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

I'm posting links for my blog readers to two articles from last Sunday's Sarasota Herald -Tribune and a story that was summarized in a recent edition of the Florida Manufactured Housing Association's newsletter.

• The first article from the Herald-Tribune focuses on the tragic consequences of an accident involving a golf cart.  I've covered this topic in the past but I remain very concerned that many residents in the communities we work with still do not understand that golf carts are vehicles and not toys. 
• With one hurricane (and the third named storm) spinning in the Eastern Pacific and several systems having already been investigated in the Atlantic, the second article in Sunday's Herald-Tribune is extremely timely.   It details the devastating effects of storm surge, which causes more deaths than any other feature of a hurricane.
• The battle being fought between neighbors at the Americana Cove manufactured housing community in Pinellas County is the subject of the third article from the St. Petersburg Times.   We've spoken at our seminars on many occasions about the issues facing the residents at Americana and there are no easy answers in this situation.

We'll get back to discussing how Senate Bill 1196 will impact resident-owned communities in my next entry.    In the meantime, I hope you find these articles interesting and informative.

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

I've been conducting "mini board orientations" at our current series of ROC seminars at Harbor Oaks in Fruitland Park, Japanese Gardens in Venice, and Golf Lakes in Bradenton.  In my presentation, I provide a list of ten suggestions to help board members deal with the issues that arise in resident owned communities.

One of those suggestions is that board members should know and understand the costs that may be involved in actions that they take to enforce community rules.  There is always someone in a resident owned community (quite often a board member) that insists that the "principle" of the situation requires that the board take a "hard line" approach.

I'll be highlighting an article from last Friday's Sarasota Herald Tribune when I conduct my next "mini board orientation during  our seminar at Enchanting Shores in Naples on the morning of April 1.  The article describes a battle that's being fought between the resident of the Summerfield community in Lakewood Ranch and the homeowners association that has fined her over $4000 because she has displayed too many decorations on her lawn. 

After you've read this article, you'll probably understand why the outline for the portion of my "mini board orientation" that deals with these types of situations is titled "Principle Costs HOW MUCH?"

I'll try to keep you advised of further developments in this situation within the Summerfield community.

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

A column in a recent edition of the Sarasota Herald Tribune highlighted the problems that all too often arise in communities when boards and managers fail to enforce a community rule on a consistent basis.   When a particular rule is enforced only against some of the residents in the community (with no legitimate reason for the rule's "selective enforcement"), it becomes difficult, if not impossible for that particular rule to withstand a legal challenge from a resident that feels he or she is being singled out for this "selective enforcement". 

I discussed this problem in my "mini board orientation" at our ROC seminars last week at Japanese Gardens in Venice and this week at Harbor Oaks in Fruitland Park.  Thanks to both of these communities for being gracious hosts and to all of the attendees.  I'll be presenting the same "mini board orientation" March 23 at Golf Lakes in Bradenton and on April 1 at Enchanting Shores in Naples.  Please contact either Karen Midlam (kmidlam@lutzbobo.com) or Kathy Sawdo (ksawdo@lutzbobo.com) if you haven't already rsvp'd and would like to attend one of those seminars.  These seminars begin at 10 a.m. and end by 12:30.  There's no charge to attend and refreshments are served.

I also wanted to note that last week a 96 year old man in Venice was attacked by a rabid otter while taking his early morning walk.   Fortunately, the man was rescued by several onlookers but suffered some fairly serious cuts and bites and both he and one of his rescuers will require a series of rabies shots.  Every community seems to have at least one resident that takes great pleasure in feeding the raccoons, birds, alligators, etc. that share Florida with us.   These residents need to be gently but firmly reminded that the "wild" in "wildlife" means just that, and that if the community has rules against feeding these wild animals those rules will be enforced--in a consistent manner against all residents in the community.

