association | Rembaum's Association Roundup

February 3, 2023February 3, 2023

Architectural Committees Formal Procedures, Published Standards, and Self Help

Formal Procedures

There are strict legal requirements that a homeowners’ association’s (HOA) architectural review committee (ARC) must follow, most especially if the ARC intends to deny an owner’s request. As this author has witnessed countless times, it is likely that many ARCs do not conduct their activities in conformity with Florida law such that an ARC denial may not withstand judicial scrutiny. If these legal requirements are not followed, and the ARC denies the owner’s architectural request, then it would be quite easy for the owner to challenge the ARC’s decision and prevail. Upon prevailing, the owner would be entitled to their prevailing party attorney’s fees and costs, as well. It is so easy to avoid this outcome, yet so few associations take the time to do it right.

Pursuant to §720.303(2), Florida Statutes, a meeting of the ARC is required to be open and noticed in the same manner as a meeting of the association’s board of directors. Notice of the ARC meeting must be posted in a conspicuous place in the community at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting, and the meeting must be open for all members to attend. Further, pursuant to §720.303(2)(c)(3), Florida Statutes, members of the ARC are not permitted to vote by proxy or secret ballot. Also, bare bone minutes should be taken to create a record of ARC decisions—especially denials.

We often hear from many HOAs that the ARC does not meet openly and does not notice their meetings. This leaves decisions made by the ARC vulnerable to challenge. If the ARC denies an application but fails to do so at a properly noticed board meeting, the owner can challenge the denial, claiming that it is not valid because the ARC did not follow proper procedure. In such cases, the ARC’s denial of an application is not valid because the ARC failed to comply with the procedural requirements for the meeting even if an application violates the declaration or other association-adopted architectural standards. However, by complying with the provisions of Chapter 720, Florida Statutes, your HOA can work to avoid this debacle.

Published Standards

Often a top priority for an HOA is ensuring that homes in the community maintain a harmonious architectural scheme in conformity with community standards and guidelines, and because the ARC is at the frontline of owners’ alterations and improvements to their homes, it is instrumental in ensuring that the community standards and guidelines are met. Pursuant to §720.3035(1), Florida Statutes, an HOA, or the ARC, “has the authority to review and approve plans and specifications only to the extent that the authority is specifically stated or reasonably inferred as to location, size, type, or appearance in the declaration or other published guidelines and standards.” But not every owner request is typically addressed in the declaration or other published guidelines and standards. If not, then the association may not be in a good position for proper denial. Therefore, the ARC is only as effective as the objective guidelines and standards (set forth in the declaration and other published guidelines and standards) are inclusive. So, what is the association to do when the ARC receives an owner’s application for an alteration to the home, but the association does not have any architectural guidelines or standards regulating the requested alteration?

While not court tested yet, a possible solution for this conundrum is to include a “catch-all” provision in the declaration to proactively address those ARC applications where a member may request a modification that is not directly addressed by the governing documents. Such a “catch-all” provision stands for the proposition that, if such a request is made, then the existing state of the community is the applicable standard by which the ARC application is to be judged. For example, imagine if an owner applies to the ARC to paint the owner’s house pink. If there are no architectural guidelines or standards that address what color a house must be, and there are no pink houses in the community, then the existing state of the community may provide a lawful basis for the ARC to deny the request because there are no existing pink houses in the community.

The Trouble With Self-Help Provisions

What if an owner refuses to maintain the owner’s property, such as pressure washing a dirty roof, despite the HOA sending demand letters, levying a fine, and perhaps even suspending the owner’s right to use the HOA’s recreational facilities? What is the HOA’s next step? Is it time to file a lawsuit to compel compliance? Well, Chapter 718 (governing condominiums), Chapter 719 (governing cooperatives), and Chapter 720 (governing HOAs) of the Florida Statutes authorize the association to bring an action at law or in equity to enforce the provisions of the declaration against the owner. Additionally, many declarations contain “self-help” language that authorizes the association to cure a violation on behalf of the owner and even, at times, assess the owner for the costs of doing so. These “self-help” provisions generally contain permissive language, meaning the association, may, but is not obligated to, cure the violation. Sadly, in this instance the word “may” means “shall,” and to find out why, read on.

