Become a Member: JOIN SFPMA TODAY   LogIn / Register: LOGIN/REGISTER

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

Find Blog Articles for Florida’s Condo, HOA and the Management Industry. 

Raleigh’s First Citizens Bank will buy Silicon Valley Bank

Raleigh’s First Citizens Bank will buy Silicon Valley Bank

  • Posted: Mar 29, 2023
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Raleigh’s First Citizens Bank will buy Silicon Valley Bank

Raleigh’s First Citizens Bank is buying most of Silicon Valley Bank, the tech-focused financial institution which collapsed earlier this month. First Citizens will acquire all deposits and loans of the former Silicon Valley Bank in exchange for company stock worth up to $500 million, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) announced Sunday.

The FDIC had controlled Silicon Valley Bank since it failed following a bank run on March 10. In the agreement, all Silicon Valley depositors will automatically transfer to First Citizens, and on Monday, the 17 former Silicon Valley branches will open as First Citizens Bank locations.

“First Citizens has a proud history of growing organically and through strategic acquisitions that build our core capabilities in a careful and deliberate manner,” First Citizens CEO Frank Holding Jr. said in a statement Monday. “This transaction leverages our solid foundation to add significant scale, geographic diversity, compelling digital capabilities and most importantly, meaningful solutions for customers throughout their lifecycle.” Holding added the deal will “accelerate” the company’s expansion goals in California and the Northeast. First Citizens and the FDIC entered a loss-share agreement which ensures both parties will share in the potential recovery and losses on loans, the government and bank announced.

“We welcome the news, which comes at no cost to taxpayers,” White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said. “The banking system is safe,” Jean-Pierre added. “Americans can be confident, and we have seen deposits stabilize at regional banks throughout the country, and in some cases outflows have modestly reversed. What we have done these past 14 days has worked.” The FDIC had given bidders until Friday night to make offers for Silicon Valley Bank.

WHAT IS FIRST CITIZENS BANK?

According to a Federal Reserve database, First Citizens was the 30th largest bank in the country by consolidated assets at the end of last year. It operates 582 branches and offices nationwide, 60% of which were in North Carolina or South Carolina.

It is the Carolinas’ fourth largest bank, behind Bank of America, Truist, and Wells Fargo, and employs more than 2,000 in the Triangle area, according to Wake County Economic Development.

First Citizens was founded in Johnston County in 1898, and for most of the past century, it’s been helmed by three generations of the Holding family.

The company’s headquarters are in the North Hills neighborhood of Raleigh. Silicon Valley isn’t the first major purchase First Citizens has made in recent years.

In January 2022, its parent company First Citizens BancShares purchased New York-based CIT Group for approximately $2.2 billion. According to First Citizens spokesperson Angela English, First Citizens has bought more than 20 FDIC-backed banks since 2009.

In its purchase of Silicon Valley, First Citizens will take on $110 billion in assets, $56 billion in deposits, and $72 billion in loans, the company said Monday. During an investor call Monday, Holding recognized his bank “is not well known for expertise in the digital innovation economy.” In the industry, First Citizens has been viewed as a more traditional bank, far from the profile of Silicon Valley Bank, which geared its services toward early-stage technology startups. But Holding pointed out “our home market in Raleigh” is a leader in innovation.

“We are committed to continuing to help innovators, enterprises, and investors move bold ideas forward,” he said. “This acquisition positions First Citizens to support that growth both for Silicon Valley’s markets and right here in our own backyard in the Research Triangle Park by combining First Citizens’ traditional relationship banking, creativity and ability with the strengths, relationships, and expertise of legacy SVB.”


Exciting news in the banking industry as First Citizens Bank announced its acquisition of Silicon Valley Bank. This comes on the heels of First Citizens BancShares’ purchase of CIT Group in January 2022 for roughly $2.2 billion. The acquisition of CIT included Community Association Bank (CAB), a major player in the community association banking space, which has since been re-branded as part of First Citizens Bank. This move further solidifies First Citizens Bank’s position as a leading financial institution.