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

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
• Share Link

Yesterday's "Sarasota Herald Tribune" featured a column by Tom Lyons about a dispute between the board of a condominium association and one of its residents.   As I read the article (which was headlined "Condo flag fight needs a little common sense") I wondered whether this association's directors had considered the negative publicity resulting from their decision to require the resident to remove five or six small flags that she had arranged in a circle around a tree located on the common area outside of her unit on the Sunday before Veterans Day.   The question as to whether the association was correctly interpreting Florida Statute Section 718.113 and its own governing documents seemed rather unimportant when compared with the desire of this resident to demonstrate her patriotism during the week of Veterans' Day--especially since, according to Mr. Lyons' column, the resident was the mother to two sons and daughters-in-law who were currently serving in the Navy and had lost two friends who died while serving in Vietnam.

Later that morning I spoke with a board member from one of the ROCs we represent.     She had just received a rather unique request from a couple that wanted to spend a month in the  recreational vehicle park operated by the association.   The rules governing the RV park and the rest of the community prohibited pets and the couple was aware of this because they had friends that lived in the park.   This couple trained guide dogs and they wanted to know whether the Board of Directors would make an exception to the "no pet" rules and allow them to bring the dog they were currently training with them during their stay.   While there were certainly other nearby locations where the couple could stay with the dog, both they and their friends hoped that the Board could grant their request.  

As we discussed this situation, it was clear that this board member had already read Florida Statute Section 413.08 which gives persons with disabilities rights to be accompanied by a "service animal" in "all areas of a pubic accommodation" that "the public" would normally be permitted to occupy.   However, the board member advised that the couple was not claiming that either of them had a disability nor could the dog they were training fit into the definition of a "service animal" at the time that the dog would be brought into the park.  How would I suggest that the board respond to the request?

I suggested that the board should weigh a number of factors, including the following::

• While it did not appear that the board was required to grant the couple's request under either state or federal Fair Housing Laws or Disability Laws, the board did, as always, have the authority to grant exceptions to the community's "no pet" rules.
• The couple would be staying in the park for a relatively short period of time (30 days).
• The fact situation presented to the Board was certainly uncommon--how often would someone request an exception to the pet restrictions on grounds that the pet was being trained to be a service animal or guide dog?
• The couple had presented the board member with documentation that sufficiently established that they were in fact qualified guide dog trainers and were training the dog for that purpose.
• The couple had friends in the community and those friends and the other residents in the park would have the opportunity to learn about the work involved in training guide dogs and how these dogs help persons deal with their disabilities.

In short, I suggested that while I didn't believe that the Board was required to make an exception to the community's "no pet" rules, the Board could certainly justify an exception under these circumstances if it chose to do so.  I was most impressed by the efforts clearly being made by this community's board of directors to weigh all sides of the issue before making a hasty decision.  I sensed that the members of this community's board would apply common sense and compassion in its decision-making process and hope that all ROC boards follow this board's example.

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

The President of one the many "55 and over" resident-owned communities we represent recently contacted me to discuss what is becoming an all too familiar situation:

The rules governing this community specify that at least one of the persons occupying a home had to be at least 55 years of age and that any other person occupying the home had to be at least 45 years of age.   Many, if not most, "55 and over" ROCs in Florida have similar provisions.

During the past year, several residents in the community found themselves opening their homes to children who had lost jobs or were otherwise suffering financial hardships.    This community's rules were similar to many other ROCs and provided for a period of time (in this case, thirty days) where an underage person could occupy a home as a permitted "guest".   Unfortunately, none of these underage children were able to find affordable housing within that thirty day guest period. 

The residents had requested the Board for an extension of the "guest period" for their underage children and the Board had granted two separate extensions of ninety days and had advised each of the residents requesting these extensions that none of their current "guests" would be granted any further extensions.

All but one of  the underage children found affordable housing during the final extension period.  As can be expected, the members whose child was not able to secure housing outside of the community was now requesting that the Board grant yet another extension.  

I suggested to the ROC President that the Board should consider a number of factors in deciding whether to grant this latest request:

• The "55 and over" exemption to the Fair Housing Laws was not an issue as the parents (both of whom were over 55 years of age) would remain in the home with the child. 
• Since the "55 and over" exemption was not a factor, the real issue was whether the Board felt comfortable allowing a further exception to the community rules. 
• The Board had expressly stated to the requesting members that no further exceptions would be allowed and the residents in the community could certainly view the granting of another extension of time as a sign of weakness or lack of concern with enforcing the community rules.
• At the same time, every member knows the problems that our current economic crisis has created and a Board refusal to grant an additional extension might be viewed as heartless and insensitive.

I offered some guidelines that might help provide a solution--an extension for a shorter time period (perhaps thirty days) with the understanding that each and every request for an additional extension be accompanied by documentation establishing to the Board's satisfaction that the underage child was continuing to make good faith efforts to find employment that would provide him with an income sufficient to find housing outside of the community.

Clearly, there is no quick and simple answer for board members when considering requests based on the economic hardship of underage children of residents in the community.    What is clear is that every community may find itself dealing with requests of this nature in the near future.

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

ROC managers and board members that have asked me to help create or amend rules governing their communities know that I stress the importance of a unit owner obtaining the written approval of the board before that unit owner can take certain actions, including the following:

• making additions to his unit
• bringing in another occupant
• having a pet
• leasing or subleasing his unit  

My colleague Michael J. Gelfand, a partner in the Gelfand & Arpe, P.A. law firm in West Palm Beach,  reported in the August 2009 edition of the Florida Community Association Journal on a recent decision from one of Florida's appellate courts.  It's the case of Curci Village Condominium Association, Inc. v. Maria, and the opinion of Florida's 4th District Court of Appeals focuses on a  provision in the condominium association's documents requiring prior written approval.

The unit owner in the Curci Village case defended the landscaping changes he had made by claiming that the association's president, who was also the manager for the developer who controlled the association, told him that he "didn't have a problem with" those landscaping changes when the unit owner first proposed them.  However, because the association's declaration of condominium required written approval for landscaping changes, a dispute between the unit owner and the association arose and resulted in this lawsuit.

The appellate court noted that Florida Statute Section 718.303 requires unit owners to comply with the condominium's declaration of condominium and viewed that the declaration of condominium was a written contract between the association and the unit owner.    Because that written contract (the declaration of condominium) required prior written approval for an alteration to the unit, the unit owner could not reasonably rely on the oral permission of the association's officer or director.

The Curci Village decision should be very helpful to ROC boards and managers in communities with rules requiring prior written approval when a unit owner who did not obtain such approval argues that the manager or a board member gave him verbal permission to perform the disputed action.  However, while it's always preferable to have rules requiring prior written approval, ROC managers and board members must remain vigilant and make sure that those rules are consistently and faithfully followed.

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

"Civility" is a new "buzz word" as a result of the outburst of the South Carolina congressman who yelled "you lie" during President Obama's address to the members of the Senate and House of Representatives last week.   Regardless of how one feels about the health care reform debate, this interruption of the President's speech by a member of the U.S. Congress was a shocking breach of decorum and left me feeling less than confident that our current elected officials would be able to reach any constructive resolutions to the important issues and challenges that we face.

I've had similar feelings recently after leaving several board or membership meetings in resident owned communities.   The past few years have seen a pronounced decrease in courtesy and respect and an increase in volume and vitriol.   I'm sure that almost every resident reading this has had at least one unpleasant experience with a board or membership meeting that deteriorated into a shouting match or name-calling contest.   

While no one should have to be told that his or her neighbor should be treated with respect and courtesy, the unfortunate reality is that ROC boards and managers must occasionally deal with residents that refuse to behave in a civil manner at board or membership meetings.

Florida Statutes governing board meetings in resident owned communities provide some assistance to ROC managers and board members:

• F.S. Sections 718.112(2)(c) and  719.106(1)(c), which apply to condominium associations and cooperative associations respectively, give unit owners the right to speak at board meetings on "all designated agenda items" but also allow ROCs to "adopt written reasonable rules governing the frequency, duration, and manner of unit owner statements" to be made at board meetings. 
• F.S. Section 720.303(2)(b), which applies to meetings of mandatory homeowners associations,  specifies that members can "speak on any matter placed on the agenda by petition of the voting interests for at least 3 minutes" but again allows the association to adopt written reasonable rules "expanding the right of members to speak and governing the frequency, duration, and other manner of member statements" and also allows for the inclusion of "a sign-in sheet for members wishing to speak".

Note that all three statutes require that the rules governing members speaking at board meetings be written.

It's always helpful for the person chairing the meeting to be able to remind the membership at the beginning of the meeting or prior to the time for membership comments that the community does have these written rules and that each member will be expected to follow those rules.

We've helped numerous communities prepare written rules governing the behavior of residents at board and general membership meetings and have found that  these rules do help to discourage "gadflies" and other residents that attempt to engage in disruptive, discourteous, or uncivil behavior.  

If your community does not have written rules for these situations, you may be missing an important tool to help ensure that your members treat each other with the courtesy and respect that each resident in your community deserves.

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

ROC managers and board members in "55 and over" communities know that the Fair Housing Laws and the Housing for Older Persons Act  require that at least 80 per cent of the homes in the community must be occupied by at least one person 55 years of age or older.  This requirement is often referred to as the "80/20 rule". 

Communities that qualify for the "55 and over" exemption do not violate Fair Housing Laws by denying occupancy to underage individuals. 

Every so often, a ROC manager or board of directors is confronted by one of the following situations:

• A prospective resident who is under the age of 55 claims that the 20 percent referred to in that "80/20 rule" must be reserved for underage persons--in other words, individuals under the age of 55 years.
• A prospective resident who is under the age of 55 but is disabled claims that he cannot be denied housing in the community because he is protected under the disability provisions of the Fair Housing Laws.

The rules governing the "55 and over" exemption clearly state that "at least" 80 per cent of the homes in a "55 and over" community must be occupied by at least one person 55 years of age or older.  It's the ROC and not a prospective resident that determines how the "20" in the "80/20" rule is to be used.   I've always advised ROC managers and board members to be very careful in allowing any portion of that 20 per cent to be considered "underage" housing in order to protect against the loss of the "55 and over" exemption.

A community that qualifies for the "55 and over" exemption can deny housing to an underage person who has a disability as long as the community can establish that the basis for the denial was not the disability but rather the fact that the applicant was not 55 years of age or older.    Again, the community and not the applicant determines how the 20 per cent is used and as long as the denial is based on the applicant's inability to meet the requirement that he be at least 55 years of age, the discrimination--which is based on age and not the disability--would not violate Fair Housing Laws.

Of course, every situation is different and several other factors are involved in the determination of whether a community is qualified to be protected under the "55 and over" exemption.   I would strongly advise any ROC to contact its attorney when faced with any question about Fair Housing Laws and the "55 and over" exemption..

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

One of our ROC managers recently contacted me about a resident who claimed that the community was violating the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (often referred to as the "HIPAA laws").   While the community's rules and regulations did not allow pets, several exceptions to the "no pet" rules had been granted.   The manager and the board had compiled a list of the names and addresses of each person permitted to have a pet in his or her home and the complaining resident was certain that by creating  this list the community had violated HIPAA.

The HIPAA laws create a "privacy rule" that prohibits certain "protected health information" from being disclosed.  This "privacy rule" applies to the following persons and businesses that have been defined by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as "covered entities":

• Individual and group health plans that provide or pay the cost of medical care
• Every health care provider, regardless of size, who electronically transmits health information in connection with claims, benefit eligibility inquiries, referral authorization requests, or certain other transactions
• Health care clearinghouses such as billing services, repricing companies, and community health management information systems

ROCs would seem to fall well outside of any of the categories of these "covered entities" and as such would not be bound by the HIPAA privacy rules.

In addition, as I advised the community's manager, the mere fact that a resident is allowed to have a pet doesn't necessarily mean that the pet is in the home for medical or health reasons.   I thus did not see how the existence of this list violated HIPAA's privacy rules.

However, I did remind the manager that if a member requested a list of all residents in the community that had pets and the association had in fact compiled such a list, the association would have to produce that list as required by Florida's statutes governing condominiums, cooperatives, or homeowners associations.  

If a community does have a list of homes with pets--especially if the community is a "no pet" or a pet restricted community--I suggest that the list remain with the manager and that it not be distributed to the board or other members in the community.   This will take pressure off of the board and eliminate the danger that a board member may be accused of violating a resident's privacy rights.  Even if that accusation proves to be unfounded, it's an added aggravation and may result in expenses to the association that could have been avoided.

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

I've received two calls this month about golf cart accidents in resident owned communities.             

The first call was from a resident who had been given my name at the office at one of the ROCs we represent.   This resident told me that he was attending a private function in the ROC's clubhouse and drove his golf cart to that event.   He parked the cart by the clubhouse but left his keys in the cart--and, while he was in the clubhouse, another resident's grandson started the cart and ran into another child.   According to the caller, he didn't think the child's injuries were severe, but was nonetheless concerned about his potential liability.   I advised him that, because our firm represented the ROC, I could only suggest that he find another attorney and contact his insurance carrier.  I then contacted the ROC's manager to confirm that the event was not sponsored by the ROC and suggested that the ROC advise its insurance agent about the incident just to be safe.

The second call was from several officers of another ROC I've worked with for almost fifteen years.  The ROC's President was clearly upset as he told me that one of the community's residents had been killed and several others injured the day before in a golf cart accident.  This horrible incident occurred in the community and these officers wondered whether it made sense for the board to pass a rule requiring that all residents with golf carts provide the ROC office with proof of insurance covering their carts.  While I advised these officers that such a rule might create more problems than solutions for their community (for reasons I'll explain in an entry within the next few weeks), I told them  to immediately contact the ROC's insurance agent about the accident, even though the golf cart was not owned by the ROC nor driven by either a member of the ROC board or an employee of the ROC.

Golf carts function as "second cars" for many residents in ROCs and it's common to see drivers of almost all ages seated behind the steering wheel of these vehicles.   We tend to forget that golf carts are not "toys" and that severe injury or death can result from golf cart accidents.   I found an  entry in another Florida law blog that focused on the increase in golf cart accidents over the past few years and I recommend it to ROC managers and board members.

What can ROC managers and board members do to minimize the chances of golf cart accidents in their communities?  

Here are a few suggestions:

• Is your insurance agent able to speak about golf cart safety?  How about someone from your local law enforcement agency?   If so, invite them to speak at one of your community's regular coffees or other well-attended social events.
• If your community doesn't already have rules prohibiting children driving golf carts, or at least requiring an adult to be in the cart with them when they are driving and prohibiting children under a certain age from driving carts, consider passing such a rule or revising your current rules if needed.   Note that Florida's statute  governing the operation of golf carts provides that a person must be at least 14 years old to operate a golf cart on a "public road or street" and that local municipalities are permitted to pass laws governing the operation of golf carts that are more restrictive than the state's requirements.
• Rules can also be amended or added to encourage all golf cart owners to obtain and maintain golf cart insurance.
• ROCs should also consider requiring golf cart owners to register their carts with the office, obey posted speed limits, and remove the keys from the cart when the cart is parked or otherwise not in use.
• Finally, I'd suggest posting this entry and the other blog entry I mentioned above on the community bulletin board and keeping the entries there for the next few months so your "snowbirds" can read them when they return.

Any golf cart accident, particularly one that causes injury or death, is one too many.  Let's all do our best to educate ROC members and guests that golf carts are not "toys" and must be operated properly and safely.

