Author: trisha

On May 2, 2014, House Bill 807 (HB 807), was approved by both the Florida’s House of Representatives and Senate. It now awaits the signature of Governor Rick Scott to make it effective law or, if he does nothing at all, it will still become law. That said, Governor Scott does have the ability to veto HB 807 if he so chooses. Among other changes affecting residential properties, HB 807 makes some notable changes and additions to Chapter 718, Florida Statutes, more commonly known as the “Condominium Act.” This article will give you a sneak peek into five notable changes.

1. Right to Enter an Abandoned Unit. HB 807 amends section 718.111(5), Florida Statutes, regarding a condominium association’s right to access an abandoned unit. Under these new provisions, a condominium association can enter an abandoned unit to inspect the unit and the adjoining common elements, to make repairs as needed, to turn on the utilities to the unit and to otherwise maintain and protect the unit and adjoining common elements.

A unit is considered abandoned under the following circumstances: i) the unit is under foreclosure and no tenant appears to have lived at the unit for four consecutive weeks without prior written notice to the condominium association, or ii) no tenant appears to have lived at the unit for two consecutive months without prior written notice to the condominium association and the condominium association is unable to contact the owner or determine the owner’s whereabouts after reasonable efforts. Prior to entering an abandoned unit, the condominium association must send two days notice of its intent to enter the unit to the owner at their last known address.

Any costs associated with the abandoned unit are chargeable to the owner and, no doubt of interest to many readers, such costs are assessable against the unit. Additionally, the condominium association can request that the court appoint a receiver to lease the abandoned unit. The rent collected is credited against the monies due to the association and receiver.

2. Unit Owner Directories. Currently, section 718.111(12)(c)5, Florida Statutes, provides that a condominium association can prepare and provide its members with a directory containing the name, address and telephone number of the unit owners. HB 807 amends this section to allow a condominium to publish ALL of the telephone numbers associated with unit owners. In addition, unit owners can provide their written consent to the disclosure of other contact information which is otherwise not supposed to be disclosed by the condominium association.

3. Return of Records and Property by Outgoing Board and Committee Members. HB 807 adds a new subsection “(f)” to the official records requirements located in section 718.111(12), Florida Statutes. This new subsection imposes a statutory obligation on outgoing board and committee members to return all official records and property of the condominium association in their possession, or control, to the incoming board and committee members within five days after the new board and committee members are elected or appointed. Those outgoing board and committee members who willfully and knowingly fail to return such records and property are subject to penalties imposed by the Division of Florida Condominiums, Timeshares, and Mobile Homes.

What is noticeably absent from this new provision is the application of this statutory obligation on outgoing officers, too. While in the overwhelming majority of condominium associations the officers are comprised of board members, it is certainly possible for the board to select officers who are not board members, unless otherwise prohibited in the governing documents. This means that officers who are not board members would be free from this particular statutory obligation and civil penalty.

4. Board Member E-mail Communication, Attendance and Voting. A new provision is added by HB 807 to section 718.112(2)(c), Florida Statutes, which provides that board members may use e-mail to communicate to one another but cannot use e-mail to cast a vote on condominium association matters. However, while the board members are provided the right to communicate via e-mail, there is no mention in the legislation whether the board majority or only the board minority may do so.

Finally, yes finally, board members can appear and vote at board meetings not only via speakerphone, but now by video conference or similar real-time electronic or video communication so long as a speaker is used so that everyone can hear the “electronically appearing” board member. While likely apparent, a board member’s electronic appearance is counted towards establishment of a quorum, too.

5. Assessment Liability as Applied to a Condominium Association. HB 807 further defines the term “previous owner” in section 718.116(1)(a), Florida Statutes, as it relates to a unit owner’s liability for the unpaid assessments of the previous owner and provides for how such liability is applied when the condominium association was a prior owner of the unit.

This new language is likely a reaction to the decisions of the Third District Court of Appeal in Aventura Management, LLC v. Spiaggia Ocean Condominium Association, Inc., Case No. 3D13-1437 (Fla. 3d DCA March 5, 2014) and Park West Professional Center Condominium. v. Londono, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D2510 (Fla. 3d DCA November 27, 2013). In both cases, the Court held that a unit owner is only liable for the unpaid assessments of the immediate-prior unit owner, and according to the Spiagga court case, if the prior owner was the association, then, by way of an oversimplification, the debt merged into the ownership as a result of the association taking title to the unit and, therefore, since you can’t owe money to yourself, the assessment debt re-sets to zero. In any event, thanks to HB 807, condominium associations have some new clarity in this regard. As amended by HB 807, section 718.116(1)(a), Florida Statutes, would additionally provide, in pertinent part, that:

“For purposes of this paragraph the term ‘previous owner’ does not include an association that acquires title to a delinquent property through foreclosure or by deed in lieu. A present unit owner’s liability for unpaid assessments is limited to unpaid assessments that accrued before the association acquired title to the delinquent property through foreclosure or by deed in lieu.”