 

Tags: ,
Florida Legislature Considering Bills Proposing Changes to Condo Safety Reforms, Construction Defect Lawsuits

Florida Legislature Considering Bills Proposing Changes to Condo Safety Reforms, Construction Defect Lawsuits

  • Posted: Mar 29, 2023
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Florida Legislature Considering Bills Proposing Changes to Condo Safety Reforms, Construction Defect Lawsuits

Florida Legislature Considering Bills Proposing Changes to Condo Safety Reforms, Construction Defect Lawsuits

As the 2023 Florida legislative session gets underway, there are several bills impacting associations and real estate

Senate Bill 154 and House Bill 1395

Perhaps the most important of these are Senate Bill 154 and House Bill 1395, which deal with issues such as inspections and condominium association financial reserves that were addressed in the condo safety reform law that was passed last May with the adoption of Senate Bill 4D during a special legislative session. Under the new law, inspections are required for buildings that have been occupied for 30 years — or 25 years if they are within three miles of a coastline. After these initial inspections, the buildings will have to go through the process again every 10 years.

Flalegislature-300x169If adopted, the new bills could result in changes to the time by which buildings, including those within three miles of a coastline, will have to be inspected. The two bills include different timeframes by which the initial milestone inspection may have to be performed (e.g., SB 154 triggering all such inspections at 30 years with discretion for local officials and authorities having jurisdiction to compel some at 25 years depending on “local circumstances, including environmental conditions such proximity to salt water”; or HB 1395 requiring the initial inspections at 25 years for all buildings regardless of proximity to salt water).

 

SB 154 also includes provisions that would allow local officials to extend inspection deadlines if building owners have entered into contracts with architects or engineers but the inspections cannot be finished in time.

HB 1395 further proposes to increase the types of professionals that may perform phase 1 of the milestone inspections from architects and engineers to also include general contractors licensed under Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, with at least five years of experience in building/constructing threshold buildings, or as a building code administrator or licensed building code inspector.

The bills also include changes to portions of the statutes governing the financial reserves studies and requirements that were implemented under last year’s law. Some of the changes provided in SB 154 include clarification as to which building components must be included as part of the required reserve funding. It would also allow reserve studies to “recommend that reserves do not need to be maintained for any item for which an estimate of useful life and an estimate of replacement cost or deferred maintenance expense cannot be determined.” The bill’s sponsor says that provision could apply to building foundations.

HB 1395 includes different proposed changes pertaining to the structural integrity reserve items, such as providing for modified deadlines to the December 31, 2024, deadline established under last year’s reforms.

These are just a sampling of the various changes being considered by the legislature this session. As is usually the case with the legislative process, the provisions of SB 154 and HB 1395 will likely undergo various changes and may become mirror images of each other via lawmakers’ negotiations resulting in a final version that may be voted into law. Condominium association stakeholders should keep an eye on these bills given that their adoption by the legislature could surely result in significant changes to the monumental laws adopted last year affecting condominium associations in Florida.

House Bill 85

The legislature is also considering changes to the state’s statute of repose for construction defect lawsuits, which is used to determine how long a party has to file a claim for latent construction defects after a structure or improvement has been completed.

Currently, the state’s 10-year period of repose starts to run from the latest of these four events: 1) the date of actual possession by the owner, 2) the date of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, 3) the date of abandonment of construction if not completed, or 4) the date of completion of the contract or termination of the contract between the professional engineer, registered architect, or licensed contractor and his or her employer. After the 10-year period expires, a claim for latent defects can no longer be brought.

If adopted, House Bill 85 would revise the triggering events for the period of repose for suits brought for latent construction defects to the earliest of: 1) the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy, 2) the date of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, 3) or the date of issuance of a certificate of completion, or 4) the date of abandonment if construction is not completed.

The repose period would start to run seven years from the earliest of the foregoing four events. These changes, if adopted, could have significant changes to the time frame within which an association may assert a claim against parties responsible for construction defects.

As the legislative session unfolds and reaches its conclusion on May 5th, our firm’s attorneys will continue to monitor these and other bills impacting the state’s community associations and real estate industry.

Tags: ,
We hope that you are able to make a donation of any amount to our fundraiser because there is still so much to accomplish in defeating blood cancers once and for all!

We hope that you are able to make a donation of any amount to our fundraiser because there is still so much to accomplish in defeating blood cancers once and for all!

