Property Management industry. Through knowledge based Articles, Events and our Members Directory, Clients find the right information to make an informed decisions for their Florida properties.
