Florida ROC : Florida Mobile Home & RV Lawyer & Attorney : Scott Gordon : Lutz Bobo Telfair Eastman Gabel & Lee Law Firm : FL Condo & Homeowners Associations

ROC managers, board members and the professionals that advise them quite often long for the "good old days" when the Florida Statutes governing condominium associations (Chapter 718) and cooperative associations (Chapter 719) were almost identical in provisions concerning elections, eligibility to run for the board, and waivers of financial reporting requirements. 

Those days are, for better or for worse, long gone.   Here's a quick sampling of the just a few of the important differences that now exist between the statutes governing cooperatives and condominiums:

1. Terms of board members:   F.S. Section 718.112(1)(d) now provides that the terms of all members of the board of directors of a condominium association expire at the annual meeting unless a majority of the unit owners approve a provision in the bylaws that permits staggered terms of no more than two years.   F.S.  Section 719.106(1)(d) imposes no such term limitation on board members in cooperative associations.
2. Eligibility to serve as a board member:   F.S. 718.112(1)(d) also prohibits co-owners of a unit in condominium associations with more than 10 units from serving on the board at the same time and also prohibits persons who are more than 90 days delinquent in payments of any fees or assessments due to the association, and many persons convicted of a felony from such service.  There is also a rather curious requirement that any candidate for the board of a condominium association sign a form certifying that "he or she has read and understands, to the best of his or her ability, the governing documents of the association" as well as the provisions of Chapter 718 and any " applicable rules".   Any member of a cooperative association that wishes to run for the board of directors will find that Chapter 719 does not contain any of these eligibility requirements or prohibitions if he or she wishes to serve his or her community.
3. Financial reporting requirements:  F.S. 719.104(4)(b) allows cooperative associations that are larger than 50 units  to waive the requirement that the association's financial statements compiled, reviewed or audited.   This waiver must be done annually by the vote of a majority of the voting interests present, in person or by proxy, at a duly called membership meeting.   F.S. 718.111(13) now prohibits a condominium association's membership from waiving these financial reporting requirements for more than 3 consecutive years.

I've just highlighted a few of the many differences that now exist between Chapters 718 and 719.   We haven't even touched on Chapter 720 HOA's or those "hybrid" ROCs that may or may not be governed exclusively by the provisions of Chapter 617, Florida's statutes for not-for-profit corporations.   With the next session of the Florida legislature just a few months away, we'll just have to wait and see if there's any hope of returning to those "good old days".

Stay tuned.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The dates and locations for the resident-owned community seminars we'll be conducting in February are now set.   We'll discuss helpful hints for conducting annual membership meetings and other unit owner meetings and will also provide some insights into the importance of screening potential owners, occupants, and guests in your communities.   We'll also leave time for our traditional "open forum" to answer general questions from the attendees.

Our first series of ROC seminars for this season were very well attended with lots of participation from our attendees.   We expect an even greater turnout for these upcoming events.   As always, there's no charge to attend and the refreshments are also provided free of charge.  The dates and locations of our February presentations are:

• Monday, February 1 at Francis I Mobile Estates in Sebring
• Wednesday, February 10 at Windward Isle in Sarasota
• Thursday, February 11at Marco Shores in Naples
• Wednesday, February 24 at Caribbean Isles in Apollo Beach

All of these seminars will be held in the clubhouses of our host communities and will start at 10 a.m.   We expect to wrap up the seminars by 12:30 p.m. at the latest.

Please call my assistants, Karen Midlam or Kathy Sawdo at 941-951-1800 or email them at kmidlam@lutzbobo.com or ksawdo@lutzbobo.com if you are interested in attending and provide them with the following information:

• The event your community wishes to attend
• The number of attendees from your community
• Whether you will need directions to the seminar

Our seminars are always a great opportunity to network with residents at other resident owned communities.   We hope to see you at one of these events.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

What can the directors or other members of a ROC do when the President refuses a request to bring an item before the board for consideration?

There are a number of factors that should be considered in answering this question:

• Traditionally, the President (or the board's chairperson) has been given the task of setting the agenda for meetings of the directors.  However, it's also customary that the President consult with the other directors when setting that agenda.
• There's certainly nothing wrong with allowing the President and the other members of the board to exercise a reasonable amount of discretion in setting the agenda.   Clearly, no purpose is served by allowing an issue that has already been decided by the board to have that issue placed on the agenda simply because a board member or other resident disagrees with the board's decision.
• However, the continual refusal of a President to place an item on the board meeting agenda may be a symptom of dangerous divisions within the board and the entire community.   When a ROC board member complains to me that his or her President will not place an item on the board meeting agenda, that's a warning sign that requires my contacting the ROC manager to determine the reasons for the refusal to place the item on the agenda.    Quite often, I'll learn from the community's manager that there are legitimate reasons for the President's position and at the same time will discover that personality conflicts or other issues are preventing the board from effectively governing the community.

