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

As many of my readers know, while my wife and children graduated from the University of Florida, I graduated from the University of Michigan and received my law degree from Ohio State.   I was born and raised on Big Ten football and bleed maize and blue (to the dismay of my Buckeye friends and family).

Penn State joined the Big Ten about twenty years ago and there have been many memorable games between the Nittany Lions and my beloved Wolverines--while the players changed, and other coaches left the profession, Joe Paterno remained as the symbol of Penn State.  In many ways, he was regarded as the shining example of all that was and is good about big-time college athletics.

I spent part of last night reading (with shock and outrage) all 23 pages of the grand jury report that resulted in the charges against Jerry Sandusky, a former defensive coordinator under Paterno at Penn State, as well as  the university's athletic director and the school's vice president for finance and business.   I will not post the link to that report as it is both graphic and horrifying in detailing how Sandusky allegedly abused at least 8 young boys and how Penn State's administrators allegedly allowed this abuse to occur.

Earlier this afternoon, Joe Paterno issued a statement that he would be retiring at the end of this football season.

My partner, Jody Gabel, and I, find ourselves more and more frequently helping communities struggle with the very real concerns raised by sexual offenders or predators. It's certainly understandable that many residents feel threatened when they discover that there is a sexual offender or predator in their midst.

Here are a few thoughts and suggestions that may be helpful:

• Screening of prospective residents is absolutely essential.  The best way to deal with a sexual predator is before he or she becomes a resident in the community.  I advise ROCs we represent  to screen any person that intends on occupying a home in the community for any period of time greater than one month.   Once the predator or sexual offender moves into the community, the amount of time, effort, and expense involved in trying to remove him or her will be substantial, and there's no guarantee that the offender or predator will be required to move.   We also suggest that our clients use a professional screening company for all residency applications--there are a number of very good companies that focus on this very important task.
• While a community may have to allow a resident to have a caregiver as a "reasonable accommodation" under the Fair Housing Act, the community should insist that the proposed caregiver undergo screening.   The last thing a ROC manager or board wants to deal with is a "caregiver" who is a convicted sexual predator.

When it's discovered that a person who already lives in the community has a record of being either a sexual predator or sexual offender, a number of factors must be considered:

Did the offender/predator lie or withhold information on the application for residency?

Did the offender/predator become a resident before the community's rules (if any) requiring screening and/or approval of the association to the residency went into effect?

Was the resident convicted of the offense after he or she moved into the community?

How long ago did the offense occur and what's the nature of the offense?   There's certainly a difference between a resident who was convicted 40 years ago (when he was 19)  of having improper relations (and thus may be a registered offender) with his 17 year old girl friend (who happens to be his wife of 39 years) and the 56 year old resident who has been convicted of being a sexual predator on several occasions in the last decade.

I have always advised against posting information about a resident's real or alleged record as a sexual offender or predator.   Errors can be made and neither the residents in the community nor the association itself is well served by spreading information that turns out to be misleading or false.   The better course of action is to simply post a notice in the community clubhouse or other public area advising that anyone that wishes to determine whether any registered sexual predators or offenders live in or near the community can do so by visiting Florida's Sexual Offenders and Predators  Website.

And, as always, when in doubt, contact legal counsel.  These are extremely difficult issues and the association's attorney can help the community navigate these very troubled waters.

I'm updating this entry while watching the press conference conducted by a member of Penn State's Board of Trustees where Joe Paterno's firing has just been announced.   What a nightmarish end to his tenure and a unfathomable taint on his legacy.

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

Since we've just recently observed Labor Day and President Obama's "Jobs Plan" continues to make headlines, I thought I'd discuss three situations involving ROC employees that are all too common and can create some major problems for resident owned communities:

• Quite often,one or more of the association's employees is performing work "on the side" for residents in the community.   Even if the employee is truly doing this private work "after hours," what happens if the employee injures himself or others, or is accused of stealing from one of those residents, or does a lousy job and causes damage to the resident's home. What if the employee has used the association's tools or equipment (or one of the association's vehicles) while doing this "off the clock" work?  Allowing an employee to perform work "on the side" for residents in the community creates an absolute "no win" situation for the association--the association receives no benefit whatsoever from allowing its employees to perform "after hours" work for residents in the community and at the same time subjects itself to all types of potential liability that may or may not be covered by the association's insurer.  A resident who suffers property damage or injury because of the actions of the association's employee will be looking for a "deep pocket"--and I can almost guarantee my blog readers that the employee's pocket is not nearly as "deep" as the association's.
• It's never easy to discipline or terminate an employee.   When that employee is a resident in the community, what is already difficult becomes much more so--and runs the risk of dividing the community.   In many of these situations, the terminated employee (as well as his family, friends and neighbors) will spend a good deal of time and energy attempting to discredit the board of directors and the manager in an attempt to regain his job.   The fact that the employee was unable or unwilling to fulfill his job responsibilities is almost always overlooked in the emotional frenzy that infects the community.
• Do I even need to explain why allowing a member of the association's board of directors to be employed by the community is a prescription for potential turmoil and additional levels of association liability?   I doubt that any ROC board member would feel comfortable voting to terminate the person in charge of (for example) maintenance for the community-- and who also happened to be the association's President or another board member.