  • Posted: Nov 16, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on We hope that you are able to make a donation of any amount to our fundraiser because there is still so much to accomplish in defeating blood cancers once and for all!
The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society (LLS) exists to help cure blood cancers and improve the quality of life of patients and their families.
Every year we raise funds for LLS because of how important this lifesaving organization is to us. Last year we raised over $20,000 (THANK YOU!). Inspired by your generosity and determination to fight for a cure, this year we increased our goal to $35,000!
Here’s how your donation to LLS changes lives!
  • Since 1949, LLS has invested nearly $1.3 billion in cancer research – funding nearly all of today’s most promising advances, and bringing us closer to cures.
  • Last year, LLS Information Specialists responded to nearly 20,000 inquiries from patients and caregivers, guiding them to a wide array of education and support services.
  • LLS has a nationwide grassroots network of more than 100,000 volunteers who advocate for state and federal policies that benefit patients.
We hope that you are able to make a donation of any amount to our fundraiser because there is still so much to accomplish in defeating blood cancers once and for all!

Madison Cohen and Harvey Cohen share their touching story of survival and hope.

Please go to:

Welcome to Cohen- Marketing Team’s Fundraising Page

Cohen Law Group are members of SFPMA and we support this fundraising and health of Madison

Frank J Mari / Executive Director SFPMA

Tags: , ,
The mandatory funding of all the required reserve funds will make living in these hi-rises very interesting in the next two years

The mandatory funding of all the required reserve funds will make living in these hi-rises very interesting in the next two years

  • Posted: Oct 28, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on The mandatory funding of all the required reserve funds will make living in these hi-rises very interesting in the next two years

MANDATORY RESERVES

By Jan Bergemann

Finally the Florida Legislature got the message they should have gotten 20 years ago: FULLY FUNDED RESERVES ARE MANDATORY!

And even if the legislature gave condo owners a reprieve until December 2025, condo owners should start now to consider their options:

Will they be able to afford the much higher maintenance fees they will have to pay monthly in the future or will these much higher fees break their household budget?

Let’s just face it: For most of the years past condo owners waived reserves in order to keep maintenance fees artificially low – meaning that many of the associations at this point don’t have any reserves worth talking about. Remember: According to media reports the Champlain Tower South had only $700,000 in reserves, but needed about $16M to pay for the necessary repairs.

That will have to change real fast and the fact that many of the required inspections will have to be followed up by costly repairs and maintenance high special assessments are on the horizon for many hi-rise buildings (buildings higher than three floors).

As much as this change to the Florida statutes was long overdue it will definitely price quite a few families out of their homes. But in all reality there is really no other way around it and the fact that many condo owners used the loophole in the statutes that allowed waiving the funding of reserves is now coming back to haunt the owners who in former times dismissed the idea of funding reserves.

We already see condo owners protesting against boards about the problems that are visible in these buildings. The big question in these cases: Does the association have the necessary funds to take care of the needed maintenance and repairs or are the owners willing and able to pay the special assessment the board might have to levy in order to pay for the contractor?

The mandatory funding of all the required reserve funds will make living in these hi-rises very interesting in the next two years – and we will have to see how strong the government agencies tasked with overseeing these new provisions in FS 718 are enforcing these provisions.


Our Blog ( Industry Articles ) can be found on SFPMA.com – between our writers and all members of sfpma we have been for over 15 years keeping our industry up to date with the right Legal, Business and Services Articles. SFPMA sends and publishes these and sends to over 230,000 emails keeping everyone informed.

Look for our article upcoming on Condo Funds and Investments, on SFPMA

Tags: , , , ,
Mandatory Condominium & Cooperative Building Inspections and Non-Waivable Reserve Requirement

Mandatory Condominium & Cooperative Building Inspections and Non-Waivable Reserve Requirement

  • Posted: Aug 18, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Mandatory Condominium & Cooperative Building Inspections and Non-Waivable Reserve Requirement

Mandatory Condominium & Cooperative Building Inspections and Non-Waivable Reserve Requirement

The City of Surfside, Champlain Towers South Related Legislation Already in Effect

 

With home insurers leaving Florida in droves, and following pressure from members of both political parties in the legislature to actually do something about it, in May 2022, the governor called a special legislative session to address the problem. A very real concern to the insurers is the effect of both time and inclement weather on Florida’s aging high-rise buildings. Until now, and for the most part, Florida law largely ignored these concerns. Enter Senate Bill 4-D (SB 4-D), which already became effective upon being signed into law by Governor DeSantis on May 26, 2022. This new piece of legislation addresses condominium and cooperative building inspections and reserve requirements. (While this article primarily addresses these new laws in the context of condominium association application, they are equally applicable to cooperative associations.)