If the President's refusal to place an item on the agenda is not justified, board members should review the association's bylaws.   The board members themselves usually appoint the association's officers, including the President, and a President that refuses to listen to a majority of his or her board members runs the risk of being removed from his office by his or her fellow board members.   While he or she would remain on the board, that removed President would no longer be able to unilaterally control the agenda.

I'll be posting the dates and locations of our seminars for February and March in my next blog entry.   We've got some exciting topics to cover and hope you'll be able to attend one of them.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The headline of Sunday's edition of the Sarasota Herald-Tribune reads "Condo Groups in Financial Pain".  The story accompanying that headline details the severe economic problems many condominium associations face as a result of the ongoing foreclosure crisis.   The article is well worth reading and contains examples of how several associations are attempting to survive a substantial decrease in their members and maintenance fees.

Our resident owned communities, for the most part, have not been severely impacted by the foreclosure crisis.  One of the reasons for this is that the ROCs we work with truly are resident owned--our ROC members customarily live in their homes for at least part of the year (or have one or more members of their family in the home).   In other words, very few of the homes in any of the ROCs we represent can  be characterized as "investment properties".

Nonetheless, I'd like to offer a few suggestions that may help ROC managers and board members better deal with problems arising from residents that fail to make timely payments of rents, maintenance fees or assessments:

1. Given the current economic climate, it's important to strongly encourage all residents to make payments when they are due.   I suggest a policy that should be developed and consistently and uniformly followed to send written notices to all delinquent members no later than 5 to 10 days after payment is due.    Many of the rights given to ROCs by the Florida Statutes to file legal actions or record liens for unpaid assessments and fees are triggered by providing written notice to the homeowner and the sooner this notice can be given the sooner the association can exercise its statutory rights.
2. The association should not be shy about getting its attorney involved early in the process to assist in recording liens and the legal actions that may be needed to protect the association's interests.  While there are certainly expenses involved in these legal remedies, it's quite often necessary to send a message to the members of the community that the ROC board and manager will do whatever it takes within the limits of the law to collect delinquent fees and rents owed to the community.,
3. When the association is named as a defendant in a foreclosure action filed against one of its members by an institutional lender, I always advise the association to answer that foreclosure complaint.  The association's filing of that answer ensures that the association will receive copies of all of the important pleadings that will be filed in that law suit, including the certificate of title that is issued to the person or company that purchases the home at the foreclosure sale.   It's very important that the association determine the new owner of the home as quickly as possible as Florida statutes quite often require that new owner to pay at least a portion of the unpaid maintenance fees or assessments to the association.   The association may have no way to quickly determine the name of the new owner if it has not filed its response to that foreclosure action.

Let's hope that 2010 brings us all heath, prosperity and happiness and that the "foreclosure crisis" is just a dim memory by this time next year.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Can unit owners in resident-owned communities discover what the association is paying its employees, including the manager? 

We are asked this question frequently each year, especially when the association is in the process of preparing its annual budget.   Obviously, the association's employees would prefer that information about the compensation they are receiving be kept private and confidential and many board members and managers are uncomfortable disclosing this information to residents in the community.  Directors are concerned--quite often, with justification--that the residents in the community do not understand that a salary paid to a ROC employee in Ohio twenty years ago would not be a competitive salary in a community in Florida in 2009.

However, Florida's statutes governing condominium associations, cooperative associations, and mandatory homeowners associations make it clear that information about the compensation paid to an employee and the other benefits that an employee receives falls within the "official records" of the association.   Any association member is entitled to inspect and copy this information.

I have a few suggestions to help board members and managers maintain some amount of privacy for the association's employees without violating Florida statutes:

1. Florida's statutes require that an association member's request to inspect or copy official members be made in writing and that the association has a number of days to respond to that request.  This allows a manager confronted at the office by a unit owner demanding salary information to request that the unit owner submit his request in writing prior to allowing that unit owner access to that information.
2. The requirement that requests to inspect official records be submitted in writing allows the President or Chairperson to advise any member insisting upon disclosure of an employee's salary during a meeting of the board or membership that any unit owner  wishing to obtain this information is free to do so by submitting a written request as provided for by Florida's statutes.
3. It's also very helpful if the association's board of directors can assure its members that its employees' wages, salaries, and benefits are in line with those paid to employees in comparable communities in the area.  The board or manager can often obtain this information from its accountant or through networking with neighboring communities.   Local chapters of the Community Associations Institute and regional groups such as Mid-Florida ROC or SWFLROC  would provide an association's board members the opportunity to gather this information on an informal basis.

