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

 I just read an article at the CNN website about the Americans With Disabilities Act, which was signed into law by President George H. W. Bush on July 26, 1990.   That article contained a link to a story that personalizes the importance of the ADA and its intent to insure that all citizens have the ability to function to their fullest capacities regardless of their particular physical, mental, or emotional challenges.

In my last entry, I summarized the decision of an Administrative Law Judge that found a landlord liable for more than $50,000 in civil damages and penalties because the landlord was held to have retaliated against a single mother who filed a Fair Housing complaint.

As I've mentioned before, our nation's fair housing laws and the ADA are rooted in the civil rights legislation of the 1960's and all managers, board members and residents in ROCs should remember that any attempts to restrict the rights that have been granted by our federal and state legislatures and courts to persons that fall within any of these "protected classes" may subject the community to consequences that are both severe and damaging.

Just something to consider as we observe the 20th anniversary of the ADA.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Several of the resident-owned communities we work with have had the great displeasure of dealing with complaints filed by residents under the Fair Housing Act.   Most of these complaints are without merit and are eventually resolved in favor of the community.  Quite often, the resident filing the complaint is simply trying to delay an eviction action, has a personal vendetta against the manager or one or more board members, or is attempting to prevent the association from exercising its rights to determine whether a "reasonable accommodation"should be granted to the resident.   

It's not a stretch to say that any resident that files a Fair Housing complaint is often regarded by many in the community as a major aggravation that is costing the association money and creating conflict and misery for his or her neighbors.   Occasionally, other residents in the community (and even a few board members) will strongly suggest that the ROC would be better off if the association simply filed an action to evict the complaining resident.

As most of you already know, such a course of action is a recipe for certain disaster.  The latest example can be found in a press release issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development on July 16, 2010.   

The press release summarized the decision of a HUD Administrative Law Judge who ordered an Iowa landlord to pay $52,150 in damages and civil penalties for retaliating against a single mother of three by threatening to evict her because she filed a housing discrimination complaint.

The brief facts are as follows:

• The mother's fair housing complaint alleged that the landlord refused to rent her a three-bedroom apartment and unjustly charged her a higher security deposit because of her sex
• HUD found no evidence of sex discrimination
• However, HUD nonetheless charged the landlord and the landlord's management company with unlawfully retaliating against the tenant by terminating her lease and attempting to evict her because she filed the fair housing complaint

It's important to note here that it was the action of retaliating against the renter that formed the basis of this judgment--even in the absence of any finding of discrimination.

Please keep this case in mind the next time one of your residents confronts you and demands that the association evict the "gadfly" that's filed a fair housing complaint.  The last time I checked, $52,000 was still a lot of money--whether in Iowa or in sunny Florida.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As many of my readers know, Senate Bill 1196 amended Florida Statute Section 718.116(1)(b) to provide that a first mortgagee or its successor or assignee who acquires title to a condominium unit by foreclosure or by deed in lieu of foreclosure is required to pay the unpaid assessments that became due before the mortgagee's acquiring title in an amount equal to the lesser of:

1. the unit's unpaid common expenses and regular periodic assessments which accrued or became due during the 12 months immediately preceding the acquisition of title and for which payment in full has not been received by the association; or
2. one percent of the original mortgage debt

The provisions of amended F.S. Section 718.116(1)(b) may not apply in certain situations where the first mortgagee fails to join the association as a party in the foreclosure action.

Prior to SB 1196, a condominium association was only entitled to the lesser of 6 months' unpaid common expenses and regular periodic assessments or one percent of the original mortgage debt.

With this amendment, condominium associations find themselves granted the same relief as mandatory homeowners associations--the latter through the provisions of F.S. Section 720.3085.

What about cooperative associations?

I've searched through Chapter 719 (which governs cooperatives) and SB 1196 and can find no language that either establishes or limits the liability of any one acquiring title to a cooperative unit by foreclosure or by an assignment in lieu of foreclosure for unpaid common expenses or regular periodic assessments owed to the cooperative association.

This is one of many examples of the differences between Chapters 718, 719, and 720 of the Florida Statutes. 

When it comes to resident owned communities, one size truly does not fit all and a board or manager should consult with the association's attorney when dealing with these unpaid assessments--especially if the ROC is a cooperative.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I've been hesitant in posting entries on the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico as the media's coverage has been both numbing and overwhelming.   However, I read several articles over the July 4th weekend that I wanted to bring to the attention of my readers:

• The Sarasota Herald-Tribune ran a lengthy story this weekend on how the local real estate market has been affected by the oil spill.   Even though no oil from the spill has endangered the beaches in west central Florida and much of Florida's coastline may never see any oil from the spill, potential home purchasers are nonetheless walking away from contracts and forfeiting deposits rather than closing on real estate purchases in our area.
• The New York Times had an article on an inventive marketing campaign aimed at educating potential visitors to Florida that most of our beaches remain untouched by the oil spill. 
• The July 5, 2010 edition of Sports Illustrated featured a story by Gary Smith, one of the magazine's most incisive writers, entitled "7 Days in the Life of a Catastrophe."   It's an eye-opening and powerful report on the devastation caused by the spill.

There is a bit of good news to report:

• The New York Times also reported on changes by the Federal Housing Administration that are expected to widen the range of lenders who can offer loans for purchases of manufactured homes.
• In addition, the National Flood Insurance program has been extended to September 30, 2010 and has been made retroactive.  This will allow real estate sales that had been on hold due to an inability to obtain flood insurance coverage to now close and will permit new policies to be issued through September 30, 2010.

Finally, from Sunday's Sarasota Herald-Tribune, please read Tom Lyons' column on a rather curious response from the activities committee at the  La Casa ROC in North Port to complaints from several residents who apparently did not want to hear "O Canada" played at events in the community.   I'll think about this column the next time I attend a hockey game in Tampa.

We'll get back to Senate Bill 1196 in my next entry.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link