By way of background, during the regular legislative session, there were several bills introduced in the Florida House of Representatives and in the Florida Senate addressing building safety issues, but none of them were passed into law due to the inability to match the language of the bills in both the house and the senate which is a requirement for legislation to pass and go to the governor for consideration. As such, it was a little surprising to many observers that the legislature was able to approve SB 4-D in essentially a 48-hour window during the special session in May. The language used in SB 4-D was initially drafted into a proposed bill in November 2021. At that time and during the most recent legislative session, input was provided by many industry professional groups including engineers, reserve study providers, and association attorneys. Many of these industry professionals indicated that there were challenges with some of the language and concepts being proposed in SB 4-D during session.

Notwithstanding these challenges and in an effort to ensure some form of life safety legislation was passed this year, SB 4-D was unanimously approved in both the house and senate and signed by the governor. A plain reading of this well-intended, but in some instances not completely thought-out, legislation evidences these challenges. Some will say it is a good start that will need significant tweaking, which is expected in the 2023 legislative session. Others praise it, and, yet others say it is an overreach of governmental authority, such as an inability to waive or reduce certain categories of reserves. You be the judge. We begin by examining the mandatory inspection and reserve requirements of SB 4-D.

I. Milestone Inspections: Mandatory Structural Inspections For Condominium and Cooperative Buildings. (§553.899, Fla. Stat.)

You will not find these new milestone inspection requirements in Chapters 718 or 719 of the Florida Statutes, but rather in Chapter 553, Florida Statutes, as cited above.

Milestone Inspections

The term “milestone inspection” means a structural inspection of a building, including an inspection of load-bearing walls and the primary structural members and primary structural systems. The aforementioned terms are defined in §627.706, Florida Statutes, and are to be carried out by a licensed architect or engineer authorized to practice in this state for the purposes of attesting to the life safety and adequacy of the structural components of the building and, to the extent reasonably possible, determining the general structural condition of the building as it affects the safety of such building, including a determination of any necessary maintenance, repair, or replacement of any structural component of the building. The purpose of such an inspection is not to determine if the condition of an existing building is in compliance with the Florida Building Code or the fire safety code.

Substantial Structural Deterioration

The term “substantial structural deterioration” means substantial structural distress that negatively affects a building’s general structural condition and integrity. The term does not include surface imperfections such as cracks, distortion, sagging, deflections, misalignment, signs of leakage, or peeling of finishes, unless the licensed engineer or architect performing the phase one or phase two inspection determines that such surface imperfections are a sign of substantial structural deterioration.

Milestone Inspections For Buildings Three Stories or More In Height

A condominium association under Chapter 718 and a cooperative association under Chapter 719 must have a milestone inspection performed for each building that is three stories or more in height by December 31 of the year in which the building reaches 30 years of age, based on the date the certificate of occupancy for the building was issued, and every 10 years thereafter.

Within Three Miles of Coastline

If the building is three or more stories in height and is located within three miles of a coastline, the condominium association or cooperative association must have a milestone inspection performed by December 31 of the year in which the building reaches 25 years of age, based on the date the certificate of occupancy for the building was issued, and every 10 years thereafter.

The condominium association or cooperative association must arrange for the milestone inspection to be performed and is responsible for ensuring compliance.

The condominium association or cooperative association is responsible for all costs associated with the inspection.

If The Certificate of Occupancy was Issued Before July 1, 1992

If a milestone inspection is required under this statute and the building’s certificate of occupancy was issued on or before July 1, 1992, the building’s initial milestone inspection must be performed before December 31, 2024. If the date of issuance for the certificate of occupancy is not available, the date of issuance of the building’s certificate of occupancy shall be the date of occupancy evidenced in any record of the local building official. 

Upon determining that a building must have a milestone inspection, the local enforcement agency must provide written notice of such required inspection to the condominium association or cooperative association by certified mail, return receipt requested. 