Finally, any member that does inspect or copy information about an employee's compensation and benefits should be gently but firmly reminded that any employee of the association deserves the courtesy of not having his or her salary broadcast throughout the community indiscriminately.   No unit owner would enjoy having his financial information freely discussed at the pool or in the clubhouse and any member that obtains an employee's salary information channels should respect that employee's privacy. 

In addition, ROC members living in communities where not all of the residents are members of the association (such as resident owned mobile home cooperatives where some home owners are not members of the cooperative) should keep in mind that a unit owner who divulges an employee's salary may in fact be providing that information to non-member homeowners who are not entitled to that information and who may try to use that information to damage the  association--for example, by challenging an increase in the annual rent to be paid by the non-member mobile home owners and citing the salary information that was intentionally or unintentionally disclosed to that non-member.

Clearly, every member of the association owes both the association's employees and all of the other residents in the community a high degree of discretion when that member obtains information about the compensation and benefits paid to association employees.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Last Sunday's edition of the Sarasota Herald Tribune featured two separate front page articles that highlight the decisions that helped lead us into our current economic mess and threaten to keep our economy from recovering in the near future.

• The first article focuses on a condominium project in Charlotte that finds most of its units "occupied" by "phantom purchasers" from Brazil who have not paid their maintenance fees and have left the few purchasers that actually live in the development facing substantial monthly expenses for the upkeep of the common areas.  While this is a lengthy report, I highly recommend it to members of resident owned communities.
• The other article detailed the failure and refusal of many of our major financial institutions to make loans to small businesses and homeowners in spite of the clear message sent to these institutions by our President and Congress.   In its own way, this article is as depressing and maddening as the first.

I'd also like to recommend L. Jon Wertheim's story in the most recent issue of Sports Illustrated.  It's entitled "The Games of Their Lives" and it describes the efforts of two athletes to fulfill a final dream--to compete in the Beijing Paralympics.   This bittersweet but uplifting depiction of the triumph of the human spirit and the tremendous support given to these two champions (in many cases, by total strangers) gave me a very helpful dose of perspective during this time of the year.

As many of you know, we've just completed our first set of seminars for the 2009-2010 season.   Thanks to the over 200 residents from almost 55 different communities throughout the state for attending and to our hosts at Molokai in Leesburg, Old Bridge Village in N. Fort Myers, Sandalwood Park in Venice, and Westwinds Village in Bradenton for their great hospitality.   We'll be posting the dates and locations for our next set of seminars within the next few weeks.   We hope to see you at one of those events!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

We are now well into our "season" in Florida and most resident owned communities will be holding their annual meetings during the next few months.  It's thus a very good time to remind my blog readers that are members of condominium or cooperative associations of some of the important differences between ballots and proxies:

• In general, neither general proxies nor limited proxies can be used to elect the directors of a condominium or cooperative association.   The applicable provisions of the Florida Statutes that deal with the election of directors of condominium associations (F.S. Section 718.112(2)(d)) and cooperative associations (F.S. Section 719.106(1)(d)) specify that the members of the board of directors shall be elected by "written ballot or voting machine".   While the majority of voting interests in a condominium association with ten or fewer units or a cooperative association can provide in their association's bylaws for a different voting procedure that allows for elections to be conducted by limited or general proxy, I suspect that the bylaws governing most ROCs do not allow for this alternative procedure.
• F.S. Sections 718.112(2)(b) and 719.106(1)(b) provide that, unless the association's bylaws provide for a different percentage, the percentage of voting interests required to constitute a meeting of the members shall be a majority of the voting interests (in other words, 50 percent plus one) and that, unless otherwise provided in the association's governing documents or the applicable Chapter of the Florida Statutes (either 718 or 719), "decisions shall be made by owners of a majority of the voting interests represented at a meeting at which a quorum is present".    While limited proxies or general proxies can be used to establish a quorum as provided in Sections 718.112(2)(b) and 719.106(1)(b), ballots cannot be used for this purpose.   In other words, in order for a member to be counted as "present" in establishing a quorum at the annual meeting (or other membership meeting), that member must either be present in person at the meeting or have delivered his properly executed general or limited proxy to his proxy holder or the association prior to the meeting.
• Neither general proxies nor ballots can be used for votes to waive or reduce the statutory reserves otherwise required by statute or to waive the financial reporting requirements of F.S. Section 718.111(13) (for condominium associations) or F.S. Section 719.104(4)(b).  The only way a unit owner can validly vote on these matters is either by limited proxy or in person at the meeting where the voting occurs.
• The election of directors occurs at the annual meeting even If a quorum cannot be established at that meeting if at least twenty percent of the eligible voters have cast a ballot in that election, as provided in F.S. 718.112(2)(d)3 and F.S. 719.106(1)(d)1.