This new language added to section 718.116(1)(a), Florida Statutes, if and when it becomes effective, removes a condominium association from the classification of being a “previous owner,” which means that a unit owner is not jointly and severally liable to the condominium association for the unpaid assessments that came due while the condominium association owned the unit. However, unlike the holdings of the Court cases mentioned above, a unit owner would be jointly and severally liable for the unpaid assessments of other former owners pursuant to these new provisions.

Stay tuned for future legislative updates including HB 807’s effect on homeowner associations.

Unless vetoed, HB 807 becomes law on July 1, 2014.

On January 3, 2014, in U.S. v. Forest Hill Gardens East Condominium Association, Inc., the United States Federal District Court for Florida’s Southern District held that the provision of the condominium association’s declaration, which provided that a foreclosing lender had no liability to the association to pay its share of common expenses or assessments pertaining to the foreclosed unit which became due prior to the foreclosing lender’s acquisition of title, trumped the provisions of section 718.116(1)(b), Florida Statutes, commonly referred to as the “safe harbor” provision, which would have entitled the association to the receipt of the lesser of one percent of the initial mortgage or 12 months back assessments. Because this case is being used as the basis for avoidance of lender assessment liability upon taking title as a result of the lender’s mortgage foreclosure, it is important that every community association manager and community association board member understand why the Court reached this very distinguishable conclusion.

Since at least 1992, every foreclosing lender of a condominium unit has been responsible to pay the “safe harbor” amount. What makes this situation so very different that the Court held the lender had no liability but to pay assessments as they came due AFTER taking title? The Forest Hill Gardens East Declaration of Condominium (the “Declaration”) contained some very unique and extremely uncommon language. The provision at issue provided that “the present provisions of the Condominium Act… are incorporated…” into the Declaration and that “the provisions of this Declaration… shall be paramount to the Condominium Act…” Of great importance to understanding the Court’s logic is that, in this case, the Declaration was recorded in 1980, long before the version of section 718.116, Florida Statutes, at issue was amended by the Florida legislature in 1991.

After first confirming that your association’s declaration does not contain a similar provision, the next time a foreclosing lender argues that they do not have to pay the “safe harbor” in reliance on the Forest Hill Gardens East case, you know better.

On a related but different note, the Forest Hill Gardens East case clarifies that interest, late fees, collection costs and attorney’s fees are not to be added to the “safe harbor” amounts when otherwise due because, the Court reasoned, these expenses are neither common expenses nor regular periodic assessments.

Two other recent cases discuss a third party purchaser’s liability to a condominium association in the context where (1) the condominium association first foreclosed a unit assessment lien and, as a result, ended up owning the unit, and then (2) the lender foreclosed its unpaid mortgage which wiped out the association’s ownership interest in the unit and then (3) as a result of the lender’s foreclosure, a third party ended up being the winning bidder at the lender’s foreclosure auction and took ownership of the foreclosed unit.

Both the Third District Court of Appeal in Park West Professional Center Condominium Association, Inc. v. Londono, decided November 27, 2013, and the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Aventura Management v. Spiagga Ocean Condominium Association, Inc., decided on March 3, 2014, held that the joint and several liability of the new owner for past assessments only related back to the prior owner, that being the association. Neither association could look to the prior owners’ assessment deficiencies and collect it from the winning third party bidder of the lender’s foreclosure sale. Thus, these cases are being used to assert that the third party purchaser of a lender foreclosure does not have to pay bask assessments that were accrued as a result of the delinquencies of all other owners of the unit, but only for those of the immediate prior owner.

While, pursuant to section 718.116(1)(a), Florida Statutes, each owner is jointly and severally liable to the association for the back assessments that remain unpaid, a plain reading of these cases would suggest the new owner is only liable for the unpaid assessments of the immediate prior owner. Technically, this is true, but it is crucial to understand that the unpaid assessments of each owner become the next owner’s responsibility. But, in these two cases, it was the association itself that was the immediate prior owner. Thus, carrying the unpaid balances of the other prior owners forward the association as the immediate prior owner and then to the third party purchaser who acquired the unit as a result of the lender’s foreclosure sale, meaning that the new owner does indeed have no liability for the prior unpaid assessments. The reason why is not fully explained in either case. Simply put, because the association took title to the units, the debts of all prior owners of that unit were wiped clean as of the day the association took title. In other words, the debt merged into the ownership of the unit. Because, in both cases, the associations were the immediate prior owner of the units, the prior assessment debts were all carried forward to the association and, for all intents and purposes, were wiped out since you can’t owe money to yourself.

So, the next time a third party purchaser tries to argue that they are only responsible to pay the back assessments of the immediate prior owner, you will know that only applies if the immediate prior owner was the association. If it was anyone else, you might say, after confirming with your association’s lawyer, PAY UP, PAL!

In a recent Dade City case, a Pasco County judge ruled that a homeowners association (HOA), which had specially assessed its members for mounting legal fees regarding a costly dispute over wheelchair access to its meetings, has no authority to assess homeowners for its legal bills because the HOA’s covenants had expired likely due to the Marketable Record Titles to Real Property Act (MRTA). According to Laura Kinsler as she reported for the Pasco Tribune and the Tampa Tribune, John Whitt, a wheelchair-bound member for the homeowners’ association wanted to attend board meetings but was prevented access because the board insisted on holding its meetings on an unfinished lakefront lot that was not wheelchair accessible.

According to the article, the wheelchair bound member accused his association of violating the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and also for not having meetings that were open to all members as required by Chapter 720, Florida Statutes. Early in the case, it seemed the member would rue the day. He had won the often hard to obtain and revered temporary emergency injunction, which in this case, required the association to meet for the entire year in wheelchair accessible locations. However, as fate would have it, the case was reassigned. Ms. Kinsler reported that the case was dismissed when the new judge “ruled that ‘there is no legal basis to support the plaintiffs’ contention that the open meeting provision of [the law] requires wheelchair accessibility’ since private community associations are not subject to the federal Americans [w]ith Disabilit[ies] Act [(ADA)].”

The outcome is perplexing because while the ADA and the FHA are similar in application, they apply to two very different situations. The ADA applies to areas of public accommodation, while the FHA applies to housing providers, which includes residential community associations. Occasionally however, the ADA will apply to a residential community association where there is a “public use” at play, such as when an association rents its clubhouse for weddings. The reason the case is perplexing is because, as reported, the plaintiff sued under the FHA, but oddly, the trial court issued its ruling citing the ADA. If this is the case, then we may not have heard the last of this case yet. But, WAIT! It gets better still.

During the pendency of the case, the association’s legal bills, according to the article, reached “upwards of $70,000.” After the association levied its third special assessment, several other association members sued the association asserting that the deed restrictions had expired. Ostensibly, while the article does not specifically explain why, it was likely the effect of MRTA which, by way of an over-simplified explanation, abolishes restrictions recorded against real property not sooner than 30 years after their initial recordation, subject only to certain exceptions. Under Florida law, a HOA is permitted, by board action alone, to take certain measures prior to the expiration of the 30 years to preserve the community’s declaration of covenants and restrictions. If that does not occur, then it is required that a majority of those members affected vote in favor of revitalizing the community’s declaration of covenants and restrictions. If not, then the covenants no longer have any enforceability, including the right of the HOA to levy assessments.

Every HOA board member should be aware that according to a 2013, 4th District Court of Appeal decision, Southfield’s of Palm Beach Polo and Country Club, et. al. v. McCullough, the court held that HOA board members can have personal liability for allowing their covenants to expire, though the extent of their personal liability was not discussed. In another case, a lawyer was found to have liability where the lawyer failed to advise their HOA client of an impending 30 year MRTA deadline. As an aside, condominium association board members can let out a big sigh of relief because the nasty effects caused by the application of MRTA do not apply to condominium associations.

On a related note, Senate Bill 1450 was recently introduced which would require all HOAs to have meetings in locations that are accessible to physically handicapped persons. On an unrelated note, some good news to report: that nasty pending 2014 legislative bill that would have required a door tax to be paid by every HOA member in the state, similar to the $4.00 per condominium owner tax, died a deserving death a few days ago!

How many times have you heard the old axiom, “ignorance of the law is no excuse”? Well, it’s never more true than in the Fair Housing Act (FHA) reasonable accommodation request for an “emotional support animal” arena.

In a 2012 Fourth District Court of Appeal case, Sun Harbor Homeowners’ Association, Inc. v. Bonura, the homeowners’ association brought an action against a homeowner for violation of it’s no dog policy. As could be expected, the homeowner counterclaimed asserting that his live-in fiancée was entitled to the use of an “emotional therapy dog” (referred to by HUD as an “assistance animal/emotional support animal”).

Initially, the association demanded removal of Bonura’s fiancée’s dog due to the association’s no dog policy. In response, Bonura demanded an accommodation and informed the association that the dog was a “registered service dog” needed to assist his fiancée with her disability. Bonura did not provide any specificity as to the nature of the disability, but however, provided a “Registered Service Dog Certificate” purchased from an online vendor. In response, the association advised him, in writing, that he needed to have his request for accommodation placed on the association’s agenda for the next board meeting at which he would need to:

“1) demonstrate that a resident suffers from a medical disability or handicap, unless the disability or handicap was visible, and indicating that any written information provided by the resident would not be copied or shared and would be returned after viewing;

2) demonstrate how the service animal [sic] can or will reasonably accommodate the disability;

3) demonstrate that the service animal [sic] has special skills or training to accommodate the handicap; and

4) demonstrate how the special skills and in training of the service animal [sic] and will set it apart from an ordinary pet.”

To make a long story short, the Court ruled in favor of the association, and in so doing noted that Bonura never requested to be placed on the association’s agenda and that Bonura did not provide the necessary information for the association to conduct a meaningful review of the request for the accommodation.

If this case had been recently filed and had Bonura minimally alleged that the need for the assistance animal was related to his fiancée’s emotional disability, the outcome would likely have been drastically different. Here is why: On April 25, 2013 the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), issued a Fair Housing Equal Opportunity Notice, FHEO – 2013–01 (“FHEO Notice”) and provided significant clarity as to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) “service animals” as compared against FHA “assistance animals” (and it’s subset classification of “emotional support animals”). First and foremost, the ADA applies to places of public accommodation. The FHA applies to housing providers, such as community associations. There can be some interplay between the ADA and the FHA such as a community association that allows it’s clubhouse to be rented out to the general public. The term “service animals” only refers to dogs (or miniature horses) and applies to the ADA, which as of this recent FHEO Notice, specifically excludes “emotional support animals.” In short, the practical application of excluding “emotional support animals” from the definition of “service animal,” means that a public facility does not need to permit “emotional support animals.” In any event, FHA “emotional support animals” do not require any specific training or certification whatsoever. Therefore, by asking whether the fiancée’s animal had special skills or training to accommodate the disability and how the special skills and training which set the animal apart from an ordinary pet would likely have cost the association thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, in penalties.

According to the FHEO Notice, after a housing provider receives a request for an assistance animal, the housing provider must consider: 1) does the person seeking to use and live with the animal have a disability, i.e., a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities? and 2) does the person making the request have a disability-related need for an assistance animal? In other words does the animal work, provide assistance, perform tasks or services for the benefit of the person with the disability or provide emotional support that alleviates one or more of the identified symptoms or effects of the persons existing disability?

Remember, breed, size and weight limitations may not be applied to an assistance animal. While an association may require a pet deposit, the association may not require deposits for assistance animals. Furthermore, again according to the FHEO Notice, the assistance animal is allowed in all areas of the premises where persons are normally allowed to go, unless doing so would impose an undue financial and administrative burden or would fundamentally alter the nature of the housing provider’s (the association’s) services.

Finally, remember that if the assistance animal in question poses a direct threat of harm to others or would cause substantial damage to the property of others, based on objective evidence and not mere speculation or fear, then that specific animal may be prohibited.

Wait until you read Florida House Bill 849, which is gaining traction in the legislature. Rather than use the FHA and ADA definitions, this legislation confuses the term “service animal” to also include “assistance animals” with the exception of an “emotional support animal” that, at least in this bill, stands on its own.

On March 13, 2014, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida entered its 33 page Omnibus Order in Sabal Palm Condominiums of Pine Island Ridge Association, Inc. v. Fisher, et al. The term “Omnibus” was used in the title of this order to reflect the myriad of issues addressed by the Court. The Sabal Palm opinion addresses a disabled owner’s request for an assistance animal trained to alleviate problems caused by the owner’s multiple sclerosis. In this case, Fisher’s (the unit owner) request for an assistance animal was related to an observable disability where copious information was provided to Sabal Palm at its request to substantiate the need for the assistance animal. Rather than grant the reasonable accommodation, Sabal Palm sued Fisher for declaratory judgment to have the trial court determine whether Sabal Palm was required to grant the reasonable accommodation and to decide the extent of the medical records that it was entitled to receive. In response, Fisher counterclaimed against Sabal Palm alleging discrimination and also sued the president in his PERSONAL capacity. Thereafter, motions to dismiss were served. Attention is now turned to the instructional value of this resulting Omnibus Order.

First and foremost, the Court recognized that when it comes to emotional support assistance animal requests there is plenty of abuse being suffered by housing providers. The Court even sites to a report “prepared for a Senate Informational Hearing on the subject of fake service [sic, assistance] dogs” and acknowledges that this is a growing problem. The Court even went so far as to state that “there is some reason to be skeptical of requests to keep a dog as an accommodation for a disability in certain cases, particularly cases where the dog assists the disabled person by rendering emotional support.” However, Sabal Palm treated Fisher with unjustifiable skepticism when it decided to file the lawsuit for declaratory judgment against her. By that time, the Court seems to have concluded, that Sabal Palm should have granted the request for the accommodation based on all of the information in Sabal Palm’s possession.

Lessons to be learned from this case include:

1) A board member can be sued in their personal capacity for a violation under the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) where the board member acted recklessly, in bad faith, or with wanton and willful disregard to human rights. (So, while the Court allowed Fisher’s cause of action against the president, in his personal capacity, it is not yet known whether the president will be found liable. Rather, the Court merely perfected the cause of action and in so doing, did not dismiss the claim.)

2) In examining these types of discrimination cases, the Court referred to another seminal case, Oberbrook, where that court looked at three factors to analyze: i) the extent of housing providers delay and obstruction of the request by the filing of a lawsuit by the housing provider, ii) the state of the law at the time the lawsuit was filed, and iii) whether the housing provider’s delay in granting the accommodation request had the effect of depriving the disabled person their requested accommodation.

3) In response to a request for a reasonable accommodation, a housing provider may request reliable disability-related information that i) is necessary to verify the person meets the FHA’s definition of disability, ii) describes the need for the accommodation, and iii) shows the relationship between the person’s disability and the need for the requested accommodation.

4) When the disability is readily apparent, the housing provider may not request additional information about the requestor’s disability. When the disability is not obvious, the housing provider may request more information limited to precisely what is not obvious.

5) A request for a reasonable accommodation can be constructively denied based on delay in rendering the decision.

6) Punitive damages are available under the FHA for a “refusal to accommodate” claim if a court finds that a discriminatory housing practice has occurred or is about to occur.

In the Sabal Palm case, it was found that Sabal Palm had more than enough information to conclude that Fisher was entitled to the requested accommodation. Yet, Sabal Palm requested even more information. The Court also found that the FHA’s Joint Statements (where the interpretation of the FHA of both the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Justice can be found) did not support Sabal Palm’s decision to sue for a declaratory judgment. Likely, this was due to the fact that the Court believed Fisher had more than met her burden to substantiate her disability and her need for the assistance animal.

This year’s legislative session begins on March 4, 2014 and ends on May 31, 2014. If you think all of the “bills” are drafted during the 60 day legislative session, think again. January 24, 2014 was the deadline for submitting requests for drafts of general bills, including requests for companion bills, and February 28, 2014 at 5:00 P.M. was the deadline for approving final drafts of general bills, including companion bills. After the conclusion of the legislative session, the Governor can veto the bill, do nothing (which allows the bill to become law on its effective date), or sign the bill into law (in which case the bill may spring into law, or will later become law on its effective date, as set out in the bill). If the bill was vetoed by the Governor, then a two-thirds vote in both the Florida Senate and House is required to override it. This year’s legislative session looks to be moderately busy with many proposed community association bills.

Senate Bill 798 (SB 798) includes many changes to existing law. Leasing amendments to a condominium declaration would not apply to those who vote against the amendment, but, obviously, would apply to those who vote in favor of it, and in contrast to today’s legislation, would be applicable to those who do not cast a vote at all. A condominium association would be granted the authority to enter the unit to inspect abandoned units and make certain repairs and even to turn on power to the unit to run the a/c to prevent mold. Provisions are included for the appointment of a receiver to collect rent.

Oddly, SB 798 provides that “a [condominium board] member may use e-mail as a means of communication but may not cast a vote on an association matter via e-mail.” Likely, this provision was created with the best of intent, but hopefully will be deleted or tweaked to make better sense. At present, board members cannot vote by e-mail, but sometimes in a true post-casualty emergency, e-mail may be the viable means of communication for some board members. It is also patently obvious that everyone, even board members, may use e-mail to communicate. The question is whether such communication by the board majority constitutes a board meeting. Of course, SB 798 does not grapple with that important and very relevant issue. It’s early in the session, so let us all hope this provision gets eliminated, or edited, to be of greater value. On the brighter side, SB 798 also allows board members to vote via video conferencing rather than just on a speakerphone, as presently exists.

Clarification is added to foreclosure legislation affecting condominium, cooperative and homeowner associations to provide that a subsequent owner is jointly and severally liable with the previous owner for not only unpaid assessments, but also interest, late fees, reasonable costs and attorney fees incurred by the association incident to the collection process. Further clarification is provided to make clear that, in the event the association owned the unit, the subsequent owner may still have liability for the period prior to the association’s ownership.

Outgoing board members are required to relinquish all association records within 5 days. If not, civil penalties may be incurred. The deadline for financial reporting is increased form 60 days from the conclusion of the fiscal year, to 90 days along with an additional 30 days to provide the report to the owners.