Within 180 days after receiving the written notice, the condominium association or cooperative association must complete phase one of the milestone inspection. For purposes of this section, completion of phase one of the milestone inspection means the licensed engineer or architect who performed the phase one inspection submitted the inspection report by email, United States Postal Service, or commercial delivery service to the local enforcement agency.

A Milestone Inspection Consists of Two Phases

(a) PHASE 1—For phase one of the milestone inspection, a licensed architect or engineer authorized to practice in this state must perform a visual examination of habitable and non-habitable areas of a building, including the major structural components of a building, and provide a qualitative assessment of the structural conditions of the building. If the architect or engineer finds no signs of substantial structural deterioration to any building components under visual examination, phase two of the inspection (discussed below) is not required. An architect or engineer who completes a phase one milestone inspection shall prepare and submit an inspection report.

(b) PHASE 2—A phase two of the milestone inspection must be performed if any substantial structural deterioration is identified during phase one. A phase two inspection may involve destructive or nondestructive testing at the inspector’s direction. The inspection may be as extensive or as limited as necessary to fully assess areas of structural distress in order to confirm that the building is structurally sound and safe for its intended use and to recommend a program for fully assessing and repairing distressed and damaged portions of the building. When determining testing locations, the inspector must give preference to locations that are the least disruptive and most easily repairable while still being representative of the structure. An inspector who completes a phase two milestone inspection must prepare and submit an inspection report.

Post-Milestone Inspection Requirements

Upon completion of a phase one or phase two milestone inspection, the architect or engineer who performed the inspection must submit a sealed copy of the inspection report with a separate summary of, at minimum, the material findings and recommendations in the inspection report to the condominium association or cooperative association, and to the building official of the local government which has jurisdiction. The inspection report must, at a minimum, meet all of the following criteria:

  1. Bear the seal and signature, or the electronic signature, of the licensed engineer or architect who performed the inspection.
  2. Indicate the manner and type of inspection forming the basis for the inspection report.
  3. Identify any substantial structural deterioration within a reasonable professional probability based on the scope of the inspection, describe the extent of such deterioration, and identify any recommended repairs for such deterioration.
  4. State whether unsafe or dangerous conditions, as those terms are defined in the Florida Building Code, were observed.
  5. Recommend any remedial or preventive repair for any items that are damaged but are not substantial structural deterioration.
  6. Identify and describe any items requiring further inspection.

Local Government Enforcement

A local enforcement agency may prescribe timelines and penalties with respect to compliance with the milestone inspection requirements.

A board of county commissioners may adopt an ordinance requiring that a condominium or cooperative association schedule or commence repairs for substantial structural deterioration within a specified timeframe after the local enforcement agency receives a phase two inspection report; however, such repairs must be commenced within 365 days after receiving such report. If an association fails to submit proof to the local enforcement agency that repairs have been scheduled or have commenced for substantial structural deterioration identified in a phase two inspection report within the required timeframe, the local enforcement agency must review and determine if the building is unsafe for human occupancy.

Board’s Duty After Obtaining The Milestone Report

Upon completion of a phase one or phase two milestone inspection and receipt of the inspector-prepared summary of the inspection report from the architect or engineer who performed the inspection, the association must distribute a copy of the inspector-prepared summary of the inspection report to each unit owner, regardless of the findings or recommendations in the report, by United States mail or personal delivery and by electronic transmission to unit owners who previously consented to receive notice by electronic transmission; must post a copy of the inspector-prepared summary in a conspicuous place on the condominium or cooperative property; and must publish the full report and inspector-prepared summary on the association’s website, if the association is required to have a website.

Who Pays for The Milestone Inspection?

Pursuant to §718.112, Florida Statutes, if an association is required to have a milestone inspection performed, the association must arrange for the milestone inspection to be performed and is responsible for ensuring compliance with all of the requirements thereof. The association is responsible for all costs associated with the inspection.

Failure to Obtain the Milestone Inspection

If the officers or directors of an association willfully and knowingly fail to have a milestone inspection performed pursuant to §553.899, Florida Statutes, such failure is a breach of the officers’ and directors’ fiduciary relationship to the unit owners.

Manager’s Duty

If a community association manager or a community association management firm has a contract with a community association that has a building on the association’s property that is subject to milestone inspection, the community association manager or the community association management firm must comply with the requirements of performing such inspection as directed by the board.

