Financial | Rembaum's Association Roundup

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 That said, bear in mind that such decisions are not precedential and in addition only apply to the parties in the arbitration that resulted in the Division’s order.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.

October 12, 2021December 27, 2021

Is Your Association Prepared? Expect Supply Shortages

There’s news once again reporting food and product supply shortages are on the horizon, if not already here, due to what can only be described as a logistics disaster. This morning’s news reported that there are thousands of shipping crates snarled in a logistical nightmare waiting to be off loaded with no relief in sight. One news source reported 250,000 crates are waiting to off load. While no one is yelling “fire in a crowded theater,” (yet) it likely makes sense to get ahead of your association’s inventory needs. That said, hoarding is never a good idea. But, keeping extra inventory on hand may make sense until the supply chains are working correctly again.

Sources for the following include CBS News, the Wall Street Journal and Axios:

“American families are going to face a two-pronged assault:

1. Empty shelves at toy and grocery stores
2. Inflated prices on the toys and groceries that are available.

At this very moment, there are 250,000 shipping containers stuck at sea off the east and west coasts, waiting to be unloaded and it could be months before they get to store shelves. But Biden is presiding over one of the biggest supply chain bottlenecks since WWII: [via CBS News]

Ships cant dock because ports are full
Ports are full because there aren’t enough truck drivers to take the shipping containers away
When truckers do arrive, the ports are poorly staffed and they can’t offload fast enough, resulting in truck drivers who used to pick up 20 loads/week, now only able to take six
The cost of shipping a container from China to the U.S. is now $20,000, four times higher than this time last year.

It’s already begun: Stores across the country are already restricting supplies. Try not to have flashbacks to March 2020, but Costo and Walmart have announced they are limiting sales of toilet paper in some stores. And around the country, there are shortages of goods on shelves in Target, Costco, Home Depot, and Sears.

Warning about your Christmas feast: Axios is reporting that food supplies will also be impacted: “Grocery stores could have limited quantities of a number of products heading into the holidays after some of the country’s biggest food manufacturers say they’re short on supply.”

The Boy Scout motto “Be Prepared” comes to mind!

January 10, 2021January 25, 2021

Financial Screening of Purchasers: How Far Is Too Far?

A few months back a case came before the county court in the 20th Judicial Circuit for Collier County, wherein a prospective buyer challenged the validity of a board-adopted rule which required that all prospective buyers provide two years of tax returns with their application for ownership approval. This requirement was in addition to the background check and credit check that were also required. While this is only a county court case and, therefore, has no precedential value other than to the parties themselves, there are principles addressed of which associations and managers should be aware; even though many learned attorneys would opine that the conclusions of the court are legally flawed under the facts of the case and, if appealed, would likely be overturned. Nevertheless, there are still nuggets of knowledge that can be gleaned from this case.

In this case, Mech v. Crescent Beach Condominium Association, Inc., Case No. 19-SC-3498, decided June 2020, the purchaser, who was the plaintiff, was seeking to buy a unit at Crescent Beach Condominium for $400,000, which was to be paid in cash. The purchaser purportedly had a clean background and a credit score of 800. Nonetheless, the board required that, like all other prospective purchasers at the condominium, this purchaser needed to produce his tax returns in order for the association to approve the transfer. The purchaser refused to provide his tax returns and cited his good credit score and clean background as evidence enough for approval. Eventually, an impasse was reached, and the purchaser canceled the contract. Then he brought the county court lawsuit challenging the requirement. (Generally speaking, typically under current Florida law, the purchaser would not have legal standing to even bring the claim against the association; but it does not appear that this legal infirmity was raised by the association, which allowed the case to proceed.)

The purchaser challenged the rule, arguing that the rule was not within the scope of the association’s authority to adopt, nor did it reflect reasoned decision-making. (It is noteworthy to point out that, after the initiation of the lawsuit, the association amended its declaration of condominium to provide that the association may require tax returns in an application for approval of a sale. However, this is not relevant to the conclusions of the Court in this case since it occurred after the litigation was filed.)

The association argued that the tax returns are necessary because they provide more information than a credit report and could help ensure that the potential purchaser is “a good credit risk.” The Court, however, did not agree, calling the argument “nonsensical.” The Court goes on to identify what this judge considers to be the best indicator of a person’s financial history, and as a result, it is the only information the association is allowed to seek. (We note that this conclusion is also without a stated legal basis.)

In the final judgment, some might argue that the Court goes way beyond what proper judicial consideration and conclusions typically contain and indicates that she could find “NO justification for the invasive requirement that a full, or even partial, return would be required when, in fact, the board already requires a full background check and credit check.” While no legal support for the conclusion was provided, the Court held that the request for tax returns was invasive and unnecessary and that the requirement was “shocking.”

The Court objected to the blanket requirement that applied to every applicant regardless of the results of their background and credit checks. Had the tax returns only been required when an applicant’s credit history showed a history of financial instability or delinquencies, the rule may have been upheld by the Court. How-ever, the Court held that “to take a position that ‘every person’ who applies to be a member at [the association] is patently unreasonable and shall be stricken.” Lastly, also without a legal basis or ability, the Court ordered the association to strike all reference in its condominium documents which require potential purchasers to produce tax returns unless the association can show good cause to request the information.

A brief discussion regarding the adoption of rules and regulations is necessary to highlight lessons that can be learned from this case. Generally, both condominium and homeowners association governing documents will typically provide that the board of the directors has the authority to adopt rules and regulations for the community. While some governing documents may contain restrictions requiring a membership vote to approve new rules, it is common for the governing documents to provide the board with the authority to adopt rules and regulations. (Careful review of the documentary authority for each community is recommended as some may limit the rule-making authority to common areas only and not to the residential property within the community.) Although the board is generally authorized to adopt rules and regulations, those rules and regulations must not conflict with any provision expressly set out in the governing documents or reasonably inferred from them, and they must be reasonable. (This should be contrasted with covenants recorded in the County’s official records, which may be unreasonable and still be legally enforceable under long-standing Florida case law.)

In Beachwood Villas Condominium v. Poor, et. al., a 1984 Fourth District Court of Appeal (4th DCA) case in which several owners challenged rules enacted by their association’s board of directors, the Court noted that there could be two sources of use restrictions: (i) those set out in the declaration of condominium and (ii) those adopted by the board. As to the use restrictions set out in the declaration, the court held that such restrictions are “clothed with a very strong presumption of validity,” as initially provided in Hidden Harbor Estates v. Basso (a 1981 4th DCA case).

In examining board-adopted rules, the court first must determine whether the board acted within its scope of authority—in other words, whether the board had the express authority in the documents to adopt the rule in the first place. If the answer is “yes,” the second question to determine is whether the rule conflicts with an express provision of the governing documents or one that is reasonably inferred. (If the documents are silent on an issue, the inference is that it is unrestricted. Adopting a rule to restrict a topic that the declaration is otherwise silent about would conflict with the inferred unrestricted use and therefore be unenforceable.) If these first two issues are found to exist, the court will then determine if the rule is reasonable. The board’s exercise of its reasonable business judgment in adopting a rule is generally upheld so long as the rule is not “violative of any constitutional restrictions and does not exceed any specific limitations set out in the statutes or condominium documents.”

In examining your own board-adopted rules, ask the following:

Did the board have the power to adopt the rule?
Is the rule in accord with with the declaration, articles of incorporation, or bylaws?
Is the rule reasonable under the circumstances? (While ultimately only a court can make this final determination, the board should use its best judgment, with assistance of its counsel, to reach this decision.)

If the answer to these three questions is “yes,” then the rule should be found to be valid and enforceable by the court upon an owner challenge.

Ultimately, what can be gleaned from Mech v. Crescent Beach Condominium Association Inc. is that even if the association acts reasonably when adopting rules and even when amending the declaration, a lower court judge can reach almost any decision it wishes. Had the provision at issue only required tax returns when the background or credit checks revealed that the prospective purchaser had a history of financial irresponsibility, the provision may have withstood judicial challenge by this particular judge. Additionally, had the provision requiring tax returns been set out in the declaration before the initiation of the lawsuit, the outcome may have been different under existing, well-established case law.

Bottom line, whenever the board is considering new rules, it is recommended that the board consult with the association’s legal counsel before adopting them.

(Reprinted with permission from the September 2020 edition of the Florida Community Association Journal)