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

I've been working with Resident Owned Communities (ROC's) in Florida for almost two decades and problems with pets continue to be a source of aggravation for managers, board members, and residents alike. Pet rules come in all shapes and sizes. Here's a small sample of pet regulations that boards and managers are trying to enforce in their communities:

1. No pets allowed and no exceptions.
2. Pets allowed only in certain sections (aka "the Pet Section") of the community.
3. Indoor cats allowed (birds and aquarium type fish also) but no dogs.
4. Pets allowed but only up to a certain weight limit  (my personal "favorite"--ever tried putting an energetic terrier on a scale--and exactly who serves as the "weight police"?)
5. Pet allowed except for certain breeds of dogs deemed "dangerous" by the board of directors, the community's insurance company, and/or the resident "canine expert".

Whatever rules a community is trying to enforce (and the five I've listed above are just the tip of the iceberg), sooner or later, every community is faced with one or more residents that insist on attempting to violate that community's pet rules. Once the violation is brought to the attention of the board or the manager, you can be certain that many community residents will be "taking sides" on how (and whether) the community's leadership deals with the violation.  

There are several very important factors that should be considered when board members and managers determine how to deal with the violation of a pet rule, including the following:

1. Has the resident provided sufficient documentation or otherwise established that he or she is "disabled" and requires the pet as a "reasonable accomodation" under the the federal and state provisions of the Fair Housing Laws and the Americans with Disabilities Act? Is the pet certified as a "service animal"? In these situations, community leadership is required to allow the resident to have the pet and should not provide any information to anyone as to the nature of the resident's disability. Board members and managers should simply state that the resident's request to have a pet was allowed "on the advice of counsel". In other words, blame it on the attorney (I assure the communities I work with that I have thick skin and it goes with the territory).
    
2. Are there any other violations of the pet rules in the community that any member of the board knows about?  If so, the board should be prepared to take action against every person that is violating pet rules. One of my favorite conversations occurs when a resident that has received a notice of a pet rule violation calls me to complain that he or she is being harassed and "singled out" by the manager or the board because other residents in the community are violating the pet rules and the board hasn't taken any action against those residents. This allows me to assure the  resident that the manager or board will take action against any other resident violating the pet rules and to ask that resident to provide me with the names of the other residents violating the rules. I can have this conversation only if I'm confident that the board has taken and will continue to take the appropriate action against other residents violating the pet rules.
    
3. Is the board and the community prepared to incur the costs of enforcing the pet rules? When verbal and written requests fail to persuade the resident to remove the pet. the board has to decide whether the importance of enforcing the rule outweighs the money that the community will have to spend to have its attorney take the steps needed to attempt to force the resident to comply with the pet rule. If the resident is a unit owner in a cooperative or condomium, the community will have to submit the dispute to mandatory non-binding arbitration as required by Florida Statute Section 718.1255 (for condominium associations) or Florida Statute Section 719.106 ( for cooperative associations). In addition, because the arbitration proceedings are "non-binding," even if the association wins at the arbitration, the resident can delay removing the pet by filing a court action. This may result in the association having to try its case twice with a substantial increase in its legal costs that may or may not be recoverable from the resident violating the pet rule. Even where the resident is a non-member mobile homeowner subject to an eviction action under Florida Statute Section 723.061 (without the need to first submit the dispute to non-binding arbitration), costs and legal fees will be incurred by the association. In addition, anytime a dispute comes before an arbitrator or a judge there is no way to guarantee that the case will be decided in the community's favor and there are not many people that enjoy the stress and preparation involved in testifying under oath in a courtroom setting or at an arbitration.

I've always suggested that another factor to be considered by boards and managers when dealing with violations of pet rules is the behavior of the pet.   Would you rather be living next to a well-behaved Great Dane that has never disturbed anyone in the community or a yapping lap dog that barks at all hours of the day and night?

In some cases, the board may decide that a particular pet rule needs to be revised or removed entirely.  For example, perhaps there are now so many cats that have been allowed to live in the community in spite of a "no cat" rule that it makes no sense to keep that rule in the community's governing regulations.  However, the time to make that decision is not when the community is in the midst of a dispute with a stubborn owner who insists that the pet rules apply to everyone but him.  It's on these occasions that the board has to take a reasonable but at the same time forceful approach to the enforcement of its community rules.

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