Exemptions

For clarity, the otherwise required milestone inspection does not apply to a single family, two-family, or three-family dwelling with three or fewer habitable stories above ground.

Florida Building Commission Requirements

The Florida Building Commission must review the milestone inspection requirements and make recommendations, if any, to the legislature to ensure inspections are sufficient to determine the structural integrity of a building. The commission must provide a written report of any recommendations to the governor, the president of the senate, and the speaker of the house of representatives by December 31, 2022. 

The Florida Building Commission must consult with the State Fire Marshal to provide recommendations to the legislature for the adoption of comprehensive structural and life safety standards for maintaining and inspecting all types of buildings and structures in this state that are three stories or more in height. The commission must provide a written report of its recommendations to the governor, the president of the senate and the speaker of the house of representatives by December 31, 2023.

II. Structural Integrity Reserve Studies and Mandatory Reserves:

The reserve legislation set out in §718.112 (f)(2)(a), Florida Statutes, is, for all intents and purposes, re-written. Prior to examining these most recent revisions, it is necessary to first examine the definitions set out in §718.103, Florida Statutes, where a brand-new term is added as follows: 

Structural integrity reserve study means a study of the reserve funds required for future major repairs and replacement of the common areas based on a visual inspection of the common areas applicable to all condominiums and cooperative buildings 3 stories or higher. 

Hereafter, the structural integrity reserve study is referred to as “SIRS.” Now we can turn our attention to the requirements of the SIRS as set out in §718.112 (f)(2)(a), Florida Statutes.

The Structural Integrity Reserve Study (required for all condominium and cooperative buildings three stories or higher regardless of date of certificate of occupancy):

An association must have a SIRS completed at least every 10 years after the condominium’s creation for each building on the condominium property that is three stories or higher in height which includes, at a minimum, a study of the following items as related to the structural integrity and safety of the building:

  1. Roof
  2. Load-bearing walls or other primary structural members
  3. Floor
  4. Foundation
  5. Fireproofing and fire protection systems
  6. Plumbing
  7. Electrical systems
  8. Waterproofing and exterior painting
  9. Windows
  10. Any other item that has a deferred maintenance expense or replacement cost that exceeds $10,000 and the failure to replace or maintain such item negatively affects the items listed in subparagraphs a.-i., as determined by the licensed engineer or architect performing the visual inspection portion of the structural integrity reserve study.

The SIRS may be performed by any person qualified to perform such study. However, the visual inspection portion of the structural integrity reserve study must be performed by an engineer licensed under Chapter 471 or an architect licensed under Chapter 481. 

As further set out in the legislation, at a minimum, “a structural integrity reserve study must identify the common areas being visually inspected, state the estimated remaining useful life and the estimated replacement cost or deferred maintenance expense of the common areas being visually inspected, and provide a recommended annual reserve amount that achieves the estimated replacement cost or deferred maintenance expense of each common area being visually inspected by the end of the estimated remaining useful life of each common area.”

The amount to be reserved for an item is determined by the association’s most recent structural integrity reserve study that must be completed by December 31, 2024. If the amount to be reserved for an item is not in the association’s initial or most recent structural integrity reserve study or the association has not completed a structural integrity reserve study, the amount must be computed using a formula based upon estimated remaining useful life and estimated replacement cost or deferred maintenance expense of each reserve item.

If the condominium building is less than three stories, then the legislation provides that “in addition to annual operating expenses, the budget must include reserve accounts for capital expenditures and deferred maintenance. These accounts must include, but are not limited to, roof replacement, building painting, and pavement resurfacing, regardless of the amount of deferred maintenance expense or replacement cost, and any other item that has a deferred maintenance expense or replacement cost that exceeds $10,000.” 

The association may adjust replacement reserve assessments annually to take into account any changes in estimates or extension of the useful life of a reserve item caused by deferred maintenance. 

If an association fails to complete a SIRS, such failure is a breach of an officer’s and director’s fiduciary relationship to the unit owners.