Cooperatives and homeowner associations are granted new emergency powers and many of the bill’s legislative amendments to Chapter 718, Florida Statutes, the “Condominium Act”, would also apply to Chapter 719, Florida Statutes, the “Cooperative Act.”

House Bill 425 (HB 425) makes numerous clarifications to the Condominium Act to clarify many of its provisions apply to residential condominiums only. Obviously, the sponsor of HB 425 is asserting that the scheme for protections and safeguards of unit owners in residential condominiums is not necessary for unit owners of both commercial and condo-hotel ventures. Rather than carve out the parts of the Condominium Act that do not apply, the state would be far better served by a new chapter of laws to govern non-residential condominiums.

House Bill 7037 (HB 7037) addresses community association managers and would, in essence, allow managers to do many activities which are, by today’s standards, considered the practice of law. The type of activities that would not constitute the “unlicensed practice of law” would include, to name a few, calculating the number of votes to adopt an amendment (sometimes, a very complicated task requiring legal interpretation), negotiating contracts regardless of the type of contract, preparing pre-arbitration demands and preparing liens. Ultimately, given the overly broad provision of HB 7037, it could be interpreted to mean the manager is lawfully able to perform all tasks to ensure compliance with the community’s governing documents.

Eight years ago, the Fourth District Court of Appeals held that when a unit owner who was accused of failing to abide by the association’s covenants challenged the association by asserting that the association failed to follow its own covenants (which later formed the basis of the association’s lawsuit against the owner), the association had the burden to prove to the court that it had, in fact, complied with the requirements set out in its own declaration. Interestingly, the unit owner was not required to prove anything. Rather, all that the unit owner had to do was allege that the association failed to comply with its own declaration in the unit owner’s affirmative defenses, set out in the unit owner’s “answer” to the association’s “complaint.”

In this lawsuit, McKenna v. Camino Real Village Association, Inc., 877 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), the association filed a foreclosure action against a unit owner for unpaid assessments. Prior to filing the lawsuit, the association accelerated the remaining assessments due for the budget year. As an affirmative defense, the unit owner alleged that the association failed to comply with its own declaration by failing to provide prior notice to him, as required by the association’s declaration, that the association had accelerated the remaining assessments for the budget year. As a result of the association’s summary judgment motion, the trial court nevertheless granted its verdict in favor of the association.

Later, upon the unit owner’s appellate challenge, the Fourth District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision. The appellate court held that, once the unit owner filed the affirmative defense asserting the association failed to comply with its own declaration, the association then had the burden to prove that it complied with the requirements of its own declaration. As a result, the case was remanded back to the trial court for additional proceedings.

More recently, in July 2013, the Fourth District Court of Appeals re-visited the issue concerning an association’s burden of proof. In Boyle v. Hernando Beach South Property Owners Association, Inc., Case No. 5D12-2993, the homeowners’ association filed a lawsuit against a member alleging that the member failed to maintain his lot “in a neat, clean and orderly condition” as required by its declaration of covenants, by failing to properly landscape his lot and trim his trees. At summary judgment, the trial court granted an injunction in favor of the association that required the member to comply with the association’s covenants. The member appealed.

Summary judgment motions are ingrained in the rules governing civil procedure. Its purpose is to promote “judicial economy.” In matters where there are no material facts in dispute, the party filing such a motion argues that they are entitled to judgment in their favor as a matter of law. Remember, a jury determines the facts, and the court applies the law.

In reviewing the trial court record, the appellate court noted that the affidavits provided by the association which, like the complaint, alleged the member failed to maintain his lot “in a neat, clean and orderly condition,” failed to demonstrate how the member’s landscaping and trees were not properly maintained. In other words, the association failed to present evidence to the trial court to prove the member had actually failed to maintain his lot “in a neat, clean and orderly condition.” Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s injunction and remanded (meaning sent it back) the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. It is important to recognize that, while the homeowner may have won a small battle, the actual war is still to be fought… at trial. While the association can learn from the appellate court’s decision by ensuring it submits the, up until now, lacking evidence as a part of its case in chief during trial. However, if, prior to filing the lawsuit, the association never clearly explained to the member how his landscaping and trees were not in compliance, then it’s likely the association is up the proverbial creek without a paddle and without a life-preserver, too.

Community associations are held hostage to rising prices. When prices go up, assessment increases soon follow. The recent postal stamp increases are no exception. The size of your association and amount of mailings during the year can really take a toll on the budget. Why not give your association a quick financial boost by sending electronic notices rather than paying for all those stamps? Electronic notices can be used for all sorts of official notices; however, there are a few prohibitions. In Chapter 718, governing condominium associations, and Chapter 719, governing cooperative associations, the word “electronic”, including variations such as “electronically”, appears 24 times, while in Chapter 720, only 17 times.