The provisions governing timeshares and mandatory homeowners associations are somewhat different and members of timeshare communities and subdivisions should consult with their association's attorney for additional information.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Those of you that attended our recent ROC seminars at the Molokai community in Leesburg and Sandalwood Park in Venice know that the Federal Trade Commission has delayed the implementation of the "Red Flag" Identity Protection Rules until June 1, 2010.  I briefly summarized my understanding of these rules and how they may impact resident owned communities at those two seminars and will present the same summary at our upcoming seminars at Old Bridge Village in Fort Myers and Westwinds Village in Bradenton.

The Community Associations Institute recently published an article that may help ROC managers and board members determine whether their association will have to comply with the "Red Flag" rules and, if so, the type of identity protection program the association will have to adopt and maintain.

A number of factors will have to be considered, including:

• Whether the association is a "creditor" because it accepts installment payments of maintenance fees or assessments (while this does not seem to include rent payments, a cooperative association that finances residents' purchases of membership shares would appear to be a "creditor")
• Whether there is a risk of identity theft as measured by factors, including the volume of identity-related information that is received by the association and the number of association employees and board members that review that information

The CAI's article provides an outline of a basic identity protection program that associations might want to consider.   The association should consult with its attorney to help prepare and implement the community's identity protection plan.

A great deal of uncertainty still surrounds the "Red Flag" rules and I would not be surprised if the FTC decides to delay the implementation of these rules again as the June 1 deadline approaches.  However, managers and board members should strive to protect the privacy of every resident in their communities.  Please remember that the association's attorney should be consulted whenever a question involving a request to provide a resident's "private" information arises as the provisions of the Florida Statutes governing condominium associations, cooperative associations, and homeowners' associations may require the production of information that a resident, board member, or manager considers to be "private".

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The managers and board members in the communities we work with have been faced with some rather interesting situations during the past few months.   Here's a sampling--see if you can guess what they have in common:

• A ROC manager receives a frantic call from one of the residents in her community about  another resident who wandering up and down one of the streets in the community waving a machete.   
• A board member wants to stop cars that she feels are speeding in her community and tell the drivers that they are violating the rules and regulations in her community.
• Another community is about to begin a substantial renovation of its clubhouse and one of its board members would like to be appointed as the "project supervisor" to oversee the general contractor and all of the work.
• Several board members in another community are convinced that a resident requesting to have a pet reside with her as a "reasonable accommodation" for her disability is not disabled and have stated that they will vote against granting the resident's request even if she provides the board with a statement from her treating physician verifying the disability and the need for the accommodation.

In each of these situations, ROC managers or Board members are being asked to or are volunteering to step well outside the scope of their  "job descriptions".   Neither  managers nor board members have the training nor should they attempt to disarm someone waving a machete, as that situation clearly calls for the local law enforcement authorities.   Likewise, even if a board member can be certain that someone is exceeding the speed limit in the community, the  appropriate action is to positively identify the vehicle and report the incident to the manager or, in certain circumstances, the police or sheriff's department.

While it's common for the community manager and one or more residents that have been appointed by the board to serve in an advisory capacity or as a "go between" with the general contractor and other professionals involved in a major community project, even if a board member has the qualifications (including any required licenses) to supervise the project, why would the association want to put itself in the position of being a defendant in a lawsuit filed as a result of damage or injury that occurs as a result of defective workmanship?    I have no doubt that the association would be sued on the grounds that one of its board members was supervising the project but I do have doubts that the association's insurance would protect the association in this situation--precisely because the association allowed its board member to act outside of a board member's "job description".  Also, what if the association is unhappy with the board member's performance as the supervisor--how comfortable will be other board members and the other residents in the community be if the board has to terminate their fellow board member's employment?

Finally, numerous court decisions involving Fair Housing Laws make it very clear that allowing board members to "play doctor" and substitute their judgment for that of trained health care professionals is a prescription for disaster.  While the association's board is entitled to request documentation to establish the basis for a resident's request for a "reasonable accommodation," once that documentation has been presented, a failure to make that "reasonable accommodation" may have serious and adverse financial implications for the community. 

ROC managers and board members have more than enough work within their "job descriptions" to keep them busy.   The community that allows or encourages its manager or board members to step outside of those "job descriptions" does so at its own peril.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks