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

561-241-4462    |    9121 N. Military Trail, Ste. 200   |   Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410

Author: rembaumlaw

Posted on

The Consequences of Failing to Maintain The Official Records

The Consequences of Failing to Maintain the Official Records

The following scenario happens all too often. A member makes a written records request to inspect the official records of the association and proceeds to provide a laundry list of documents that the member wants to inspect. In response, the association may arrange to have the member come to the property management office to inspect the records or, if the laundry list is not extensive, provide the requested records to the member by making copies or providing them electronically. Sometimes, however, associations do not always maintain official records in accordance with the requirements of Chapters 718 and 720, Fla. Stat., and an association may argue that it gave the member what it could, so that is all that really matters, right? Wrong! If your association operates this way, you are in for a surprise.

In the case of William Pecchia and Kathleen Porter v. Wayside Estates Home Owners Association, Inc., 388 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024), litigation initially arose between the homeowners (Pecchia and Porter) and the association due to the belief by Pecchia that the association was failing to maintain the common area and that the association was not enforcing violations. Pecchia observed that over the years the association lowered annual assessments and seemed to spend less money on maintenance despite observable deteriorating conditions to the property.

Accordingly, Pecchia requested to inspect the association’s records including copies of several years’ worth of insurance policies and certain records relating to the association’s upkeep of lots and common areas, including financial statements, canceled checks, and bank statements. The association did not respond to Pecchia’s records request in the statutory timeframe of 10 working days, and when it finally did respond, only copies of some of the requested records were provided. Eventually Pecchia submitted a renewed request for records, and then the parties negotiated for several months to no avail. Finally Pecchia filed for injunctive relief against the association. Initially Pecchia was unsuccessful in convincing the trial court that the association failed to maintain and produce requested records and was unsuccessful in obtaining an injunction against the association mandating that the requested records be provided. She appealed.

However, on appeal the Appellate Court found the following:

      1. The association did not sufficiently comply with the requirements of section 720.303, Fla. Stat., (which pertains to HOA official records requests); and
      2. The association did not sufficiently comply with its obligations to maintain its common area and properly enforce violations of the governing documents.

During the trial court proceedings, in regard to whether the association sufficiently complied with section 720.303, Fla. Stat., the trial court found that the association did not provide copies of requested insurance policies but that the association was not statutorily required to provide requested bank statements and canceled checks because section 720.303(4), Fla. Stat., only requires that an association maintain “accounting records.” Despite the lack of the association providing all of the records requested by Pecchia, the trial court found that the association had provided “sufficient documents in response to the Plaintiff’s request.” Further, while the trial court found that while the requested records were not provided within the statutory timeline, the association was not in violation because “sufficient” documents were eventually provided to Pecchia’s request. The appellate court disagreed!

On appeal, the appellate court found that the trial court misinterpreted section 720.303(4)-(5), Fla. Stat., when it held that the association had sufficiently complied with the statute. In short the appellate court found that the use of the word “shall” in the foregoing sections meant that there was no flexibility in the association’s obligation to maintain records provided for in section 720.303(4) and to permit inspection in accordance with section 720.303(5). The appellate court went on to discuss the meaning of the word “shall” (i.e., being mandatory) and the meaning of the word “may” (i.e., being permissive).

Additionally, the appellate court discussed that pursuant to other subsections of section 720.303, Fla. Stat., financial penalties are provided for beginning on the 11th business day in which an association does not make records available. In the aforementioned case, although the association ended up providing (or making available for inspection) some of Pecchia’s requested records, it did not provide access to all of Pecchia’s requested records, including insurance records, bank statements, and canceled checks, all of which the appellate court held would be “included in the financial and accounting records which a homeowners’ association is required to maintain.” Additionally, the records provided were provided after the statutory deadline. As stated by the appellate court,

“[S]ections 720.303(4) and (5) do not provide for substantial compliance. Rather, the language of the statute clearly provides that a homeowners’ association “shall” (1) maintain all items enumerated in 720.303(4) and (2) make them available to the homeowners within ten business days upon request [for inspection or by providing the records requested]. This language is mandatory.”

In regard to finding that the association did not maintain the common areas, there is scant mention as to why the appellate court found this to be the case.

Those involved with homeowners’ associations should also be aware of some recent legislative changes that became effective and pertain to official records and are incorporated into the most recent revision to section 720.303, Fla. Stat. For example, by January 1, 2025, an association with 100 or more parcels is required to post many, but not all, of its official records on its website or make such documents available through an application that can be downloaded on a mobile device. Additionally, homeowners’ associations are now required to maintain most of their official records for a period of seven  years unless the governing documents of the association provide for a longer period of time. Also, homeowners’ associations must adopt written rules governing the method or policy by which the official records of the association are to be retained and the time period such records must be retained.

For those involved with condominium associations, there are also some recent legislative changes pertaining to official records that became effective and are incorporated into the most recent revision to section 718.111, Fla. Stat. For example, by January 1, 2026, an association managing a condominium with 25 or more units—which does not contain timeshare units—shall post copies of its official records on its website or app. If official records are posted on the association’s website or app, the association may direct the unit owner or their authorized representative to the website or app (at this time HOAs may not do similarly). Clarification is provided that email addresses and fax numbers are only accessible to unit owners if such owner has consented to receive their official notices by electronic transmission or has personally indicated that such personal information may be shared with other unit owners. Official records now include all invoices, transaction receipts, or deposit slips that substantiate any receipt or expenditure of funds by the association, copies of building permits, and all satisfactorily completed board member educational certificates. Additionally, official records must now be maintained in an organized manner that facilitates inspection by a unit owner. A condominium association must now provide a checklist of all records made available for inspection and copying along with records that were not made available to the requester. The condominium association must retain the checklist provided to every requesting member for at least seven  years. If a director, board member, or manager knowingly, willfully, and repeatedly (i.e., two or more times in a 12-month period) fails to provide official records, such person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree. Finally, if a person willfully and knowingly refuses to release official records with the intent to avoid or escape detection, arrest, trial, or punishment, then it is the equivalent of a felony of the third degree.

To conclude, all community associations should be diligent, prompt, and thorough in responding to official records requests. While associations are not required to “cherry pick” and provide specific records that a member demands to inspect, associations have the obligation to maintain the official records and provide an opportunity for members to inspect the official records. If you are unsure of which records must be posted to the association’s website, or if you are in doubt as to your association’s responsibility in regard to official records and official record requests, then be sure to consult with your association counsel regarding these important responsibilities.

Reprinted with permission as it appears in the January 2025 issue of the Florida Community Association Journal.

Posted on

The Corporate Transparency Act Strikes Back

CORPORATE TRANSPARENCY ACT STRIKES BACK!

In the never ending saga regarding the applicability of the Corporate Transparency Act, there is yet another twist in that the judge in the Texas litigation, which we wrote about to you on December 14 and who issued the nationwide injunction, reversed course on December 23, when he lifted the court’s previously enacted injunction making the Corporate Transparency Act’s registration requirements applicable once again. However, FinCen, in light of the short notice, has extended the deadline in which to register to January 13, 2025 absent other deadline extensions.

As reported in our prior article, a recent update from the United States Department of Treasury, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCen) provides an extension of time to comply with the requirements of the Corporate Transparency Act for the initial reporting deadlines, but there are strict requirements regarding the applicability of the extension as discussed below.

FinCen, on October 29, 2024, extended the initial reporting deadlines to June 30, 2025, for associations in counties affected by Hurricane Milton where:

(1) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) assistance is available for individual or public assistance; and

(2)    IRS tax filing deadlines have been extended.

Associations in the following counties appear to be subject to the extension:

Alachua, Baker, Bradford, Brevard, Broward, Charlotte, Citrus, Clay, Collier, Columbia, DeSoto, Dixie, Duval, Flagler, Gilchrist, Glades, Hamilton, Hardee, Hendry, Hernando, Highlands, Hillsborough, Indian River, Lafayette, Lake, Lee, Levy, Madison, Manatee, Marion, Martin, Miami-Dade, Monroe, Nassau, Okeechobee, Orange, Osceola, Palm Beach, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, Putman, Sarasota, Seminole, St. Johns, St. Lucie, Sumter, Suwannee, Taylor, Union, and Volusia.

Of course, to be absolutely certain, please check with your association’s attorney.

The December 23, 2024 email communication received from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network as reported on above follows:

Updates to Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Deadlines – Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Requirements Now in Effect, with Deadline Extensions

In light of a December 23, 2024, federal Court of Appeals decision, reporting companies, except as indicated below, are once again required to file beneficial ownership information with FinCEN. However, because the Department of the Treasury recognizes that reporting companies may need additional time to comply given the period when the preliminary injunction had been in effect, we have extended the reporting deadline as follows:

    • Reporting companies that were created or registered prior to January 1, 2024 have until January 13, 2025 to file their initial beneficial ownership information reports with FinCEN. (These companies would otherwise have been required to report by January 1, 2025)
    • Reporting companies created or registered in the United States on or after September 4, 2024 that had a filing deadline between December 3, 2024 and December 23, 2024 have until January 13, 2025 to file their initial beneficial ownership information reports with FinCEN.
    • Reporting companies created or registered in the United States on or after December 3, 2024 and on or before December 23, 2024 have an additional 21 days from their original filing deadline to file their initial beneficial ownership information reports with FinCEN.
    • Reporting companies that qualify for disaster relief may have extended deadlines that fall beyond January 13, 2025. These companies should abide by whichever deadline falls later.
    • Reporting companies that are created or registered in the United States on or after January 1, 2025 have 30 days to file their initial beneficial ownership information reports with FinCEN after receiving actual or public notice that their creation or registration is effective.
    • As indicated in the alert titled “Notice Regarding National Small Business United v. Yellen, No. 5:22-cv-01448 (N.D. Ala.)”, Plaintiffs in National Small Business United v. Yellen, No. 5:22-cv-01448 (N.D. Ala.)—namely, Isaac Winkles, reporting companies for which Isaac Winkles is the beneficial owner or applicant, the National Small Business Association, and members of the National Small Business Association (as of March 1, 2024)—are not currently required to report their beneficial ownership information to FinCEN at this time.