Non-Waivable and Waivable Reserves In The Unity Owner-Controlled Association

As to the SIRS, the legislation is patently clear that unit owners may not vote for no reserves or lesser reserves for items set forth in the SIRS report. There is ongoing debate among attorneys in regard to whether a condominium under three stories can waive or reduce reserves for any of the reserve items required to be in the SIRS that are included in the under- three-story condominium reserve—for example, roof and painting. (For those interested, examine lines 1029 to 1033 and 1050 to 1071 in SB 4-D.)

Mandatory Reserves In The Developer-Controlled Association

Before turnover of control of an association by a developer to unit owners other than a developer pursuant to §718.301, Florida Statutes, the developer-controlled association may not vote to waive the reserves or reduce the funding of the reserves. (Previously, a developer could fully waive all reserves for the first two years, meaning this is a monumental change.)

Pre-Turnover Developer Duty

Before a developer turns over control of an association to unit owners other than the developer, the developer must have a SIRS completed for each building on the condominium property that is three stories or higher in height.

III. Official Records

Official records of the condominium and cooperative association include structural integrity reserve studies, financial reports of the association or condominium, and a copy of the inspection reports and any other inspection report relating to a structural or life safety inspection of condominium or cooperative property. 

In addition to the right to inspect and copy the declaration, bylaws, and rules, renters have the right to inspect the milestone inspection report and structural integrity reserve study inspection reports as well.

Structural integrity reserve studies must be maintained for at least 15 years after the study is completed. In addition, inspection reports and any other inspection report relating to a structural or life safety inspection of condominium property must be maintained for 15 years after receipt of such report.

IV. Association Websites

In addition to other positing requirements, the inspection reports described above and any other inspection report relating to a structural or life safety inspection of condominium property and the association’s most recent structural integrity reserve study must be posted to the website.

V. Jurisdiction of Division of Condominiums, Timeshares and Mobile Homes

Pre-turnover, the Division of Florida Condominiums, Timeshares, and Mobile Homes (Division) may enforce and ensure compliance with rules relating to the development, construction, sale, lease, ownership, operation, and management of residential condominium units, and complaints related to the procedural completion of milestone inspections. After turnover has occurred, the Division has jurisdiction to investigate complaints related only to financial issues, elections, and the maintenance of and unit owner access to association records, and the procedural completion of structural integrity reserve studies.

VI. New Reporting Requirements For All Condominium and Cooperative Associations

On or before January 1, 2023, condominium associations existing on or before July 1, 2022, must provide the following information to the Division in writing, by email, United States Postal Service, commercial delivery service, or hand delivery, at a physical address or email address provided by the division and on a form posted on the division’s website:

  1. The number of buildings on the condominium property that are three stories or higher in height.
  2. The total number of units in all such buildings.
  3. The addresses of all such buildings.
  4. The counties in which all such buildings are located.

An association must provide an update in writing to the division if there are any changes to the information in the list within six months after the change.

VII. Applicable To All Sellers of Units

As a part of the sales process, the seller of a condominium or cooperative unit and developers must provide to potential purchasers a copy of the inspector-prepared summary of the milestone inspection report and a copy of the association’s most recent structural integrity reserve study or a statement that the association has not completed a structural integrity reserve study.

VIII. Glitches

As with any new legislation of such a substantial nature, there often follow in subsequent years what are referred to as “glitch bills” which help provide additional clarity, remove ambiguity, and fix unintended errors. Some observe are (i) the term “common areas” is used in the legislation when in fact the correct term is “common element;” (ii) clarity needs to be provided regarding whether reserve items that are required to be in SIRS, but show up in the under-three-story reserves, such as paint and paving, can be waived or reduced by the membership; and (iii) for those buildings that are within three miles of the coastline, additional clarity could be provided to provide better guidance as to how to perform the measurement.

Tags: , , ,
ATTN: CONDOMINIUM & COOPERATIVE Required Building Reporting Deadline January 1, 2023   From the Florida Department of Business & Professional Regulation

ATTN: CONDOMINIUM & COOPERATIVE Required Building Reporting Deadline January 1, 2023 From the Florida Department of Business & Professional Regulation

ATTN: CONDOMINIUM & COOPERATIVE

Required Building Reporting

Deadline January 1, 2023

From the Florida Department of Business & Professional Regulation

718.501(3)(a), F.S./Senate Bill SB4D requires all condominium and cooperative associations with buildings 3 stories or higher to report the following information to the Division of Florida Condominium, Timeshares and Mobile Homes on or before January 1, 2023.