Both the Condominium and Cooperative Acts specifically authorize, legalize and legitimize bylaw provisions that provide for giving notice by electronic transmission whether as originally recorded or even by later amendment. The term “electronic transmission” can refer to a facsimile and, just as easily, to an e-mail or any other transmission that, well, simply put, transmits to the intended recipient electronically. (How is that for circular logic?) With that in mind, the clever, cost-conscious association should start to gather its members’ e-mail addresses and consents for the association’s use of e-mail for meeting notices.

E-mail can be utilized for notice of membership meetings, board meetings and even committee meetings. It can be used for election notices, too. In order for an association to notice by e-mail, the association’s bylaws must provide for providing meeting notices electronically and each member must specifically consent, in advance. Take a look at your association’s bylaws to see if your association is already authorized to start gathering its members’ consents to receive e-mail notices. If it is not already there, then talk to your association’s lawyer about amending the bylaws to include this simple cost saving solution and protection against rising postal costs.

Condominium, homeowner and cooperative associations are responsible to maintain the e-mail addresses and facsimile numbers of unit owners consenting to receive notice by electronic transmission.

The e-mail addresses and facsimile numbers of the association’s members are not accessible to the association’s other members if the member whose e-mail address or facsimile address did not consent to receive notice by electronic transmission. The association would be advised to obtain such consent in writing.

The Condominium, Homeowner and Cooperative Association Acts provide that an association may print and distribute to parcel owners a directory containing the name, parcel address and telephone number of each parcel owner and that any owner can exclude his or her telephone number from the directory by so requesting, in writing, to the association. Oddly, e-mail addresses are not mentioned which can be remedied through a bylaw amendment that specifically provides that the directory can include e-mail addresses of those members who consent to receive their association notices electronically unless advised, in writing, by the owner, to the contrary.

On the bright side, the association is not liable for an inadvertent disclosure of the e-mail address or facsimile number for receiving electronic transmission of notices.

Neither facsimile nor e-mail can be used as a method of giving notice of a recall meeting. In addition, electronic notices cannot be used by condominium associations that previously voted to forego retrofitting, when the unit owners next consider the issue.

To start your savings, check your association’s bylaws for the required authorization and start gathering those e-mail addresses. It’s good for the environment, too!

If you live in Monroe, Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, Martin, St. Lucie, Indian River, Okeechobee or Highlands County, then you will want to know about the January 3, 2014 decision entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the “Court”). For that matter, if you live in an association somewhere in the great State of Florida, then you still need to know about this case: United States v. Forest Hill Condo Association and Forest Hill Property Owners’ Association, where the Court examined the financial obligation of a foreclosing first mortgagee to a condominium association and homeowners’ association (the “POA”) when the unit owner not only defaulted on their mortgage but also failed to pay assessments. The dispute came about when after taking title as a result of the lender’s foreclosure, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), as a successor and assignee to the foreclosing lender, requested an estoppel from both of the associations.

Both associations claimed the HUD was liable for all unpaid assessments, together with other fees and charges, including attorney’s fees, levied against the unit in the twelve-month period prior to foreclosure. HUD, on the other hand, contended it was entitled to the protection of a statutorily-created “safe harbor” which limits its liability. It actually fared better, at least as to how much it owed the condominium association for back assessments.

The Court examined whether interest, late fees, collection costs and attorney’s fees were properly included in both associations’ estoppels. The Court concluded that the answer was “no”. The Court reasoned that since assessments are common expenses shared amongst all of the owners and that since the interest, late fees, collection costs and attorney’s fees are assessments levied against an individual as opposed to all of the owners, such individual assessments are not collectable under the “safe harbor” laws.

While HUD was found liable to the POA for back assessments, astoundingly, and to the extreme detriment of the condominium association, the Court took an unexpected left turn when it held that HUD had no liability to the condominium association for any of the past due unpaid assessments that accrued prior to taking title. In reaching this decision, the Court also looked to the condominium association’s declaration and noted that its clear provisions provided that a foreclosing lender had no assessment liability whatsoever, as compared against the legislative requirements set out in section 718.116, Florida Statutes, referred to as the “safe harbor”. The term “safe harbor” refers to the foreclosing lender’s liability to the association for back assessments where the lender, as the prior first mortgagee, is responsible to pay the association the lesser of 12 months’ back assessments or one percent of the initial mortgage. The Court also noted that the condominium’s declaration made it clear that, where permitted, the provisions of the declaration were paramount to the provisions of Chapter 718, Florida Statutes, commonly referred to as the Condominium Act.