On Tuesday, December 3, 2024, in the case of Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., et al. v. Garland, et al., No. 4:24-cv-00478 (E.D. Tex.), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, issued an order granting a nationwide preliminary injunction. On December 23, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted a stay of the district court’s preliminary injunction enjoining the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) entered in the case of Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. v. Garland, pending the outcome of the Department of the Treasury’s ongoing appeal of the district court’s order. Texas Top Cop Shop is only one of several cases that have challenged the CTA pending before courts around the country. Several district courts have denied requests to enjoin the CTA, ruling in favor of the Department of the Treasury. The government continues to believe—consistent with the conclusions of the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern District of Virginia and the District of Oregon—that the CTA is constitutional. For that reason, the Department of Justice, on behalf of the Department of the Treasury, filed a Notice of Appeal on December 5, 2024 and separately sought of stay of the injunction pending that appeal with the district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Rembaum’s Association Roundup’s prior article, published December 11th, regarding the nationwide injunction, can be found HERE.

Posted on

Disability Discrimination Under the Fair Housing Act

Disability Discrimination Under the Fair Housing Act

The Lesser Known Yet Equally Important “Reasonable Modification” Request

Guest Columnist: Danielle M. Brennan, Esq. B.C.S. [Kaye Bender Rembaum]

As directors and managers of community associations, it is likely that you are very familiar with disability-related requests for reasonable accommodations under the Fair Housing Act, particularly requests for accommodation to pet restrictions so that a disabled person may have an assistance animal within the community. However, the failure to grant reasonable accommodations is not the only form of disability discrimination under the Fair Housing Act.

The Fair Housing Act also makes it unlawful for a housing provider to refuse to permit, at the expense of the disabled person, reasonable modifications of existing premises occupied or to be occupied by such person if such modifications may be necessary to afford such person full enjoyment of the premises. For example, reasonable modifications may include widening doorways to make rooms more accessible for persons in wheelchairs, installing grab bars in bathrooms, lowering kitchen cabinets to a height suitable for persons in wheelchairs, adding a ramp to make a primary entrance accessible for persons in wheelchairs, or altering a walkway to provide access to a common use area.

In order for an individual to be entitled to a reasonable modification under the Fair Housing Act, the individual must first make a request for a reasonable modification. An individual makes a reasonable modification request whenever he/she makes clear to the association that he/she is requesting permission to make a structural change to the premises because of his/her disability. Although the association may adopt and use specified forms and procedures for processing modification requests, the association cannot refuse a request because the individual does not use the specified form or follow the established procedures. All the individual needs to do is make the request, orally or in writing, in a manner that a reasonable person would understand to be a request for permission to make a structural change because of a disability.

As part of the request, the individual must (i) establish that he/she is disabled (i.e., the person has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities) if the disability is not already known to the association or readily apparent; (ii) describe the type of modification requested; and (iii) explain the relationship, or nexus, between the requested modification and the individual’s disability.

The association is required to provide a prompt response to a reasonable modification request. An undue delay in responding to a reasonable modification request may be deemed a failure to permit a reasonable modification. There is no clarity as to what constitutes a “prompt response” or “undue delay” for a reasonable modification. However, if we are to borrow from guidance from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development regarding reasonable accommodations under the Fair Housing Act, then a response should be issued within ten days.

The failure to permit a person with a disability to make a reasonable modification or the failure to promptly respond to a request for a reasonable modification is deemed discrimination under the Fair Housing Act. If discrimination is found to have occurred, the association may be subject to an injunction, forcing the association to permit the requested modification, and an award for damages, which may include punitive damages. In addition, violations of the Fair Housing Act are one of the few instances in which individual board members may be held personally liable for such violations. Given the potential for liability and the many factors which must be considered upon receiving such a request, the board must carefully evaluate a request for a reasonable modification in a timely manner and on a case-by-case basis.

The association cannot condition its approval of the requested modification upon the payment of a security deposit or the purchase of additional insurance and cannot insist that a particular contractor do the work. However, the association can require that the unit owner obtain any building permits needed to make the modification and that the work be performed in a workmanlike manner. From a practical perspective, there will need to be coordination between the association and the unit owner, for example, to obtain whatever permits may be required and to schedule the work, given that the modification may be made to the common areas owned by the homeowners’ association or the common elements controlled by the condominium association.

As to the modification itself, the disabled person is responsible for determining the type of modification and for payment of the costs of the modification. Generally, the association cannot insist on an alternative modification, particularly if the requested modification is to the interior of the unit. However, if the requested modification is to the common area or common elements, the association can propose an alternative modification (e.g., different type of modification, different placement, different design, etc.). However, if the association’s proposed alternative modification costs more than the modification requested by the disabled person, the association will be required to pay the difference.

Once the modification is installed, whether the disabled person or the association will be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the modification will depend upon where the modification is located and who is able to use the modification. As to modifications made to the common areas or common elements, if the modification is used exclusively by the disabled person, such person is responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the modification. However, if the modification is installed on the common areas or common elements which are normally maintained by the association and may be used by others, the association is responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of such modification under the Fair Housing Act.