  • The number of buildings on the condominium property that are three (3) stories or higher in height.
  • The total number of units in all such buildings
  • The addresses of all such buildings.
  • The counties in which all such buildings are located.

 

You may submit this information electronically at: ctmhbuildingreporting@myfloridalicense.com     

or

by USPS mail or hand delivery to:

Division of Florida Condominiums, Timeshares and Mobile Homes

Attention: Building Reporting

2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-1030

For emailing or USPS mailing, we prepared this form for you to use: Click HERE.

condo-cooperative-building-reporting_web


 

You may also provide your association’s information to the Division by simply completing and submitting the Building Reporting form, via this link:

http://www.myfloridalicense.com/DBPR/condos-timeshares-mobile-homes/building-report/


 

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: , ,
Property Management Requirements in Florida – SFPMA

Property Management Requirements in Florida – SFPMA

  • Posted: Jul 10, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Property Management Requirements in Florida – SFPMA

Property Management Requirements in Florida

State of Florida Property Management Association; On our Website you can find on our Licensing Course Partners the Licensing Courses are offered to you to become a CAM Manager in the State of Florida!

 

Find out about Licensing and Board Member Courses

 

Questions and Answers you might have

1. Must a Florida property management company have a real estate broker’s license

YES. Key components of property management (renting and leasing) are considered a real estate activity under existing Florida real estate licensing laws. A property manager needs a brokers license if he or she is paid by commission, and is handling rentals and leases for others.

No license is required for managing personally owned properties. There is a “Property Manager” license or certificate you should have. Also, certain rental properties need a license through the Div. of Hotels and Restaurants.

 

2. Are there any exceptions to the requirement that a Florida property manager have a broker’s license?

YES. For example, if a property owner employs someone to manage their property, and that “employee is paid a salary”, as opposed to being paid a commission or on a transactional basis, a broker’s license is not required.

For more information about these and other Florida property management requirements and exceptions, please contact the Florida Real Estate Commission.

Before hiring a property manager to manage your Florida rental property, you should always check that he or she is licensed appropriately. You can check the license status of Florida property managers at the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation’s Licensee Search webpage.

3. Must Florida community association managers have a real estate broker’s license?

No. However, a Community Association Manager license is required if someone receives compensation for providing management services for the following types of associations:

  • An association with ten or more units
  • An association with a budget of $100,000 or greater

 

4. Florida Real Estate Broker License Requirements

Florida real estate broker licensing requirements include:

  • Age: Must be at least 18 years of age.
  • High School: Must have a high school diploma or equivalent.
  • Experience: Must have held a current real estate sales associate license for at least 24 months during the 5 year period immediately preceding becoming a licensed broker.
  • Education: Successfully complete a Florida Real Estate Commission approved pre-licensing course for brokers, consisting of 72 classroom hours and covering specified topics. Courses are valid for licensure purposes for two years after completion. In addition, successfully complete a FREC-approved post-licensing course for brokers, consisting of 60 classroom hours before the initial broker license expires.
  • Exam: Pass the Florida Real Estate Broker Examination with a grade of at least 75.
  • Fee: $115 ($20 application fee; $90 license fee; $5 unlicensed activity fee).
  • Application: complete and submit broker license application which is available online.

 

5. Florida Real Estate Salesperson License Requirements

Florida real estate salesperson licensing requirements include:

  • Age: Must be at least 18 years of age.
  • High School: Must have a high school diploma or equivalent.
  • Education: Successfully complete a Florida Real Estate Commission 63-hour sales associate course.
  • Trustworthiness: Must be of good moral character; must have a background check and submit fingerprints.
  • Exam: Pass the Florida Real Estate Sales Associate Examination with a grade of at least 75%

 

6. Florida Community Association Manager License Requirements

Florida community association manager licensing requirements include:

  • Age: Must be at least 18 years of age.
  • Education: Must complete at least 18 hours of pre-licensure education from an approved provider.
  • Trustworthiness: Must be of good moral character; must have a background check and submit fingerprints.
  • Exam: Pass the Community Association Management Exam.
  • Then Pay the License fee in your state.

Become a Property Management (CAM) in Florida

Tags: , ,