What the Court did not discuss was that the initial safe harbor statute contained in the Condominium Act provided that it applied to first mortgages recorded after April 1, 1992. While this language was later removed, it was clear that the safe harbor provisions applied if the owner’s mortgage was entered into after this date. These safe harbor provisions create a procedural regime where lenders can estimate their financial liability in the event of foreclosure which, at least as to this condominium association, some might argue, the court completely ignored!
It will be interesting to see whether other courts follow along and apply this case’s holding. With regard to this decision’s precedential value, based on a legal doctrine called “stare decisis”, the decision of the Southern District Court in this case is merely persuasive authority, meaning that other courts do not have to follow the decision of this case but may take it into consideration. With the exception of the U.S. Supreme Court, no state court is bound by a federal court’s determination regarding state law. In fact, federal courts must follow state courts when analyzing state laws as state courts are the bodies charged with interpreting and applying state laws.

This latest case should be a call to action for all community association board members to contact their legislators and insist that they clarify the safe harbor provisions in this year’s legislation so that the safe harbor laws apply to all lenders!

Who is entitled to the e-mail addresses of your association’s members? Are e-mails sent between board members part of an association’s official records? What about e-mails sent by a board member to the manager?

Only the e-mail addresses of unit owners who have either consented to receive notice by e-mail or have consented in writing to the disclosure of their e-mail addresses are subject to review during an official record inspection. Section 718.111(12), Florida Statutes, provides, with regard to unit owner e-mail addresses, that “[t]he association shall also maintain the electronic mailing addresses… of unit owners consenting to receive notice by electronic transmission. The electronic mailing addresses… are not accessible to unit owners if consent to receive notice by electronic transmission is not provided in accordance with [this subsection].” This topic was discussed in Cohen v. Harbour House (Bal Harbour) Condominium Association, Inc., Arb. Case No. 2012-02-3139 (Summary Final Order / Lang / June 29, 2012).

In the Cohen case, a unit owner requested a list of all of the e-mail addresses of the members, however did not receive such a list. The unit owner alleged that she was improperly denied the e-mail addresses. However, it was discovered that the association did not have consent from any members to use their e-mail for the purposes of receiving official notices nor did the association have written consent to disclose the protected information from any member. Therefore, the arbitrator held that “[b]ecause, under the statute, no unit owner has submitted his or her email address for notice requirements or consented in writing to disclosure of his or her email address, the [a]ssociation did not improperly deny access by [the unit owner] to its list of email addresses.”

In today’s instant world, e-mail allows us to express our thoughts at anytime, anywhere. It is so convenient that it is unavoidable for board members to use it to discuss association business. As the official records of condominium, homeowner and cooperative associations are subject to inspection with limited exception, the question often asked is whether e-mails, including e-mails between board members and between one or more board members and the association’s manager, constitute part of the association’s official records that are subject to inspection by the members.

Several categories of records, while still constituting a part of the official records, are not subject to a member’s inspection request. For example, attorney-client privileged correspondence, medical records, information obtained by an association in connection with the approval of the lease, sale or other transfer of a unit and social security numbers, just to name a few, are not subject to a member’s inspection request but still constitute a part of the association’s official records.

On March 6 2002, the then Chief Assistant General Counsel of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (“DBPR”) issued an opinion which provided that “[c]ondominium owners do have the right to inspect e-mail correspondences between the board of directors and the property manager as long as the correspondence is related to the operation of the association and does not fall within the… statutorily protected exceptions… [The DBPR does not have] regulations expressly requiring archiving e-mails, but… if the e-mail correspondence relates to the operation of the association property, it is required to be maintained by the association, whether on paper or electronically, under chapter 718, Florida Statutes.”

In Humphrey v. Carriage Park Condominium Association, Inc., Arb. Case No. 2008-04-0230 (Final Order / Campbell / March 30, 2009), an arbitrator of the Division of Florida Condominiums, Timeshares, and Mobile Homes held that “…e-mails… existing… on the personal computers of individual directors… are not official records of the association… Even if directors communicate among themselves by e-mail strings or chains, about the operation of the association, the status of the electronic communication on their personal computer would not change. Similarly, an e-mail to an individual director or to all directors as a group, addressed only to their personal computers, is not written communication to the association.” The arbitrator reasoned that “[t]his must be so because there is no obligation to turn on [the] personal computer with any regularity, or to open and read emails before deleting them.”

Simply stated, if one was to rely on the guidance cited herein, e-mails solely between board members, even a board majority, are not part of the official records, e-mails between the board and the manager are part of the official records and unit owner e-mail addresses are only subject to inspection where a unit owner has either consented to receive notice by e-mail or has consented in writing to the disclosure of his/her e-mail address. That having been said, it is in my opinion that e-mail communications that involve a board majority are still subject to the board meeting notice requirements already required by Chapter 718, Florida Statutes, more commonly known as the “Condominium Act”.