rembaumlaw | Rembaum's Association Roundup

October 1, 2022October 14, 2022

Condominium Unit Owner Insurance – The Risks of Not Purchasing Insurance for Your Unit

Condominium Unit Owner Insurance

The risks of not purchasing insurance for your condominium unit

Do you think you do not need condominium insurance because your condominium association has it? You would be so very wrong if you do! It has happened more times than I can count—the supply line that feeds the toilet ruptures in the upstairs unit while the owner of the unit is out of town, the upstairs unit owner forgot that he or she started to fill the tub and it overflows, or the upstairs unit owner ignores a broken toilet, all of which result in water flowing down into the unit below. Next thing you know, the remediation workers arrive and start ripping out the soaked, damaged drywall in the units below and after cutting holes in the drywall use their industrial-sized blowers to dry things out to prevent mold.

Meanwhile, the downstairs unit owners want to have a “word” with the upstairs unit owner to discuss who is going to pay for the repairs. They demand a copy of the upstairs unit owner’s insurance policy. The owner of the upstairs unit where the leak occurred smiles and explains, “The condominium association has insurance. They’ll take care of it.” Right? Wrong! Even if the condominium association has the duty of repair to portions of the damaged property, typically the damaged common elements, the upstairs unit owner is not off the hook because both the condominium association and its insurance company can often “subrogate” their financial damages against the upstairs unit owner and so, too, can the downstairs unit owners and their insurance companies. At the end of the day, the upstairs owner who caused the damages could have significant financial liability. (In plain English, to “subrogate” a claim means that one party goes after the other for their financial damages for having caused the damage in the first place.)

So, now that I have your attention, most especially if you are a unit owner who does not have insurance for your unit—in the example described above, not only can the upstairs unit owner bear significant financial liability, but even their condominium unit is at risk of being foreclosed to satisfy a judgment against them—and there is no homestead protection! Because the upstairs unit owner decided not to purchase insurance, he could actually lose his unit in a foreclosure. The following explanation is why:

By way of oversimplification, the Condominium Act, more specifically, §718.111(11)(f), Florida Statutes, requires the condominium association to insure everything that the unit owner is not responsible to insure. The unit owner is responsible to insure

… all personal property within the unit or limited common elements, and 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… the association is not obligated to pay for any reconstruction or repair expenses due to property loss to any improvements installed by a current or former owner of the unit or by the developer if the improvement benefits only the unit for which it was installed and is not part of the standard improvements installed by the developer on all units as part of original construction, whether or not such improvement is located within the unit.

But, however, the unit owner’s insurance policy, typically referred to as an “HO-6 policy,” not only includes coverage for the items set forth above plus other personal items, but also includes liability coverage for having caused damages to the condominium property.

§718.111(11)(j)1–2, Florida Statutes, makes patently clear that

A unit owner is responsible for the costs of repair or replacement of any portion of the condominium property not paid by insurance proceeds if such damage is caused by intentional conduct, negligence, or failure to comply with the terms of the declaration or the rules of the association by a unit owner, the members of his or her family, unit occupants, tenants, guests, or invitees, without compromise of the subrogation rights of the insurer.

The provisions… regarding the financial responsibility of a unit owner for the costs of repairing or replacing other portions of the condominium property also apply to the costs of repair or replacement of personal property of other unit owners or the association, as well as other property, whether real or personal, which the unit owners are required to insure. (emphasis added.)

Furthermore, also pursuant to §718.111(11)(g)2, Florida Statutes,

…unit owners are responsible for the cost of reconstruction of any portions of the condominium property for which the unit owner is required to carry property insurance [set out above], or for which the unit owner is responsible, and the cost of any such reconstruction work undertaken by the association is chargeable to the unit owner and enforceable as an assessment and may be collected in the manner provided for the collection of assessments pursuant to § 718.116, Fla. Stat. (emphasis added.)

§718.116, Florida Statutes, is the unit fore-closure section of the Condominium Act which explains the steps necessary to foreclose against an owner’s unit for failing to pay assessments.

In condominium living, the general rule is that the party who has the duty of purchasing insurance for a particular portion of the condominium property also has the primary duty to repair the damages to such portion regardless of fault (unless the condominium association has opted out of that regime by a vote of the unit owners, which is a rarity). But, simply because the condominium association has insurance and may have that primary duty of repair after the insurable casualty event, that does not mean that the negligent unit owner that caused the damage will not be the primary target for reimbursement for expenses incurred by the condominium association’s insurance company or by the condominium association for its deductible and related expenses. The same concept applies for the downstairs unit owners, who could seek reimbursement from the upstairs unit owner for any necessary expense incurred because the upstairs unit owner was negligent.

There are typically two parts to the HO-6 insurance policy, the primary coverage for personal losses and the other for liability coverage. Condominium associations should consider amending their declaration to require every unit owner to have both personal and liability coverage, and at a minimum, liability coverage. Your condominium association should discuss this requirement with the condominium association’s insurance agent as well as review the possibility of amending the declaration of condominium with legal counsel.

Anytime a condominium association experiences a casualty event, in addition to reporting the claim to the insurance carrier, usually through the condominium association’s insurance agent, the condominium association should be in touch with its legal counsel to explore all the different aspects necessary to both repair and reimburse the condominium association for its financial losses. At the end of the day, owning a condominium unit and not having purchased insurance is similar to taking a rowboat out on a rough sea day without life preservers.

September 19, 2022October 14, 2022

Defibrillators | You Better Check Your Local Code of Ordinances!

DEFIBRILLATORS | You Better Check Your Local Code of Ordinances!

More and more, local governments are providing for additional requirements regarding automated external defibrillators (“AED”). An AED is a portable medical instrument that delivers an electrical impulse to the heart to disrupt and correct an otherwise fatal irregular heartbeat (arrhythmia) and allows a normal rhythm to resume. These local government requirements may mandate installation of an AED and other life-saving equipment, as well as additional requirements which must be followed.

Specifically, the Broward County Amendments to the Florida Fire Prevention Code (“FFPC”) now require community associations to purchase and install both an AED and Stop the Bleed Kits (SBKs) on every other floor, starting with the first floor if the residential building is five or more stories. According to the FFPC, a 10-story building must have these devices installed on the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th and 9th floors before October 24, 2023. Both AED and SBK devices must also be verified on an annual basis. The Broward County Amendments to the FFPC include other important regulations concerning placement, signage, housing, maintenance, mandatory periodic training and other requirements. Additionally, the person offering AED assistance must contact 9-1-1 immediately prior to or immediately upon use thereof.

To read these Broward County Amendment to the FFPC, CLICK HERE.

Regarding the use of an AED in general, according to the American Heart Association, sudden cardiac arrest (“SCA”) is a leading cause of death in the United States. It is estimated that more than 350,000 lives are taken each year due to the abrupt loss of heart function. However, with technological advances, the number of deaths due to SCA have been lowered through the use of anAED.. Although AEDs have been credited with saving countless lives by making it possible for non-medical individuals to respond to a medical emergency, the question for your community association to ask is: “Is the liability worth the risk?”

The purchase and availability of AEDs is primarily controlled by state and federal laws and regulations, and as explained above, more and more local governments are enacting additional installation and compliance procedures. Pursuant to Florida law, AEDs are required to be installed in public schools, dental offices, and assisted living facilities. AEDs are optional in state parks and state owned or leased facilities. While generally, there is no requirement that community associations in Florida install AED devices on association property and/or association fitness facilities, that is not always the case, most especially for Broward County.

When installing AED devices, associations must ensure that all parties (i.e., property management, board of directors, residents, and any other authorized user) understand the potential liability associated with the use of an AED and the protections afforded to them under Florida law.

“The Cardiac Arrest Survival Act” (“Cardiac Act”), codified in section 768.1325 of the Florida Statutes, was enacted by the Legislature in order to encourage consumer purchase, placement, and use of AEDs. The Cardiac Act only applies to situations in which an AED is used to resuscitate an individual. In situations not involving an AED, the “Good Samaritan Act” codified in section 768.13 of the Florida Statutes applies. The Good Samaritan Act provides that:

“Any person, including those licensed to practice medicine, who gratuitously and in good faith renders emergency care or treatment…at the scene of an emergency outside of a hospital, doctor’s office, or other place having proper medical equipment, without objection of the injured victim[s], shall not be held liable for any civil damages… where the person acts as an ordinary reasonably prudent person would have acted under the same or similar circumstances.”

The Cardiac Act shields the AED’s owner and its operator who used it in an effort to render aide from liability in the event of a perceived medical emergency. A perceived medical emergency occurs when a reasonable person believes that an individual is experiencing a life-threatening medical condition involving the heart that requires an immediate medical response. Pursuant to the Cardiac Act, the user of an AED is immune from liability for any resulting harm from the use or attempted use on the victim if:

1. 1. There is a perceived medical emergency; and
  2. No objection is made by the victim against the use of the device on their person.

The Cardiac Act further extends immunity to community associations organized under Chapters 617, 718, 719, 720, 721, and 723 of the Florida Statutes. However, the shield of immunity afforded to community associations can be potentially pierced if the harm caused to the victim was due to the failure of the association to properly maintain and test the AED device. There could also be local government requirements which require proper adherence, too. Additionally, immunity will not be granted to the association if the harm was due to the association’s failure to provide appropriate training to the employee or agent of the association when the employee or agent was the person who actually used the device on the victim. However, training by the association will not be required if any of the following is met:

1. 1. The AED device is equipped with audible, visual, or written instructions on its use, including any such visual or written instructions posted on or adjacent to the device; OR
  2. The employee or agent was not an employee or agent who would have been reasonably expected to use the device; OR
  3. The period of time elapsing between the engagement of the person as an employee or agent and the occurrence of the harm, or between the acquisition of the device and the occurrence of the harm in any case in which the device was acquired after engagement of the employee or agent, was not a reasonably sufficient period in which to provide the training.

Even though training may not be required for one of the reasons set forth above, common sense dictates that any key personnel, such as the staff in charge of athletic activities and the manager, should be trained in the use of the AED device. In regard to where the AED should be installed, the Cardiac Act does not provide guidance. Again, common sense dictates it should be in a visible area. Also, an insurer cannot exclude damages resulting from the use of an AED from coverage under a general liability policy issued to the community association.

In relation to immunity extended to “the person,” the Cardiac Act further provides that the user will not be immune from liability if:

1. 1. The harm was caused by user’s willful or criminal misconduct, gross negligence, reckless disregard or misconduct, or a conscious, flagrant indifference to the rights or safety of the victim who was harmed; OR
  2. The person who used the AED on the victim is a licensed or certified health professional who used the AED device while acting within the scope of the license or certification of the professional and within the scope of the employment or agency of the professional; OR
  3. The person is a hospital, clinic, or other entity whose primary purpose is providing health care directly to patients, and the harm was caused by an employee or agent of the entity who used the device while acting within the scope of the employment or agency of the employee or agent; OR
  4. The person is an acquirer of the device who leased the device to a health care entity, or who otherwise provided the device to such entity for compensation without selling the device to the entity, and the harm was caused by an employee or agent of the entity who used the device while acting within the scope of the employment or agency of the employee or agent; OR
  5. The person is the manufacturer of the device.

If an association decides to proceed with placement of an AED device on association property, then the board should consider adopting sufficient policies which address the following: (1) the location of the AED device, (2) notification procedure should the AED be removed from its designated location to a secondary location on a temporary basis, (3) maintenance and testing of the AED, (4) authorized users, (5) training for the authorized users, (6) written instructions posted next to the device that provide a “how to” in case a trained user is not available, and (7) regular notice to the owners as to the AED device’s availability, location, and identification of trained staff and owners. Minimally, any association that provides athletic activities for its members should seriously consider owning an AED device.

Should you have any further questions about whether or not your local government requires installation of AED’s and other life-saving equipment please contact your association’s attorney.

September 6, 2022September 6, 2022

Crime Pays: HUD Takes More Action to Protect Some But Not All Felons

CRIME PAYS | HUD Takes More Action to Protect Some But Not All Felons

What you need to know regarding owner and tenant applications

Imagine this: Harold Homeowner is selling his house located in your community association. Billy Buyer makes application to the board to purchase the unit. However, he is denied because he is a felon with a dark past. Next thing you know, your association is under federal investigation for Federal Fair Housing violations and exposed to tens, if not hundreds of thousands, of dollars of fines. If you think this can’t happen, think again!

Generally speaking, people with criminal records are not a protected class under the Fair Housing Act of 1968. The Act made it illegal to discriminate against people from renting or buying a home, securing a mortgage, or seeking housing assistance on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, and familial status. On April 4, 2016, HUD’s Office of General Counsel published a memo titled “Guidance on Application of Fair Housing Act Standards to the Use of Criminal Records by Providers of Housing and Real Estate-Related Transactions.” Then, on March 31, 2022, President Biden declared April 2022 as Second Chance Month, emphasizing the importance of helping persons who have had criminal involvement reenter society, reunite with their families, and find stable and safe homes. Just days later on April 12, 2022, HUD Secretary Fudge issued a memorandum instituting an agency-wide effort to review HUD’s programs, its funding recipients, and program participants to ensure they “are as inclusive as possible in favor of individuals with criminal pasts.” Excerpts from the June 10, 2022, HUD memo follow:

“Disparities throughout the United States’ criminal justice system are well established and persistent. Blacks represent roughly 13 percent of the total U.S. population but account for roughly 27 percent of all arrests. In 2019, the incarceration rate of Black males was 5.7 times that of White non-Hispanic males, while the incarceration rate of Black females was 1.7 times the rate of White non-Hispanic females. A recent study also reflects that Hispanics are incarcerated in state prisons at a rate that is 1.3 times the incarceration rate of White non-Hispanics. In addition, updated data shows that individuals with disabilities are also disproportionately impacted by the criminal justice system. Research shows that these disparities cannot be simply attributed to certain groups committing more crimes and are better explained by biases in the criminal justice system. These disparities extend to housing. Housing providers frequently employ policies or practices that exclude individuals with criminal involvement from housing, which should raise red flags for investigators.” [emphasis added]

On April 4, 2016, HUD’s Office of General Counsel issued its Guidance on Application of Fair Housing Act Standards to the Use of Criminal Records by Providers of Housing and Real Estate-Related Transactions. This guidance described how to assess claims of illegal discrimination under the Federal Fair Housing Act. It applies to a wide range of entities covered by the Act, including private landlords, management companies, condominium associations or cooperatives, third-party screening companies, HUD-subsidized housing providers, and public entities that operate, administer, or fund housing or that enact ordinances that restrict access to housing based on criminal involvement. HUD advises that using criminal history to screen, deny lease renewal, evict, or otherwise exclude individuals from housing may be illegal under the Fair Housing Act under three different theories of liability:

i) discriminatory intent,
ii) discriminatory effects, and
iii) refusal to make reasonable accommodations.

Discriminatory Intent: Claims that a housing provider has used criminal records or other criminal history information to discriminate intentionally in violation of the Act should be investigated in a manner similar to other allegations of intentional discrimination. Criminal records or other criminal history information may be a pretext for unequal treatment of individuals because of race, color, national origin, disability, or another protected characteristic.

“Examples of evidence that would support a finding of reasonable cause to believe that disparate treatment occurred include (not an exhaustive list):

- - - A housing provider routinely advises Native American applicants about a criminal records screening policy but does not advise White applicants about the policy.
    - A housing provider applied a criminal background screening policy to a Black applicant but did not apply the policy to a White applicant.
    - A housing provider rejected a Hispanic applicant based on his criminal record but rented to a White applicant with a comparable criminal record.
    - A property manager discouraged a Black applicant with a criminal record from applying, saying the individual’s record would likely lead to a rejection, but encouraged a White individual with a comparable criminal record to apply, saying that it was possible the record would not turn up and offering the White individual an application form.
    - A housing provider evicted a Black tenant who was convicted of a crime but did not evict a White tenant who was convicted of a similar crime.
    - After learning that an applicant was previously homeless and hospitalized for treatment of a mental health condition, a management company departed from its standard procedures and conducted a criminal background screening of the applicant.
    - A locality applies a crime-free ordinance requiring the eviction of criminally involved residents in a neighborhood with a significant Black or Hispanic population but does not apply the ordinance in neighborhoods that are predominantly populated by White households.”

DISCRIMINATORY EFFECT: [author’s note—These are disparate impact claims, meaning the housing provider did not mean to intentionally discriminate, but the effect of the decision resulted in discrimination.] Claims that a housing provider’s policy or practice concerning criminal background screening or other criminal history information creates an unjustified discriminatory effect in violation of the Act should be investigated using the analysis described in the 2016 Guidance. The three steps to a discriminatory effects analysis follow.

“Investigators must gather evidence regarding whether the challenged criminal history policy or practice actually or predictably results in a disparate impact on a protected class. This involves 1) identifying the housing provider’s relevant practices or policies, both written and in practice, and 2) identifying statistics which show whether the identified policies actually or predictably result in a disparate impact on a protected class.

If a policy denies tenancy to anyone with a felony arrest or conviction over the past 10 years, the investigator should focus on felony conviction and arrest data over the past 10 years for the relevant populations. For example, data showing that Hispanics consist of 20 percent of the respondent’s applicants but 70 percent of those excluded due to a criminal record policy is evidence that the criminal record screening policy has a disproportionate impact on Hispanic applicants. Data showing that Black individuals comprise 65 percent of the housing provider’s tenants, but 95 percent of those evicted under a policy to evict based on an arrest indicates that the policy to evict for an arrest has a disproportionate impact on Black tenants. If the policy is necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest, investigators should gather information and analyze whether the same interest could be served by another practice that has a less discriminatory effect. If so, respondent’s defense fails.” [emphasis added]

Relevant individualized evidence might include the facts or circumstances surrounding the criminal conduct; the age of the individual at the time of the conduct; evidence that the individual has maintained a good tenant history before and/or after the conviction or conduct; and evidence of rehabilitation efforts.

FAILURE TO MAKE A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION: “For example, a reasonable accommodation to a criminal background screening policy or practice may be required when there is evidence that the individual’s disability contributed to the criminal conduct at issue, and there are mitigating circumstances that eliminate or significantly reduce the risk of harm to others or property, such as improvements resulting from previous on ongoing therapy or treatment. (The Fair Housing Act provides that the current illegal use of controlled substances is not considered a disability under the Act. Additionally, the Act does not protect a person whose tenancy would constitute a “direct threat” to the health and safety of other individuals or result in substantial physical damage to the property of others, unless the threat can be eliminated or significantly reduced by reasonable accommodation.) The housing provider thus must have reliable, objective evidence that a person with a disability currently poses a direct threat that cannot be significantly reduced before excluding them from housing on that basis.”

Many questions result from this particular theory of liability. Is HUD saying that if the felon had a recognized disability under the Act that contributed to criminal behavior then the criminal behavior should be overlooked? At a minimum, it should be considered by the housing provider. The June 10, 2022, HUD Memo concludes with “TIPS from HUD” as follows:

“PRIVATE HOUSING PROVIDERS SHOULD CONSIDER NOT USING CRIMINAL HISTORY TO SCREEN TENANTS FOR HOUSING. If housing providers choose to use criminal background screening policies or practices, they should consider taking the following steps to avoid potential violation of the Fair Housing Act:

- - - Have a written criminal background screening policy that is made available to all applicants.
    - Ensure the housing provider can justify their policy with reliable evidence showing that it actually assists in protecting resident safety and/or property.
    - Ensure that any policy considers the nature, severity, and recency of criminal conduct.
    - Avoid the use of third-party screening companies that utilize algorithms.
    - Before making an adverse decision related to an applicant’s or tenant’s criminal involvement, provide the applicant or tenant with the criminal record, indicate which specific part of the record may form the basis of an adverse decision, and give the applicant or tenant the opportunity to correct inaccurate information or explain extenuating circumstances related to that record.
    - Conduct an individualized assessment that considers relevant mitigating information beyond that contained in an individual’s criminal record, as this is likely to have a less discriminatory effect than categorical exclusions that do not take such additional information into account. Relevant individualized evidence might include: the facts or circumstances surrounding the criminal conduct; the age of the individual at the time of the conduct; how long ago the criminal conduct occurred, evidence that the individual has maintained a good tenant history before and/or after the conviction or conduct; and evidence of rehabilitation efforts.
    - Housing providers must ensure that that they are not engaging in disparate treatment in any individualized review process. One study found that when housing providers used discretionary criminal record screening policies—or policies that evaluated prospective tenants on a “case by case” basis—they favored White applicants over similarly situated Black applicants 55 percent of the time.”

The memo concludes with this statement: “We will continue to work collaboratively to ensure that the Fair Housing Act’s protections are realized by all protected classes.” Thus, any reader of the HUD memo can only conclude that HUD clearly intends to protect the felon when such felon is already a member of a protected class, which includes race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, and familial status.

In light of this far-reaching HUD memo, condominium and homeowner associations would be well advised to check in with their association’s attorney prior to denying an applicant based on their criminal past and when revising application procedures, too. A copy of the June 10, 2022, HUD memo can be found at:

https://kbrlegal.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/hud_2022june10_memo-felons.pdf

August 21, 2022August 21, 2022

Building Reporting plus Repost | Mandatory Condominium and Cooperative Building Inspections and Non-Waivable Reserve Requirements

Attention Condominiums & Cooperatives: 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: C lick HERE for the complimentary reporting form.

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/

In the event you missed our previous article about the new legislation passed in May 2022, see it in its entirety below:

Building Mandatory Condominium & Cooperative Building Inspections and Non-Waivable Reserve Requirements | SENATE BILL 4-D

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 (House) and in the Florida Senate (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 during 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 as those terms are defined in section 627.706, Florida Statutes, 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 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 e-mail, 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:

(a) Bear the seal and signature, or the electronic signature, of the licensed engineer or architect who performed the inspection.

(b) Indicate the manner and type of inspection forming the basis for the inspection report.

(c) 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.

(d) State whether unsafe or dangerous conditions, as those terms are defined in the Florida Building Code, were observed

(e) Recommend any remedial or preventive repair for any items that are damaged but are not substantial structural deterioration

(f) Identify and describe any items requiring further inspection.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENFORCEMENT:

A local enforcement agency may prescribe time lines 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 time frame 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 time frame, 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 section 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 section 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 section 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 section 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 section 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:

a. Roof
b. Load-bearing walls or other primary structural members
c. Floor
d. Foundation
e. Fireproofing and fire protection systems
f. Plumbing
g. Electrical systems
h. Waterproofing and exterior painting
i. Windows
j. 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 remain 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 UNIT 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 SIRS report. There is on-going debate amongst 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 section 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 report 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 e-mail, United States Postal Service, commercial delivery service, or hand delivery, at a physical address or e-mail 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. To name a few: (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.

Reprinted with permission | This article written by Jeffrey A. Rembaum, Esq., BCS will/appears in the August 2022 edition of the Florida Community Association Journal.

June 30, 2022June 30, 2022

Violation Remedies: Self-Help vs. Injunction | Which to Use

Violation Remedies: Self Help vs. Injunction

Which to Use

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

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

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.

Reprinted with permission | This article written by Jeffrey A. Rembaum, Esq., BCS will/appears in the July 2022 edition of the Florida Community Association Journal.

June 30, 2022June 30, 2022

Mandatory Condominium and Cooperative Building Inspections and Non-Waivable Reserve Requirements

Mandatory Condominium & Cooperative Building Inspections and Non-Waivable Reserve Requirements | SENATE BILL 4-D

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

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:

SUBSTANTIAL STRUCTURAL DETERIORATION:

MILESTONE INSPECTIONS FOR BUILDINGS THREE STORIES OR MORE IN HEIGHT:

WITHIN THREE MILES OF COASTLINE:

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:

A MILESTONE INSPECTION CONSISTS OF TWO PHASES:

POST-MILESTONE INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS:

(a) Bear the seal and signature, or the electronic signature, of the licensed engineer or architect who performed the inspection.

(b) Indicate the manner and type of inspection forming the basis for the inspection report.

(d) State whether unsafe or dangerous conditions, as those terms are defined in the Florida Building Code, were observed

(e) Recommend any remedial or preventive repair for any items that are damaged but are not substantial structural deterioration

(f) Identify and describe any items requiring further inspection.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENFORCEMENT:

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

BOARD’S DUTY AFTER OBTAINING THE MILESTONE REPORT:

WHO PAYS FOR THE MILESTONE INSPECTION:

FAILURE TO OBTAIN THE MILESTONE INSPECTION:

MANAGER’S DUTY:

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:

II. STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY RESERVE STUDIES AND MANDATORY RESERVES:

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 section 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):

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 UNIT OWNER CONTROLLED ASSOCIATION:

MANDATORY RESERVES IN THE DEVELOPER CONTROLLED ASSOCIATION:

PRE-TURNOVER DEVELOPER DUTY:

III. OFFICIAL RECORDS:

IV. ASSOCIATION WEBSITES:

V. JURISDICTION OF DIVISION OF CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES, AND MOBILE HOMES:

VI. NEW REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL CONDOMINIUM AND COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS:

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:

VIII. GLITCHES:

Reprinted with permission | This article written by Jeffrey A. Rembaum, Esq., BCS will/appears in the August 2022 edition of the Florida Community Association Journal.

June 10, 2022June 10, 2022

Who Repairs the Incidental Damages Caused by the Association?

Imagine: the association has just informed you it is set to begin a massive concrete restoration project. As part of the project, the contractor will need access to the rebar beneath the concrete slab connected to (or in legalese, “appurtenant to”) your unit’s balcony. To access the balcony slab, the contractor will have to remove the custom Italian tiles you just installed on your balcony. Who is responsible for the costs of the removal? Who is responsible to replace the tiles? The answers to these questions will largely depend on whether the governing documents of the association include an “incidental damage clause” and the specific circumstances of the situation, too.

In its most simplistic sense, an incidental damage clause in the declaration means that the association is responsible to repair any “incidental damage” caused by the association’s exercise of its maintenance, repair, and/or replacement responsibility. However, the existence or absence of such language is not always dispositive as to the repair responsibility. This is similar to “i” before “e” unless after “c” as there always seem to be exceptions.

For example, the repair and replacement obligation of the association may be limited only to damage caused to the unit and not cover any owner improvements to limited common elements, such as the balcony; or the obligation may be limited to damage to improvements only as originally installed by the developer, too. Whether the association or the owner will be responsible to repair the damage is highly fact-specific and will depend on the exact language in the governing documents of the association. Arbitration decisions of the Division of Florida Condominiums, Timeshares, and Mobile Homes (the Division), discussed below, provide some guidance as to when the association may be responsible for incidental damage and when the owners will be responsible to repair same. That said, bear in mind that such decisions are not precedential and in addition only apply to the parties in the arbitration that resulted in the Division’s order. However, it does provide a good understanding of how the Division may rule in a similar circumstance.

As discussed above, where the governing documents contain incidental damage language, and the association damages a portion of the unit while conducting its maintenance, repair, and replacement responsibility, the association is likely responsible for the repair. This is illustrated in Rock v. Point East Three Condominium Corporation, Inc., Arb. Case No. 99-0220, Final Order (September 29, 2000).

In Rock, the association removed a shelf located under a sink and several wall tiles in order to repair rough plumbing in the common elements. The association replaced the wall tiles but did not replace the shelf after the repairs were completed. The unit owner sought, among other things, to have the association replace the shelf. The unit owner also sought to have the association repair tiles in the dining room of the unit which had “popped up” as a result of an unrelated water leak. The association’s declaration of condominium provided that the association was responsible to repair conduits and rough plumbing and provided that “[a]ll incidental damage caused to an apartment by such work shall be promptly repaired by the association.” The arbitrator ordered the association to replace the shelf, holding that the incidental damage to the shelf was caused by the repair to the rough plumbing, which was the association’s duty to maintain. As such, the incidental damage language of the declaration applied to the shelf. However, the arbitrator held the association was not responsible to replace the tiles in the dining room, as the damage to the tiles was not incidental to any work the association performed to repair the rough plumbing.

Therefore, Rock clearly establishes that while an association is responsible to repair portions of the unit that are damaged as a result of the association’s exercise of its maintenance, repair, and replacement obligation, the damage must be incidental to the association’s work.

If the declaration requires the association to repair or replace incidental damage to the unit, the association will likely be responsible to repair and replace owner modifications to the units, too, unless the declaration provides otherwise. In Brickell Town House Association, Inc. v. Del Valle, et al., Arb. Case No. 95-0133 Final Order (September 12, 1995), the association was required to remove certain owner-installed alterations to the unit in order to access and maintain the common elements. The unit owners asserted that the association was responsible to replace the alterations in accordance with the incidental damage provision in the declaration of condominium. The arbitrator agreed, holding that the association was required to reimburse the owners for the expenses required to restore the units to the condition which existed immediately prior to the association’s reconstruction activities, including betterments which were added by the unit owners since the original construction of the units by the developer.

In accordance with the holdings in Brickell and Rock, if the governing documents provide that the association is responsible for incidental damage to the unit, the association will likely be responsible to repair any portions of the unit damaged by the association’s exercise of its maintenance, repair, and replacement responsibility, including alterations made by owners (unless specifically provided for otherwise).

On a different note, if the governing documents of the association contain incidental damage language which is specific to damage caused to units, then the association will not be responsible for incidental damage caused to owner modifications to the common elements or the limited common elements. Similarly, the association will likely not be responsible to repair any damage to any owner alteration to a unit where the declaration required association approval and the owner failed to obtain same prior to installation of the improvement.

In Continental Towers, Inc. v. Nassif, Arb. Case No. 99-0866, Summary Final Order (November 24, 1999), the association needed to conduct concrete restoration, waterproofing, and other repairs to the unit owner balconies. The unit owners had installed tiles on the balcony and argued that the association was responsible for the replacement of the tile because the declaration provided that the association was responsible for incidental damage to the unit. However, the balcony was part of the common elements, not the unit. Therefore, the incidental damage language in the declaration did not apply to the tile, and, absent any other agreement between the parties, the association had no responsibility to repair and replace same. The arbitrator concluded that:

…in the absence of an agreement between the parties or a controlling provision of the documents, ‘it cannot be said from the mere fact of association permission that the association has assumed the perpetual obligation to remove and replace the personal property when necessary to repair and replace the common elements.’ The arbitrator adopts the rationale articulated in the Carriage House case. Since the balcony is a part of the common elements, and the tile was not part of the original construction, the unit owners are responsible for its removal and replacement.

Further, where there are owner modifications which were not approved as required by the declaration, the association will likely not be responsible to repair notwithstanding the incidental damage requirement set out in the declaration. In Harrison v. Land’s End Condominium Association, Inc., Arb. Case No. 94-0298, Final Order (June 27, 1995), the association was required to remove an owner-installed balcony finish in order to effectuate repairs to the balcony slab. In this case, the balcony was considered part of the unit, and the declaration contained a provision requiring the association to repair incidental damage to the unit. The declaration also required the owner to obtain approval of the association before making any alterations to the bal-cony. However, the owner never obtained such approval. Therefore, despite the incidental damage provision, the arbitrator determined that the association was not responsible to replace the balcony finish because the owner did not obtain association approval as required by the declaration.

Therefore, if an alteration requires association approval and an owner fails to obtain such approval, the association will far more likely not be responsible to repair any incidental damage to the alteration notwithstanding the existence of incidental damage language.

Generally, the association’s repair obligation is limited to actual damage caused to the unit as a result of its maintenance, repair, and replacement obligation. If the unit owners are required to vacate their unit in order for the association to effectuate the repairs, the association is not generally responsible to reimburse the owners for the costs of same. However, as the Brickell case, discussed above, shows us, that is not always the case. In Brickell, the owners also argued that the association was responsible to reimburse them for the costs they incurred in vacating the unit for the repairs. In this case, the association chose to proceed with a method of repairing damage to common element pipes from the interior of the units, which required the unit owners in the affected units to vacate. The association did not explore an option in which the repairs could be made from the exterior, which would permit the unit owners to remain in the unit. The arbitrator agreed with the owners and ordered the association to pay for the costs the owners incurred in vacating the units. As you can glean, this case is very fact specific, which led to this outcome.

In an order denying the association’s motion for rehearing, the arbitrator in Brickell, reiterated its earlier decision that the board, within its business judgment, decided to proceed with a method of reconstruction that required the removal of the owners. Therefore, the expenses of those owners are a common expense to be borne by all owners. The important consideration in this case was the fact that the association proceeded with the repairs from the interior without exploring options to proceed from the exterior. The arbitrator notes that the order should not be construed to mean that an association would be responsible for accommodations for all unit owners in the event that the condominium building had to be tented for termites, or if a hurricane rendered the building uninhabitable. In those cases, all owners would be required to vacate the units, and there can be no other decision of the board. Additionally, in Brickell, if there was no way for the association to make the repairs that would allow the owners to remain in unit, the arbitrator’s decision may have been different. How-ever, as the association chose to displace certain unit owners to effectuate the repairs without exploring any other options, the association was responsible for the owners’ costs to vacate.

Finally, even when there is no incidental damage language in the governing documents, the association may be responsible for damage to the units if the association fails to conduct necessary maintenance to the common elements, when the association knows that such maintenance is necessary. In Dibiase v. Beneva Ridge, Arb. Case No. 92-0210, Final Order (January 19, 1994), the association was aware that the common element parking area was consistently flooding into an owner’s unit. The association retained an engineer to conduct a drainage study, and the engineer recommended several remedial measures to address the drainage problem. While the association took some remedial steps, the association did not follow through on the study’s recommendations. The arbitrator concluded that the association was responsible for the owner’s costs to repair the unit caused by the flooding. The arbitrator explained that, while “[n]o association is required to protect the property against a 100-year storm…” the association was responsible to take those steps reasonably necessary to protect the condominium property.

As the association had an expert report that advised if the association did not take certain remedial measures, the damage to the condominium property would continue, the association had an obligation to make the repairs. As the association failed to follow the report, it was responsible for the damage caused to the unit.

In accordance with the decision in Dibiase, if the association receives a report from an expert advising that certain repairs must be performed, and the association fails to take action, the association may be responsible for the costs of any damage to the units caused by its failure to act.

As you have likely gleaned from the foregoing discussion, it can be difficult to determine who is responsible to repair and replace improvements damaged during the association’s exercise of its maintenance, repair, and replacement obligations. Given the complexities of the issue, your association should consult with its legal counsel with any inquiries regarding the association’s responsibility for incidental damage.

May 26, 2022May 27, 2022

News from CAI | Condo Safety Legislation Passed in Special Session

News from Community Associations Institute: Condo Safety Legislation Passed in the Special Session

Per a May 26, 2022 email we received from CAI: This week the Florida legislature was in special session and condominium safety was one of three initiatives addressed. CAI Florida Legislative Alliance is pleased to announce that SB 4D – Building Safety Act for condominium and cooperative associations passed unanimously through both the House and Senate on May 24th and 25th respectively, after a powerful and heartfelt appreciation for the sponsors, Sen. Jennifer Bradley (R-5), Senator Jason Pizzo (D-38) and Rep. Daniel Perez (R-116) was expressed by Members in both the House and Senate. Governor DeSantis signed the bill on May 26th. This bipartisan legislation is the result of tireless advocacy by you, our membership; thanks to your determination, CAI Florida Legislative Alliance was able to work with legislators in both chambers to craft an effective condo safety bill that will protect Floridians. CAI representatives were in Tallahassee this week during the legislature’s special session and were the only ones to speak on behalf of the new bill.

The legislation includes a framework largely based on CAI public policy recommendations for:

Building inspections as structures reach 30 years old and every 10 years thereafter.
Mandatory reserve study and funding for structural integrity components (building, floors, windows, plumbing, electrical, etc.).
Removal of opt-out funding of reserves for structural integrity components.
Mandatory transparency—providing all owners and residents access to building safety information.
Clear developer requirements for building inspections, structural integrity reserve study, and funding requirements prior to transition to the residents.
Engagement of the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation and local municipalities to track condominium buildings and the inspection reporting.

Associations will have two years to comply with these requirements. CAI will be working closely with policymakers before the bill takes effect in 2024 to be certain the new requirements and directives are workable and practical for Florida’s impacted associations.

Since June 24, 2021, the tragic collapse of Champlain Towers South where 98 people perished and many others lost their homes, CAI mourned, prayed, and committed to doing whatever we could to make sure this never happened again. Following the collapse, CAI members and volunteers worked closely with Florida Sens. Jennifer Bradley and Jason Pizzo, as well as Rep. Daniel Perez to lead the efforts to pass this important legislation.

The comprehensive legislation makes certain that no matter in what county a condominium or cooperative is located, they will be periodically inspected with information shared with unit owners, local building officials, and prospective buyers. CAI will continue working with policymakers to make certain that associations have the time to meet these changes and that these new processes are practically workable for associations while making certain they are fiscally sound and physically safe.

Sincerely,
CAI Florida Legislative Alliance

May 25, 2022May 27, 2022

Can You Repeat That? Is Your Condominium in Compliance?

If your condominium is greater than 75 feet tall, then you need to read this article.

It is essential for condominium associations to ensure that their buildings are in compliance with the requirements of the Florida Fire Prevention Code (the “Fire Code”). For the safety of all residents, associations must ensure they stay up to date with the latest and greatest in fire safety provisions. One of these essential safety features is a requirement that systems be built into new and existing buildings to ensure that first responders’ radios will work throughout buildings in an emergency situation. Pursuant to Section 11.10.1 of the Fire Code, “in all new and existing buildings, minimum radio signal strength for fire department communications shall be maintained at a level determined by the AJH [the authority having jurisdiction]. Additionally, Section 11.10.2. provides that where required by the authority having jurisdiction, two-way radio communication enhancement systems must comply with the requirements of the Fire Code.

When originally adopted, the requirements of Sections 11.10.1 and 11.10.2 of the Fire Code applied only to new buildings, so the requirement was not a burden on existing buildings. However, in 2013, the Fire Code was updated as set out above to provide that all new and existing buildings must maintain adequate fire department radio signal strength inside the building. This new requirement applied to all buildings and did not provide a grace period. This posed a significant problem for many high-rise condominiums, as the installation of the necessary equipment involves opening walls and ceilings and can be quite costly to the association. The cost of such installation was a substantial burden to condominiums, not expecting to be required to install same, and therefore never budgeted for the installation.

Recognizing the problem, in 2016 the Florida Legislature adopted section 633.202(18), Florida Statutes, which provided a grace period for high-rise buildings. Existing high-rise buildings were not required to comply with minimum radio strength for fire department communications until January 1, 2022. You may be thinking, “that date is passed”, but do not panic. If your condominium has not yet complied with the requirements, have no fear. The 2021 Florida Legislature amended section 633.202(18), Florida Statutes, to provide another extension for compliance.

In accordance with the newly amended statute, existing high-rise buildings now have until January 1, 2025 to come into compliance with the requirements. However, the association must apply for an appropriate permit for the required installation by January 1, 2024. More specifically, section 633.202(18), Florida Statutes, is amended to provide, in pertinent part, that:

(18) The authority having jurisdiction shall determine the minimum radio signal strength for fire department communications in all new high-rise and existing high-rise buildings. Existing buildings are not required to comply with minimum radio strength for fire department communications and two-way radio system enhancement communications as required by the Florida Fire Prevention Code until January 1, 2025. However, by January 1, 2024, an existing building that is not in compliance with the requirements for minimum radio strength for fire department communications must apply for an appropriate permit for the required installation with the local government agency having jurisdiction and must demonstrate that the building will become compliance by January 1, 2025. Existing apartment buildings are not required to comply until January 1, 2025…

Therefore, all existing high-rise buildings must come into compliance by January 1, 2025. It is important to note that this time extension applies only to high-rise buildings. By way of over simplification, it does not apply to buildings less than 75 feet tall (the measurement can be tricky, so if your building is close to 75 feet check with your association attorney regarding this measurement). In 2018, the Florida Department of Financial Services, Division of State Fire Marshal issued a Declaratory Statement finding that section 633.202(18), Florida Statutes does not apply to the enforcement of Section 11.10 of the Fire Code to buildings under 75 feet in height. Therefore, if your building is greater than 75 feet in height, it is required to comply with the radio signal strength required by the authority having jurisdiction at this time.

In light of the foregoing, it is essential that your association take action to determine whether sufficient fire department radio signal exists in your building. We recommend the association reach out to the local fire code official to determine the exact requirements for your jurisdiction. If sufficient signal does not exist in your building, it is essential to prepare a plan (including design, permits, financing, etc.) to ensure that your building will comply by the deadline of January 1, 2025.

May 16, 2022May 16, 2022

Follow-up | All 2022 Champlain Towers-Inspired Bills Fail – Perfect Opportunities Lost

All 2022 Champlain Towers-Inspired Bills Fail: Perfect Opportunities Lost

As a result of the 2022 Florida legislative session, there will be no new statutes requiring mandated building/engineering inspections, no statutory changes to budgeting procedures, no mandated reserve study requirements, and no statutory changes to required disclosures. On March 11, reporters Jon Schuppe and Phil Prazan, of NBC 6 South Florida, reported,

Negotiations between the Florida Senate and House of Representatives, both controlled by Republicans, broke down, with the two sides unable to agree on a bill that would require inspections of aging condo buildings and mandate that condo boards conduct studies to determine how much they need to set aside for repairs. The talks were undone by a disagreement over how much flexibility to give condo owners in the funding of those reserves.

However, the failure of the legislation does not mean a board of directors can ignore their fiduciary duties and obligations. While only two Florida counties have mandated, in their code of ordinances, that older condominium buildings have life-safety inspections, (Miami–Dade and Broward counties as well as a couple of cities), that does not mean required maintenance and proper planning can be otherwise avoided. Board members must exercise their fiduciary duties with due care and due diligence. Depending upon the age of your condominium building, voluntary engineering inspections and professional reserve studies should already be taking place on a regular schedule. Capital repair and replacement projects should already be a part of the association’s planning processes.

As explained by board certified specialist in condominium and planned development law attorney Lisa Magill,

Is the law the only reason you stop at a red light? Probably not. You stop because there’s a likelihood a truck will smash into you from the side [if you do not].

In other words, common sense should prevail. All condominium unit owners know that one day the roof, air conditioners, and water and cooling towers will need to be replaced; the building will need to be repainted to ensure a watertight seal remains intact; the pool will need re-surfacing; and the parking areas and asphalt will need attention, too. Perhaps one of the most expensive repairs, which is rarely discussed, let alone planned for and budgeted in advance, and that even the Florida Statutes do not specifically mention by name, is concrete restoration, with repair costs potentially reaching into the millions of dollars depending on the extent of the repairs. But, such repairs are a given. It is not a matter of “if” but rather only a matter of “when” these repairs will be required.

The only way to avoid a revolt of the membership when explaining the upcoming multi-million dollar assessment is to lessen the blow by having some, if not all, of the needed monies already saved in a reserve account. Section 718.112(1)(f)(2)(a), Florida Statutes, provides that,

[i]n 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 amount to be reserved must be computed using a formula based upon estimated remaining useful life and estimated replacement cost or deferred maintenance expense of each reserve item. 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.”

While a majority of a quorum of the membership can vote to waive or reduce reserves, this can only occur if the board of directors provides the membership such opportunity. For example, when voting to reduce reserves, the percentage by which the required reserves can be reduced is decided in advance by the board and then presented to the membership for the vote. In light of the Champlain Towers South disaster, boards of directors should put considerable thought into these decisions.

On March 12, Ann Geggis of Florida Politics reported that

the Legislature’s inability to pass any legislation updating condo regulations in the wake of last summer’s disaster that killed 98 people stunned observers…For this Session, nine bills sought to change rules regarding condominium associations…An estimated two million people live in 912,000 Florida condo units that are 30-years or older. Another 131,773 units are 20 to 30 years old, according to the Florida Engineering Society & American Council of Engineering Companies of Florida….The executive director of the engineering society and council called the failure to pass any legislation this year a ‘missed opportunity,’ according to a news release.

Never has the term “sausage factory” been more appropriate to describe the 2022 team of Florida legislators who failed to pass meaningful legislation that could have helped thwart another Champlain Towers South disaster. But, just because the legislature failed in doing so (for this year), that does not mean, as a board member, that you will fail, too. Make a commitment to your condominium community to plan for the future. Adopt a board resolution, or even amend the condominium declaration, to have required building inspections and reserve studies. In addition, if your association is waiving reserves year after year, stop it and start saving for the future. You will be glad you did.