There is a general legal principal 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). Remember, too, that an association’s declaration is a contract. In the context of an association, the legal remedy would be exercising the “self-help” authority granted in the declaration. An equitable remedy would be bringing an action seeking an injunction to compel an owner to take action to comply with the declaration. Generally, a court will only award an equitable remedy when the legal remedy is unavailable, insufficient, or inadequate.

Assume that the association’s declaration contains both the permissive “self-help” remedy and the right to seek an injunction from the court. Accordingly, it would appear the association has a decision to make—go to court to seek the injunction or enter onto the owner’s property, cure the violation, and assess the costs of same to the owner. However, recent Florida case law affirmed a complication to what should be a simple decision. In two cases decided ten years apart, Alorda v. Sutton Place Homeowners Association, Inc., 82 So.3d 1077 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2012) and Mauriello v. Property Owners Association of Lake Parker Estates, Inc., 337 So.3d 484 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2022), 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, but not the obligation, to engage in “self-help” to remedy the violation. Expressed simply, this is because the legal contractually based “self-help” remedy must be employed before one can rely upon equitable remedy of an injunction. Therefore, even though the declaration provided for an optional remedy of “self-help,” it must be used before seeking the equitable remedy of an injunction.

In Alorda, the owners failed to provide the association with proof of insurance required by the declaration. Although the declaration allowed the association to obtain the required insurance, the association filed a complaint against the owners seeking injunctive relief, asking the court to enter a permanent mandatory injunction requiring the owners to obtain the requested insurance. The owners successfully argued that even though they violated the declaration, the equitable remedy of an injunction was not available because the association already had an adequate legal remedy—the “self-help” option of purchasing the required insurance and assessing them for same. The Court agreed.

In Mauriello, the declaration contained similar language as in Alorda but involved the issue of the owners failing to keep their lawn and landscaping in good condition as required by the declaration. The association filed a complaint seeking a mandatory injunction ordering the owners to keep their lawn and landscaping in a neat condition. However, the facts were complicated by the sale of the home in the middle of the suit when the new owners voluntarily brought the home into compliance with the declaration. The parties continued to fight over who was entitled to prevailing party attorney’s fees with the association arguing it was entitled to same because the voluntary compliance was only obtained after the association was forced to commence legal action. The owners, citing Alorda, argued that the complaint should have been dismissed at the onset because the association sought an equitable remedy (injunction) when a legal remedy was already available—the exercise of its “self-help” authority. The Court considered the award of attorney’s 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 the injunction because it already had an adequate remedy at law.

Accordingly, if your association’s declaration contains a “self-help” provision, and your association desires to seek an injunction against an owner rather than pursue “self-help,” the board should discuss the issue in greater detail with the association’s legal counsel prior to proceeding. Also, remember that if the association wants to enforce architectural standards, then they must be published to the membership; and always remember to notice ARC meetings and take minutes.

(Reprinted with permission from the February 2023 edition of the “Florida Community Association Journal”.)

January 4, 2023February 3, 2023

New Legislation Needed for Required Maintenance Affecting Condominium Building Structural Integrity and Safety

Material Alterations, Special Assessments, and Borrowing

As to the title of this article, anyone familiar with Senate Bill 4-D and the newly required milestone inspection reports and structural integrity reserve studies primarily applicable to condominium and cooperative buildings three stories and higher knows that material alterations, special assessments, and the authority to borrow funds are not mentioned in the legislation. So why write this article about those subjects? Because the milestone reports and structural integrity reserve studies will no doubt also lead to both expected and unexpected required repairs and replacements. In effectuating such repairs and replacements, an association’s board of directors needs i) the ability to approve material alterations under certain circumstances that sometimes arise in connection with such work, ii) the ability to levy special assessments to pay for the work, and iii) the authority to borrow money that is often needed to pay for such repairs and replacements so that the special assessment payments can be amortized over time, thereby lessening the financial strain on the owners.

In the event the needed repairs and replacements require material alterations to the condominium common elements or cooperative property, an important question that arises is, is the approval of the members required? The relied-upon definition of what constitutes a “material alteration” comes from Sterling Village Condominium Inc. v. Breitenbach, 251 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). It means to “palpably or perceptively vary or change the form, shape, elements, or specifications of the common elements in such a manner as to appreciably affect or influence its function, use, or appearance.”

Let’s first examine the relevant legislation concerning material alterations. As to condominium associations, §718.113, Fla. Stat., provides, in relevant part, that

Maintenance of the common elements is the responsibility of the association… Except as otherwise provided in this section, there shall be no material alteration or substantial additions to the common elements or to real property, which is association property, except in a manner provided in the declaration as originally recorded or as amended under the procedures provided therein. If the declaration as originally recorded or as amended under the procedures provided therein does not specify the procedure for approval of material alterations or substantial additions, 75 percent of the total voting interests of the association must approve the alterations or additions before the material alterations or substantial additions are commenced….

As to cooperative associations, §719.1055, Fla. Stat., provides in relevant part that

unless a lower number is provided in the cooperative documents or unless such action is expressly prohibited by the articles of incorporation or bylaws of the cooperative, … material alterations or substantial additions to such property by the association shall not be deemed to constitute a material alteration or modification of the appurtenances to the unit if such action is approved by two-thirds of the total voting interests of the cooperative. [emphasis added]

With all of this in mind, what if the required repairs stemming from the milestone report or structural integrity reserve study include necessary (meaning not voluntary) material alterations? If the governing documents do not vest such decision making to the board of directors, which is relatively rare, is the vote of the membership required? The short answer is that it depends on the facts and circumstances at hand. It is patently clear that merely because the replacement product is less expensive than replacing the item with the same product, that does not justify obviating the membership vote when required. See George v. Beach Club Villas Condominium Assoc., 833 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2002). For example, replacing a cedar shake roof with asphalt shingles due to cost considerations is not a sufficient reason to not obtain membership approval when otherwise required.

However, under the right circumstances the board can rely on the “necessary maintenance exception,” which evolved from a series of cases further discussed below. Before explaining further, the board should always consult with the association’s legal counsel to ensure a concurrence of opinion before proceeding with the work based on this “necessary maintenance exception” legal theory. There is a balance in the analysis which must be undertaken in that the association is responsible for the maintenance of the common elements as compared against when such maintenance may require a vote of the membership due to a material alteration. Based on the “necessary maintenance exception,” when it is clear that the material alteration is needed to complete the required maintenance, the board likely has the authority to proceed with the work without membership approval. Therefore, in our view, it would be beneficial for the legislature to codify this extremely important “necessary maintenance exception” into the Florida Statutes.

Regarding material alterations, in Tiffany Plaza Condominium Association, Inc. v. Spencer, 416 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1982), without the required vote of the owners, the board of directors opted to construct a rock revetment wall in the sand between the condominium’s seawall and the mean high-tide line. The area in question was part of the association’s common elements. Owners who were unhappy with the decision of the board (including the assessment to fund this project) sued the association. The association defended itself on the basis that the rock revetment was not an alteration or improvement of a common element but rather was part of the required maintenance, repair, and replacement of a common element that the association had responsibility for under several provisions of the declaration, its bylaws, and statutes. While the trial court agreed with the plaintiff owners, the Second District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court decisions and held that

If, in the good business judgment of the association, such alteration or improvement is necessary or beneficial in the maintenance, repair, or replacement of the common elements, all unit owners should equally bear the costs as provided in the declaration, bylaws, and statutes.

Further, the court held that

from the cited provisions of the declaration, it is clear to us that the association could properly assess all unit owners for the replacement or repair of the beachfront common element if it was damaged by erosion or otherwise. Likewise, it seems to us that if, in the good business judgment of the association, alteration or improvement of the beachfront by addition of a rock revetment would protect the beach from damage and the necessity of subsequent repair or replacement then that cost should also be borne equally by all unit owners.

In Ralph v. Envoy Point Condominium Association, Inc., 455 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 2d DCA, 1984), condominium owners objected to an assessment passed by the board of directors for the purpose of constructing a vertical seawall extension. The court held that, in view of the competent evidence from which it could be determined that the vertical extension of the seawall was necessary to protect the common elements, the board of directors of the condominium association was authorized to construct the extension without the necessity of the vote of the condominium unit owners, which was required by the condominium documents for alterations or improvements.

Regarding special assessments, in yet another case, Cottrell v. Thornton, 449 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 2d DCA, 1984), condominium owners brought suit against the president of a board of directors of a condominium association after the board assessed the members to pay for the cost of fixing problems with a canal system, roadway, and swimming pool. The court examined the authority of the board to make decisions when a vote of the members would otherwise be required. It is clear from reading this case that the court received evidence regarding the condition of the canals which were filling due to erosion, excess weed growth, and pollution from excess runoff; that lots were gradually crumbling away into the canals; that the swimming pool was built on soil which was not de-mucked prior to construction and then floated up; and there were cracks on the floor and side walls of the pool and its deck. In fact, the pool was closed to any type of pedestrian traffic due to the unsafe conditions. The roadways had large and severe potholes. There was testimony during the proceedings that the canal needed to be drained, scraped, de-mucked, and lined with sea bags to make the seawalls secure and that the roads needed to be resurfaced.

After the board put its plan into action and levied the assessment, the plaintiffs who sued claimed the repairs constituted material alterations of the common elements. The president of the board argued that only necessary repairs and replacements were authorized by the board. The issue presented on appeal was whether the proposed changes constituted substantial additions/alterations or were necessary repairs. Here, the appellate court relied on the findings of the trial court which found that

because necessary repairs were planned, not material alterations, the trial court found the board of directors was authorized to make assessments against the unit owners without holding a vote.

The trial court also held that the restoration was “necessary to prevent further damage to the common elements,” and, as such, the board had the authority to proceed without a vote of the owners. This ruling is in line with the “necessary maintenance” principle previously provided in the above-referenced cases.

It is extremely important when examining whether a vote of the membership is required to perform material alterations that each project be separated into its core constituent components so as to avoid an argument that a particular part of the project was in fact a material alteration requiring a vote of the membership. If part of a concrete restoration project included material alterations which were unavoidable under the circumstances, but a part of the project also included voluntary aesthetic changes, those aesthetic changes would likely require approval of the membership (subject, of course, to the provisions in the governing documents or relevant legislation) even though the other part of the project did not.

In Bailey v. Shelbourne Ocean Beach Hotel Condominium Association, Inc., et al., 307 So. 3d 74 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2020), the board of directors levied special assessments to the tune of 30 million dollars for two rounds of construction projects. The first round of construction included elevator modernization; exterior painting; repairs to the porte cochere, pool and lobby; installation of a sewage lift station; and installation of impact-resistant balcony doors. The second round of construction included window repairs, installation of safety railing, replacement of unit doors, pool paver repairs, hardening of the beach entrance, and reinforcement of the substructure beneath the townhomes. Several condominium unit owners argued, among other things, that the association violated Chapter 718 F.S. by its failure to secure unit owner approval for the construction projects that amounted to a material alteration of the common elements and that a prior vote of the membership regarding a material alteration is required. The court held that regarding two particular parts of the project, the board of directors violated the Statute when it assessed unit owners for the cost of material alterations based on 75 percent of unit owners ratifying the construction projects after completion because §718.113(2)(a), Fla. Stat., requires approval before beginning construction. The court further held that although the majority of items completed during construction constituted necessary maintenance, and thus were properly assessed by the board, there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether pool pavers and reinforcement of substructure underneath the townhomes were necessary maintenance items.

As to a board’s authority to borrow money to fund necessary repairs or replacements, there is no Florida case law or other legal authority that directly stands for the proposition that a board of directors can borrow such funds when the governing documents would otherwise require a vote of the membership to do so. Therefore, this, too should be addressed in a future legislative bill.

A board should never consider relying on the theories of the aforementioned cases without first consulting with its legal counsel regarding the applicability of those cases to the facts at hand and to better understand the risks involved.

With all of this in mind, it would be extremely helpful for additional legislation to be adopted by the Florida legislature that clearly

1. permits the association through board action alone to authorize material alterations as part of any necessary repair or replacement project when similar like-kind items are no longer available or not recommended due to safety etc.; and
2. permits the association through board action alone to special assess the membership as part of any necessary repair or replacement project; and
3. permits the association through board action alone to borrow money in connection with any necessary repair or replacement project.

(Reprinted with permission from the January 2023 edition of the “Florida Community Association Journal”.)

December 5, 2022December 5, 2022

Senate Bill 4-D Glitches That Must Be Addressed

Milestone Report and Structural Integrity Reserve Study

Despite the Florida legislature’s best efforts, there nevertheless remains confusion with the interpretation of Senate Bill 4-D (SB 4-D), which provides for condominium and cooperative milestone inspections and structural integrity reserve studies. The purpose of this article is to draw attention to many of these glitches in hopes that the 2023 Florida legislature will address these issues by passing a glitch bill to provide needed and worthwhile clarity for Florida’s community association board members affected by this game-changing legislation. First, a couple of glitches applying to the entirety of SB 4-D are addressed, followed by the glitches related to the required milestone report, and then glitches related to the structural integrity reserve study requirements are addressed. This article does not go into detail explaining the requirements of SB 4-D as that was the subject of a prior article from August 2022 FLCAJ, which can be easily found and read HERE.

Glitches Related to the Entirety of SB 4-D

The term “common areas” is used throughout SB 4-D. While this is appropriate for cooperatives, it is not appropriate in the context of condominiums. Chapter 719, Florida Statutes, applicable to Florida’s cooperatives, defines “common areas” as the portions of the cooperative property not included in units. But, as to condominiums there is no similar definition. Rather, Chapter 718, Florida Statutes, applicable to condominiums, uses the term “common elements” to refer to portions of the condominium property not included in the units. This clarification should be made.

Is SB 4-D so very substantive in nature such that “Kaufman language” should be required for its provisions to apply? Obviously, the intent is that the entirety of SB 4-D should apply to all existing and future condominium and cooperative associations. (By way of oversimplification, “Kaufman language” refers to a provision set out in a declaration which makes patently clear that all legislation upon becoming effective, applies to the association. For example, in “This declaration is subject to Chapter 718, as it is amended from time to time, the italicized text is the “Kaufman language.”) There is language in SB 4-D which suggests that the milestone inspection is applicable regardless of Kaufman language. But, there is no equivalent in regard to the requirements of the structural integrity reserve study. In any event, additional clarity should be provided which makes it patently clear that regardless of Kaufman language, all of the requirements set out in SB 4-D apply.

Glitches Related to the Milestone Report

The milestone inspection applies to condominium and cooperative buildings that are three stories or higher, with a notable exception for single-family, two-family, or three-family dwellings with three or fewer above-ground habitable stories. Why does this exception only apply to the milestone report and not the structural integrity reserve study? Any resulting glitch bill should also include that single-family, two-family, or three-family dwellings with three or fewer above-ground habitable stories are exempted from the need for a structural integrity reserve study.

Also, what about commercial condominiums and cooperatives? If a condominium building is taller than three stories, let’s say a 50-story tower, and is a mixed-use building where there are both commercial components, residential components, and even components belonging to a master association; and as a part of the declaration of condominium, certain floors are exempted from the definition of the condominium at issue, then is the entire building subject to the milestone inspection or only those floors which are designated as part of the condominium as determined by a review of the declaration of condominium? Also, what if the condominium does not touch ground, as in a vertical subdivision where the condominium may not begin until the 10th floor of a building? Is the entire building subject to the milestone inspection or only those floors which are included within the condominium subdivision?

SB 4-D is patently clear that a milestone inspection must be performed within 180 days of receipt of notice from local government. But, what if the association already prepared its milestone report in conformity with the statutory deadlines, which are either 30 years from the date of the certificate of occupancy issuance; 25 years from the date of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy if the building is within three miles of a coastline; or by December 31, 2024, if the building is already 30 years past its issuance of the certificate of occupancy? Must that association have another milestone report completed or even expend association funds updating its existing report? In addition, why shouldn’t a condominium or cooperative building that is already 25 years past the issuance of its certificate of occupancy and is within three miles of the coastline also have its initial milestone report completed by December 31, 2024?

The milestone inspection requirements refer to “story” and “stories” without providing any meaningful guidance as to what it means. Is the below-grade parking structure to be included within the definition? How about an above-grade parking structure? Is the term “story” only to apply to habitable stories? Is the definition of the term “story” (i) a part of the building that comprises its different levels, which is situated above or below other levels; (ii) the space between a floor and a ceiling, or (iii) the definition of the term “story” which is used in the Florida Building Code as follows: “that portion of a building included between the upper surface of a floor and the upper surface of the floor or roof next above”?

What is a “coastline”? Section 376.031 of the Florida Statutes, as referred to in SB 4-D, defines a coastline as “the line of mean low water along the portion of the coast that is in direct contact with the open sea and the line marking the seaward limit of inland waters, as determined under the Convention on Territorial Seas and the Contiguous Zone.” If the statutory definition is applied, then many buildings likely intended to be subject to the 25-year requirement will be instead subject to the 30-year requirement.

Glitches Related to the Structural Integrity Reserve Study

The structural integrity reserve study, otherwise referred to as the “SIRS,” must be completed by all Florida condominiums and cooperatives with buildings that are three or more stories by December 31, 2024. With this in mind, if the association receives its SIRS after it adopts its 2025 annual budget, but prior to the December 31, 2024, deadline, it means that the SIRS reserves will not actually be funded until the association’s 2026 annual budget is implemented. This is not the likely intent of the legislation and should be clarified as to whether this is permissible. The Division of Florida Condominiums, Timeshares, and Mobile Homes (the Division) has intimated that it will require the SIRS reserves to be included in the association’s 2025 budget. If that is going to be the case, then this absolutely must be clarified in a future glitch bill. Governmental agencies cannot adopt laws in contravention to existing legislation. If they take such a stance, then they will have a significant uphill battle if later challenged in a court of law with regard to such a position. Hopefully, a glitch bill will address this issue.

If an association receives its SIRS prior to December 31, 2024, and includes the results in its 2025 budget, so long as the membership vote to waive or reduce the reserves is taken prior to the December 31, 2024, deadline, then ostensibly the 2025 required reserves could be waived or reduced. Is this an intended result of the legislation? It should be clarified.

The SIRS requirements apply to condominium and cooperative buildings three stories or higher. Once again, the definition of a “story” needs to be addressed to provide needed clarity.

The items required to be reserved for (if the SIRS requirement applies) include the following:

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

Can the aforementioned items be “pooled” from the outset, or is a vote of the membership required to do so? (In short, pooling reserves assumes not all of the components will break at the same time and there will be sufficient funds on hand when needed for each of the components’ major repairs and/or replacement.) What if the association already has a reserve pool which includes the roof, paving, and painting and now desires to include that pool as a part of the new pool for the items listed above; is a vote of the membership needed to combine the pools? Not only is clarification needed in this regard, but the association needs to make sure there is a clear record of which components are in each pooled reserve. It is reported that the Division takes the position that the aforementioned reserves can be pooled in one or more pools. Perhaps they will clarify this when adopting administrative rules. However, such clarification would be better suited in a glitch bill.

Effective December 31, 2024, the members of a unit-owner controlled association may not determine to provide no reserves or less reserves for the aforementioned reserve items. With that in mind, consider the following: The board adopts the 2024 budget in November of 2023. Thereafter, on December 1, 2023, the unit owners vote to waive or otherwise reduce the required reserves. Will this be considered a violation? Sources indicate that it will not; however, this too should be addressed in a glitch bill.

While the likely intent of SB 4-D was to require fully funded reserves for the items listed above for buildings having three or more stories, SB 4-D provides that the members of a unit-owner controlled association cannot vote to waive or reduce reserves for those items set out above, without exception for buildings with fewer than three stories. This should be clarified in a glitch bill.

Whether intended or not, the requirement prohibiting the unit-owner controlled association from reducing or waiving the reserves for the items listed above applies to ALL condominiums and cooperatives, not just those three stories and higher. If this was not intended, then it should be clarified that condominium and cooperative associations that are not required to have the SIRS should be able to continue to waive and reduce reserves.

What does a “fully funded” reserve” mean, fully funded for the particular year or sufficient funds on hand for the cost of replacement? The answer to this question truly depends on whom you ask and in which state they reside. In Florida, as applied to condominium and cooperative associations, a fully funded reserve refers to whether the association is properly funding the right amount for the year in question. It does not refer to whether the reserve account has the total sum required for the component’s replacement. For example, assume the reserve item in question has a replacement cost of $100,000 and a life of 10 years. The association has been reserving $10,000 per year each year, and it is year seven. The budget denotes the $10,000 reserve for year seven, too. Therefore, this component is fully funded. A different example includes the same component that has a replacement cost of $100,000 and a life of 10 years. In this example, the association has never reserved for the item, and it is year seven, meaning there are three years left before the component will need to be replaced. With this in mind, the fully funded amount to be included in the budget would be $100,000.00 divided by the remaining three years, which is $33,333.33. Any amount less than that would mean the reserve item is not fully funded for that year. In any event, a definition for the term “fully funded” would provide some much-needed clarity.

Regarding the requirement to reserve for the foundation, exterior walls, flooring, and load bearing columns: will these items ever need replacing? It is doubtful. However, serious and expensive repairs may be incurred. SB 4-D should be clarified in this regard.

Regarding the requirement to reserve for windows: what if the unit owners are responsible for the windows and not the association? Why should the association have to reserve for window replacement if the association is not responsible for the windows? Therefore, clarity is needed.

The SIRS can be performed by any person qualified to perform such study. However, the visual inspection portion of the SIRS must be performed by a Florida licensed engineer or architect. The qualifications required to perform the non-visual portions of the SIRS needs to be addressed in a glitch bill.

SB 4-D does not require that the SIRS be provided to every owner. Shouldn’t it? This should be addressed in a glitch bill.

By no means are the above items all of the glitches contained within SB 4-D. However, by minimally addressing at least these items, the 2023 Florida Legislature will be doing the owners of Florida’s condominium and cooperative units a great service.

(Reprinted with permission from the December 2022 edition of the “Florida Community Association Journal”.)

November 1, 2022November 1, 2022

Holiday Displays | Why Board Members Need to Understand The Difference Between Religious and Secular Holiday Displays

Holiday Displays

Why Board Members Need to Understand The Difference Between Religious and Secular Holiday Displays

If your community association installs a holiday display, is that holiday display considered religious or secular? Are Christmas trees, menorahs, Nativity scenes, or the Kikombe cha Umoja (the Unity Cup used during Kwanzaa celebrations) considered religious or secular? How can you tell the difference? Why is the difference so very important to understand? The reason it is important to understand the difference between a religious versus a secular display is that if your association does have a religious display, and a member makes a request to have a holiday display for their religion too, the association must honor the request in order to avoid a claim of religious discrimination. But, if the holiday display is secular, such obligation does not exist.

Fortunately, we have guidance from the United States Supreme Court to help associations differentiate between secular and religious symbols and displays. In the 1989 case of County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S. 573 (1989), the Court held that the determination of whether decorations, including those used to commemorate holidays (which are or have been religious in nature), are religious or not turns on whether viewers would perceive the decorations to be an endorsement or disapproval of their individual religious choices. The constitutionality of the object is judged according to the standard of a reasonable observer.

Thus, the Court found that a Christmas tree, by itself, is not a religious symbol; although Christmas trees once carried religious connotations, “Today they typify the secular celebration of Christmas.” The Court also noted that numerous Americans place Christmas trees in their homes without subscribing to Christian religious beliefs and that Christmas trees are widely viewed as the preeminent secular symbol of the Christmas holiday season.

In contrast, the Court stated that a menorah is a religious symbol that serves to commemorate the miracle of the oil (lasting eight days when it should have only lasted one day) as described in the Talmud. However, the Court continued that the menorah’s significance is not exclusively religious, as it is the primary visual symbol for a holiday that is both secular and religious. When placed next to a Christmas tree, the Court found that the overall effect of the display, to recognize Christmas and Chanukah as part of the same winter holiday season, has attained secular status in our society. Therefore, we can conclude that a Christmas tree and menorah, side by side, are of a secular nature.

As to the Ten Commandments, in the 1980 case of Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980), the Court held that that the Ten Commandments are undeniably religious in nature and that no “recitation of a supposed secular purpose can blind [the Court] to that fact.” The Court stated that the Ten Commandments do not confine themselves to secular matters (such as honoring one’s parents or prohibiting murder), but instead embrace the duties of religious observers.

Another important holiday decoration issue concerns whether the decoration constitutes a material alteration of the common elements or common area. Generally, unless a homeowners association’s declaration provides to the contrary, the homeowners association’s board of directors decides matters pertaining to material alterations. On the other hand, as to a condominium association, unless the terms of the declaration of condominium provide otherwise, 75 percent of the unit owners must vote to approve material alterations of the common elements.

If a member of your community wants to include their religious symbol in the association’s holiday display, remember to consider the types of symbols already being displayed by the association as compared to the member’s request. Once your community displays a religious symbol, then there is a good chance your community will need to allow other requested religious symbols to avoid a claim of religious discrimination. Use the guidance from the Supreme Court’s cases to differentiate between a secular symbol and a religious symbol. With that in mind, if an association allows a Christmas tree and menorah, the board of directors, far more likely than not, would not have to grant a member’s request to display a Nativity scene and the Ten Commandments. The rules of kindergarten work best: treat everyone fairly, and treat them as you would want to be treated.

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: [email protected] 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.