Although some modifications to the interior of the unit must be restored if requested by the association when the disabled person vacates the unit, the association cannot require the disabled person to have a modification made to the common areas or the common elements removed and area restored.

Additionally, the Fair Housing Act controls over the provisions of the governing documents of the association and any requirements of Chapter 718, Florida Statutes. For example, even if the modification is a material alteration or substantial addition to the common elements or association property subject to membership approval under a community association’s governing documents and/or section 718.113(2)(a), Florida Statutes, such membership approval would not be required for a reasonable modification under the Fair Housing Act. However, the board still must approve the requested modification at a properly noticed board meeting, and the minutes of such meeting must reflect the board’s approval of same.

Regarding property insurance for modifications to a condominium’s common elements, section 718.111(11)(f), Florida Statutes, requires that the condominium association carry adequate property insurance for primary coverage of all portions of the condominium property, only excluding from such coverage the following which is the responsibility of the unit owner: 1) all personal property within the unit or limited common elements and 2) floor, wall, and ceiling coverings; electrical fixtures; appliances; water heaters; water filters; built-in cabinets and countertops; and window treatments (including curtains, drapes, blinds, hardware, and similar window treatment components); or replacements of any of the foregoing which are located within the boundaries of the unit and serve only such unit. Therefore, if modifications are not within the unit or the limited common elements serving the unit, the condominium association is responsible to carry property insurance for the modification and will be responsible for the reconstruction, repair, or replacement of the modification if it is damaged by an insurable event.

Finally and importantly, because there are so many ways for a board to create legal liability when handling reasonable modification and/or reasonable accommodation requests, the board and manager should absolutely involve the association’s attorney, particularly if the board is going to request additional information or deny the request. Simply asking the wrong question can create legal liability for an association, such as asking for additional information regarding a person’s disability when the disability is readily apparent. Because there are so many ways to misstep in this arena, significant caution is advised.

Reprinted with permission as it appears in the December 2024 issue of the Florida Community Association Journal.

Posted on

Corporate Transparency Act – Alert

ALERT!!

CORPORATE TRANSPARENCY ACT

Mandatory Registration Temporarily Stayed

Below is an update direct from the Federal Government’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCen)

In light of a recent federal court order, reporting companies are not currently required to file beneficial ownership information with FinCEN and are not subject to liability if they fail to do so while the order remains in force. However, reporting companies may continue to voluntarily submit beneficial ownership information reports.

The Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) plays a vital role in protecting the U.S. and international financial systems, as well as people across the country, from illicit finance threats like terrorist financing, drug trafficking, and money laundering. The CTA levels the playing field for tens of millions of law-abiding small businesses across the United States and makes it harder for bad actors to exploit loopholes in order to gain an unfair advantage.

On December 3, 2024, in the case of Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., et al. v. Garland, et al., No. 4:24-cv-00478 (E.D. Tex.), a federal district court in the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, issued an order granting a nationwide preliminary injunction that: (1) enjoins the CTA, including enforcement of that statute and regulations implementing its beneficial ownership information reporting requirements, and, specifically, (2) stays all deadlines to comply with the CTA’s reporting requirements. The Department of Justice, on behalf of the Department of the Treasury, filed a Notice of Appeal on December 5, 2024.

Texas Top Cop Shop is only one of several cases in which plaintiffs have challenged the CTA that are pending before courts around the country. Several district courts have denied requests to enjoin the CTA, ruling in favor of the Department of the Treasury. The government continues to believe—consistent with the conclusions of the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern District of Virginia and the District of Oregon—that the CTA is constitutional.

While this litigation is ongoing, FinCEN will comply with the order issued by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas for as long as it remains in effect. Therefore, reporting companies are not currently required to file their beneficial ownership information with FinCEN and will not be subject to liability if they fail to do so while the preliminary injunction remains in effect. Nevertheless, reporting companies may continue to voluntarily submit beneficial ownership information reports.

Posted on

Corporate Transparency Act – An Update

Corporate Transparency Act Update

A recent update from the United States Department of Treasury, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCen) provides an extension of time to comply with the requirements of the Corporate Transparency Act for the initial reporting deadlines but there are strict requirements regarding the applicability of the extension as discussed below.

FinCen, on October 29, 2024, extended the initial reporting deadlines to July 1, 2025, for associations in counties affected by Hurricane Milton where

    1. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) assistance is available; and
    2. IRS tax filing deadlines have been extended.

Associations in the following counties are subject to the extension:

Alachua, Baker, Bradford, Brevard, Broward, Charlotte, Citrus, Clay, Collier, Columbia, DeSoto, Dixie, Duval, Flagler, Gilchrist, Glades, Hamilton, Hardee, Hendry, Hernando, Highlands, Hillsborough, Indian River, Lafayette, Lake, Lee, Levy, Madison, Manatee, Marion, Martin, Miami-Dade, Monroe, Nassau, Okeechobee, Orange, Osceola, Palm Beach, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, Putman, Sarasota, Seminole, St. Johns, St. Lucie, Sumter, Suwannee, Taylor, Union, and Volusia.

Please click on the button below to read the FinCen bulletin.

View the FinCen Bulletin
Posted on

MySafe Florida Condominium Pilot Program Launching

MySafe Florida Condominium Pilot Program Launching

Not with a Condominium Association? Please feel free to share with colleagues who are! The information below is a copy of the email from the State’s program.

The Department of Financial Services is thrilled to announce the upcoming launch of the My Safe Florida Condominium Pilot Program on November 14, 2024! This new initiative aims to enhance the safety and resilience of condominiums across Florida, and we are excited to invite potential applicants like you to take part in this important program.

The My Safe Florida Condominium Pilot Program is designed to help condominium associations strengthen their properties against the impacts of natural disasters, such as hurricanes, by offering access to critical resources, safety improvements, and financial assistance. Whether you’re looking to improve your condominium’s wind resistance or apply for funding to offset improvements, this program is here to support you.

Key Program Details:

    • Launch Date: November 14, 2024.
    • Who can apply: Condominium Associations in the state of Florida located within the Program’s Service Area.
    • What’s offered to Eligible Condominium Associations: 1. A no-cost wind mitigation inspection and report, which includes recommendations for improvements and potential insurance premium savings. 2. A Grant Award to reimburse condominium associations following the completion of authorized improvements.

We encourage you to stay tuned for more updates as we get closer to the official launch date. In the meantime, be sure to check our website https://mysafeflcondo.com/ for more information on eligibility requirements, program benefits, and how to get ready to apply.

This is a wonderful opportunity to improve your condominium’s safety while contributing to a stronger, more resilient Florida. We look forward to welcoming you to the program!

Posted on

A Differing Tale of Two Terminating Condominiums

A Differing Tale of Two Terminating Condominiums

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

Corporate Transparency Act Compliance and How to File Your Association’s Report

Corporate Transparency Act Compliance and How to File Your Association's Report

The Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) was enacted in 2021. The CTA requires that on or before January 1, 2025, all cooperatives, condominiums and homeowner’s associations (collectively, “Associations”) are required to file certain information with the US Treasury department, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”). This law requires businesses that are registered with their state’s division of corporations, which includes Community Associations, to provide information on its ‘Beneficial Owners’ which are the decision makers, meaning board members, and officers (and possibly managers, too). Your Association will need to comply with the registration requirements of the CTA or face significant penalties. In addition, any changes to the board members or officers must be reported by updating the information on FinCEN within 30 days of the change.

1) What is the CTA? The CTA aims to combat illicit activity including tax fraud, money laundering, and financing for terrorism by capturing more ownership information for specific U.S. businesses operating in or accessing the country’s market. Under the new legislation, businesses that meet certain criteria must submit a Beneficial Ownership Information (“BOI”) Report to the U.S. Department of Treasury’s FinCEN, providing details identifying the decision-making individuals for the Association.

2) What information will each Association have to report? An Association will have to report:

    • Its legal name;
    • Any trade names, “doing business as” (d/b/a), or “trading as” (t/a) names;
    • The current street address of its principal place of business if that address is in the United States (for example, company’s headquarters. The company address must be a U.S. street address and cannot be a P.O. box;
    • Its jurisdiction of formation or registration (State of Organization) and the date of formation;
    • Its Taxpayer Information Number; and
    • Any beneficial owner/board member (the decision maker).

3) Who is considered a beneficial owner of an Association? A beneficial owner of the Association is defined as an individual who either directly or indirectly exercises substantial control over the Association company. The Association will have to provide:

    • The individual’s name;
    • Date of birth;
    • Residential address; and
    • A copy of an acceptable identification document such as a passport or U.S. driver’s license.

Individuals who meet one of the following criteria are considered to exercise substantial control over the Association:

    • the individual is a senior officer;
    • the individual has authority to appoint or remove certain officers or a majority of directors of the Association, such as developers of a developer controlled Association;
    • the individual is an important decision-maker; or
    • the individual has any other form of substantial control over the Association.

4) When should an Association file this report? When should our report be updated?

    • An Association created or registered to do business before January 1, 2024, will have until January 1, 2025, to file its initial BOI report.
    • An Association created or registered in 2024 will have 90 calendar days to file after receiving actual or public notice that its creation or registration is effective.
    • An Association created or registered on or after January 1, 2025, will have 30 calendar days to file after receiving actual or public notice that its creation or registration is effective.
    • Importantly, there are continuing registration requirements as well. Anytime there is any change in the beneficial ownership it must be reported to FinCin by updating the BOI report within 30 days of the event. This applies to such events as a mid-year replacement board member or officer and possibly after each year’s annual election, too.

5) Are there any penalties associated with not filing or missing the deadlines?

Yes. As specified in the Corporate Transparency Act, a person who willfully violates the BOI reporting requirements may be subject to civil penalties of up to $500 for each day that the violation continues, plus it is adjusted annually for inflation.

Both individuals and corporate entities can be held liable for willful violations such as a failure to comply with the FinCEN registration requirements. This can also include not only an individual who actually files (or attempts to file) false information with FinCEN, but also anyone who willfully provides the filer with false information to report.

6) Are there third-party service providers to help Associations with filing?

Yes. Associations may use third-party service providers to submit beneficial ownership information reports. Third-party service providers will have the ability to submit the reports via FinCEN’s BOI E-Filing website or an Application Programming Interface (API).

While there are many third-party providers which can be located by doing a simple Google search, at this time we cannot recommend one company over another. Therefore, we are merely sharing the following information which we discovered through our own Google search. Four companies assisting with the CTA filings include:

There are others, too.

We understand that some management companies may also offer this service for an additional fee. Whether to consider using your current management company or a qualified third-party provider is a Board business decision.

Please note that Kaye Bender Rembaum, P.L., will not be performing any FinCen registrations.

7) Can an Association file on its own, without the use of a third-party?

Yes, an Association may file on its own electronically through a secure filing system via FinCEN’s BOI E-Filing website (https://boiefiling.fincen.gov). There is no fee for submitting your BOI to FinCEN. An Association can access the form by going to FinCEN’s BOI E-Filing website (https://boiefiling.fincen.gov) and select “File BOIR.”

However, due to the potential liability exposure to the Association and possibly individuals, we do not recommend that an Association undertake compliance with this act by filing on their own.

8) Are there any efforts undertaken to exempt community associations from the registration requirements?

In July, 2024, the Community Associations Institute (CAI) Board of Trustees approved filing a lawsuit to exempt and protect community associations from burdensome requirements outlined in the Corporate Transparency Act. On October 11, 2024 there was a hearing on CAI’s request for a preliminary injunction against the U.S. Department of Treasury to try and exempt Community Associations from the burdensome reporting requirements of the CTA. A ruling is expected in the next few weeks, but not guaranteed. As such, for now, compliance with the CTA by January 1, 2025 remains required.

Posted on

2024 Legislative Clarifications for Board Members and Managers – An Update

2024 Legislative Clarifications For Board Members and Managers

The purpose of this article is to address the following:

    • Homeowners’ and condominium association board member certification requirements, certificate retention and continuing education requirements (all of which are quite different);
    • Condominium association and homeowners’ association hurricane protection requirements;
    • Clarify homeowners’ association website posting requirements and remind homeowners’ association board members of mandates from the 2024 legislation.

Chapter 718, F.S.: CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION BOARD MEMBER CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS, CERTIFICATE RETENTION AND CONTINUING EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS:

    • Each newly elected or appointed board member must submit to the secretary of the association the: (i) written certification AND (ii) educational certificate within 1 year before being elected or appointed or 90 days after the date of election or appointment.
    • Specifically, for the (i) written certification, all residential condominium board members must certify, in writing to the secretary of the association, that he or she has read the association’s declaration of condominium, articles of incorporation, bylaws, and current written policies; that he or she will work to uphold such documents and policies to the best of his or her ability; and that he or she will faithfully discharge his or her fiduciary responsibility to the association’s members.
    • For the (ii) educational certificate, condominium association board members must complete an educational curriculum that has been approved by the DBPR that is at least four hours long with certain mandated subjects.
    • A director of an association of a residential condominium who was elected or appointed before July 1, 2024, must comply with both written certification AND educational certificate requirements by June 30, 2025.
    • To reiterate, a director of an association of a residential condominium who was elected or appointed after July 1, 2024, must comply with both the written certification AND educational certificate requirement within 90 days after being elected or appointed to the board.
    • The written certification and/or educational certificate is valid for seven years after the date of issuance and does not have to be resubmitted as long as the director serves on the board without interruption during the seven-year period.
    • Continuing Education: In addition to the (i) written certification and (ii) educational certificate discussed above, one year after submission of the most recent written certification and educational certificate, and annually thereafter, a board member of an association of a residential condominium must submit to the secretary of the association a certificate of having satisfactorily completed at least one hour of continuing education administered by the division, or a division-approved condominium education provider, relating to any recent changes to this chapter and the related administrative rules during the past year.
    • Condominium association board members elected or appointed before July 1, 2024, have until June 30, 2025, to meet the new education curriculum requirement consisting of 1 hour of continuing education per year.
    • The condominium association must retain a director’s written certification and/or educational certificate for inspection by the members for seven years after a director’s election or the duration of the director’s uninterrupted tenure, whichever is longer.
    • Any director who fails to timely comply with the foregoing written certification and educational certificate requirements is suspended from service on the board until he or she complies.

Chapter 720, F.S.: HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION BOARD MEMBER CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS, CERTIFICATE RETENTION AND CONTINUING EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS:

    • Homeowners’ association board members elected or appointed to the board on or after July 1, 2024, must take a board certification course within 90-days after being elected or appointed to the board (no minimum time required, typically around two hours).
    • In addition, homeowners’ association board members must complete the education specific to newly elected or appointed directors at least every four years.
    • The DBPR approved educational curriculum specific to newly elected or appointed directors must include training relating to financial literacy and transparency, recordkeeping, levying of fines, and notice and meeting requirements.
    • In addition to the education course specific to newly elected or appointed board members, Homeowners’ association board members with fewer than 2,500 parcels in the association must take four hours of continuing education annually and if 2,500 parcels or more in the association, then eight hours of continuing education annually.
    • The homeowners’ association must retain each director’s written certification or educational certificate for inspection by the members for five years after the director’s election.
    • The ability of a recently elected or appointed homeowners’ association board member to simply submit a written certificate certifying that they read the association’s declaration of covenants, articles of incorporation, bylaws, and current written rules and policies; that he, or she, will work to uphold such documents and policies to the best of his or her ability; and that he, or she, will faithfully discharge his or her fiduciary duties to the association, is no longer an option to meet certification requirements as it has been removed from Section 720.3033, Florida Statutes.

HURRICANE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS:

    • Chapter 718, F.S.: Condominium Association Hurricane Protection Specifications. Each board of a residential condominium or mixed used condominium must adopt hurricane protection specifications for each building within the condominium operated by the association which may include color, style, and other factors deemed relevant by the board (please note that this provision used to apply to hurricane shutters but now applies to all hurricane protection).
    • Chapter 720, F.S.: Homeowners’ Association Hurricane Protection Specifications. The board or any architectural, construction improvement, or other similar committee of an association must adopt hurricane protection specifications for each structure or other improvement on a parcel governed by the association. The specifications may include the color and style of hurricane protection products and any other factor deemed relevant by the board. All specifications adopted by the board must comply with the applicable building code.

Chapter 720, F.S.: HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATIONS NEW WEBSITE / APP POSTING REQUIREMENTS FOR THOSE HOA’S REQUIRED TO HAVE A WEBSITE / APP:

HOA New Website: By January 1, 2025, an association with 100 or more parcels shall post several documents within its Official Records on its website or make available such documents through an application that can be downloaded on a mobile device.

    • HOA New Website Posting Requirement for Members’ Meetings– Notice of any scheduled meeting of the members and the agenda for the meeting, as required by Section 720.306, Florida Statutes, at least 14 days before such meeting. The notice must be posted in plain view on the homepage of the website or app, or on a separate subpage of the website or app labeled “Notices” which is conspicuously visible and linked from the homepage. The association shall also post on its website or app, any document to be considered and voted on by the members during the meeting, or any document listed on the meeting agenda, at least seven days before the meeting at which such document or information within the document will be considered.
    • HOA New Website Posting Requirement for Board Meetings– Notice of any board meeting, the agenda, and any other document required for such meeting must be posted on the website or app no later than the date required for such notice.

REMEMBER, EVERY HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION BOARD MUST DO THE FOLLOWING:

    • Adopt hurricane protection standards/rules as discussed above.
    • Provide copies of the rules and covenants to every association member before October 1, 2024, or post same on the association’s website and send notice to each member at their address used for official notices as to where they can locate them.
    • Adopt rules and regulations governing official record retention.

(Written by Jeffrey Rembaum (Kaye Bender Rebaum) and reprinted with permission from the September 2024 edition of the “Florida Community Association Journal“.)

Posted on

Since When Should the HOA Clubhouse Not Come With Your Home Purchase?

Since When Should the HOA Clubhouse Not Come With Your Home Purchase?

The Florida Legislature Is Called Upon To Act To Put A Stop To Developers Who Require HOA Members To Purchase Their Community Clubhouse And/Or Clubhouse Operations After Turnover

Building property subject to a homeowners’ association (HOA) should not entitle a developer to be in a position to financially gouge the association’s members month after month by using the assessment regime to continually line its pockets. Essentially, that is what association member Gundel argued in court against his association’s developer, Avatar Properties, who built out the Solivita Homeowners’ Association. In this HOA the club facilities, including a spa and fitness center, dining venues, indoor and outdoor pools, parks, tennis courts, and more, were not subjected to the declaration, but rather remained under the exclusive ownership and control of Avatar, the developer, and therefore were not a part of the common areas. This means that as a part of the turnover process, the developer was not required to turn over the club facilities and operations to the now member-controlled HOA but rather retained ownership and control of those facilities. Can you imagine paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for a beautiful new home in a gorgeous community, which includes access to a sprawling clubhouse with dining rooms, spas, and all of the amenities and yet, even though those club amenities are in the middle of the community, they are  owned by a corporation not subject to Chapter 720, Florida Statutes, in any fashion, with the intent being that such club amenities will never be under the control of the HOA’s members?

In the case, Avatar Properties Inc. v. Gundel, Case no. 6D23-170, decided June 22, 2023, by Florida’s Sixth District Court of Appeal, the Court (which, in our opinion, was the correct decision) explained that within the Solivita Declaration, the developer included language for each association member to pay as a part of the annual assessment a sum of money unilaterally determined by the club operator for both club operations and what also was just pure profit as argued by owner Gundel.

The Court explained that the assessment imposed by Avatar (the developer) for the mandatory club membership had two components. One component was the amount required for club expenses to be shared proportionately by each resident. The second component was for a membership fee that represented, according to the Court, an annual profit charge to each owner that was due and payable to Avatar. In fact, if a member did not pay, then their home could even be subject to the lien and foreclosure process by the association.

In the trial court’s summary judgment hearing, the Court ruled in Gundel’s favor, finding that assessments for the club, which constituted profit, were improper because pursuant to Section 720.308 of the Florida Statutes, assessments cannot be levied for profits, but only for expenses.

In response to this case and possibly for other reasons, at least one developer designed a new HOA community with a big difference: it made the clubhouse building and the dirt upon which it was constructed to be a part of the common areas of the HOA. Then through a complicated process laid out in the declaration, the developer provided that the clubhouse operations were not owned by the HOA and that after turnover of control of the HOA to the members, the members must purchase the “operations” of the club at what many consider a grossly inflated price. Should the association members decide not to make the purchase, then the developer maintains the right to sell the club operations to a third party for which the assessment paying members will be at the financial mercy of the club operator forever. No doubt the association membership is already paying for the clubhouse operations through their monthly assessments, and in our opinion to now require the membership to spend millions of dollars to buy those clubhouse operations is just plain wrong!

Let’s break this alternate scheme down. Although previously disclosed in the declaration and its attached club plan, either i) the association membership agrees to purchase the club operations at an inflated price for millions of dollars (and for what—the right to operate their own clubhouse?);  or (ii)  the developer retains the right to sell the club operations to a third party who will then be entitled to charge members assessments to both fund the operations and, like any business, earn a profit for doing what should have been handed over to the membership as a part of the turnover process. After all, what clubhouse operator is going to operate at cost and not expect a profit? Either way, the members lose, lose, and lose.

This type of plan ultimately hurts owners as it will likely create a five figure per member assessment obligation either in the nature of paying back the loan necessary to purchase the clubhouse operations or to be forced to pay a new clubhouse operator. The only money a post-turnover association member should have to pay for their clubhouse operations is the actual money expended for operations (i.e., what it costs to provide the restaurant, spa and pool services, etc.). Common area facilities were never designed or even contemplated to be a continual profit center for a developer or developer-related entity.

Worse still, it appears that these types of schemes have no room for negotiation. The purchase price has been pre-determined by the developer years ago when it initially recorded the community’s governing documents. While the developer can argue it is all disclosed in the governing documents (and therefore proposed buyers/future members have notice of this issue), it takes a fairly sophisticated legal mind to understand how this process is going to work. In this author’s experience, the financial obligations associated with either having to buy the clubhouse and/or the clubhouse operations is often quite a surprise to the members.

In short, requiring the membership to purchase the clubhouse operations based on an unreasonable financial formula requires that the association borrow the millions of dollars necessary to pay the developer. In the end the obligation to pay the loan will be wrapped up in the assessment regime which means, once again just like in the Avatar case, the developer is improperly requiring the association to levy assessments for the developer’s (or third-party club operator’s) gross profit rather than only the legitimate expenses as contemplated by Section 720.308 of the Florida Statutes.

In our opinion, it is evident the Florida legislature needs to protect the citizens of the State of Florida by declaring such schemes unlawful. Clearly, the clubhouse operations should be turned over to the association membership as part of the turnover process, and the membership should not be charged for that which they should already own. If it is the clubhouse structure issue which needs to be purchased because it was not included in the overall purchase price of the houses within the community, then certainly the developer is entitled to recoup its legitimate expenses associated with the buildout; but post turnover the developer should not be entitled to profit at the expense of the association membership. If the developer wants to profit from the clubhouse in the clubhouse operations, then certainly the developer could have included those sums within the purchase price of each member’s home. Their decision not to do so and to artificially deflate the price of a home as a result thereof should not be allowed.

One cannot help but wonder if these types of clubhouse schemes could rise to the level of violating Florida’s Deceptive Trade and Practices Act as set out in Chapter 501, Fla. Stat. In fact section 501.24, Fla. Stat., provides in relevant part that unfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful. While the developer can argue that the clubhouse scheme is fully disclosed, it is our opinion the owners can certainly argue that this practice is, at best,  unfair and at worst unconscionable.

Board members and members who live in an association with these types of obligations are strongly urged to discuss their options with competent legal counsel so as to make informed decisions whether to buy the clubhouse and/or the clubhouse operations or consider filing a lawsuit against the association’s developer, arguing as Gundel did in the Avatar case, that this type of profit making activity is unlawful. Also, it must be noted that while the Sixth District Court of Appeal fully agreed with the outcome of the trial court, it certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court regarding the matter. However, the Florida Supreme Court declined review. Therefore, it appears the Gundel opinion remains valid. Nevertheless, it does not go far enough to protect association members from having to purchase their clubhouse and/or clubhouse operations after turnover. Therefore, the Florida legislature needs to do its job and protect the citizens of the state by outlawing this process altogether and requiring an HOA developer to turn over the HOA clubhouse and all of its operations to the association as a part of turnover process.

© 2024 All rights reserved​

Kaye Bender Rembaum, P.L.