Just a few things to keep in mind as we'll be in our busy season before we know it!

Enjoy these first few weeks of college football.  As a Michigan alum, I sure am!

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

Lindsay S. Smith, an attorney in the Denver office of Winzenburg, Leff, Purvis and Payne, recently posted a great entry on her firm's Colorado Home Owners Association Law blog.  As you'll see from her article, Florida ROCs aren't the only ones with residents that take it upon themselves to "befriend" and feed wild animals--in this case,stray and feral cats.  Unfortunately for the homeowners in this particular community, its association had allowed the resident to feed these feral cats for a number of years before filing a lawsuit against that resident--and, because of the association's delay in taking action, the court held that the association could not stop the offending homeowner from continuing to feed these animals.

I read Ms. Smith's entry several days before my colleague Bill Korp and I had lunch with the managers of two of the ROCs we represent in southwest Florida.  I was thinking about her article when I asked the managers whether there were any problems with wild animals in their communities. 

Each manager had a tale to tell:

• Muscovy Ducks had made themselves at home in one manager's community in Lee County and the members of this ROC were struggling with how best to deal with these feathered interlopers.  I did some internet research when I returned to the office and found that Lee County has a web page devoted to Muscovies.   I would not be surprised if at least a few other counties in our state have similar websites.
• Ducks are one thing--but the black bear that was captured in the other manager's community in East Naples was quite another.  It's worth following this link to read the news article (which has a picture of the bear).   The story doesn't end with the bear's removal from the community.   The manager told us that, even though the bear was relocated to a state park, it made its way back to his community.  The bear was last seen in this ROC in late July and has obviously caused more than a bit of unwelcome excitement for this manager and the homeowners.

As if managers and board members needed any more reasons to tell homeowners and their guests:  "Please, don't feed the animals!"

Let's hope that wild beasts and hurricanes stay far away from our ROCs this year!

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

I'm posting the links to three recent articles for my blog readers:

• The first story involves the efforts of a condominium association in Jupiter, Florida to use a dog's individual DNA to help identify canine offenders (and their owners) of the community's "pooper scooper" rules.
•  The aggressive approach taken by a  homeowners' association in Pembroke Pines to collect delinquent maintenance and other fees--brought about in no small part by the foreclosure crisis--is the focus of the second article.
• Finally, a very sobering report from the Palm Beach Post on the battle brewing between Florida's emergency managers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency as to whether every emergency shelter in the state is required to be in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.   According to this article, the cost to bring each of the hundreds of emergency shelters in Florida into compliance with the ADA may exceed One Billion Dollars--and the last time I checked, our state doesn't have that kind of money in its cookie jar.

I hope you enjoy reading these three stories and look forward to your comments.

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

One of my recent blog entries discussed House Bill 849, a welcome product of Florida's 2011 legislative session.  House Bill 849 created new Florida Statute Section 514.0315, which  gives pool owners the option of installing any of five different types of equipment in order to meet the requirements of the Virginia Graeme Baker Act.

The legislature forwarded this bill to Florida's Governor for approval and our Governor signed 849 into law on Friday, June 24.

The provisions of this new law  will become effective on July 1, 2011.

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

Those of you that have attended our seminars for resident owned communities know that I stress the importance of all board meetings being properly noticed and open to all association members.

I'm asked at least several times every year whether a ROC board can meet in "emergency" session and thus dispense with the requirements to post a notice of the board meeting at least 48 hours before the meeting (or, in certain situations, to provide the notice to the members at least 14 days before the meeting).  

Sometimes, the question involves an item that was not included in the agenda for an otherwise properly noticed board meeting but was considered or attempted to be considered by the board on an "emergency" basis.

The Florida Statutes governing condominium associations, cooperative associations, and mandatory homeowners' associations provide for the board to act in an emergency without first providing notice to the membership.   In fact, several years ago, the legislature added Florida Statute Section 718.1265 to the statutes governing condominium associations to specifically provide for a condominium association's emergency powers in response to "damage caused by an event for which a state of emergency is declared" under Florida law.

Neither cooperative associations nor mandatory homeowners' associations were granted the specific powers set forth in F.S. Section 718.1265 and an emergency situation could exist in a community even if a state of emergency has not been declared.

So exactly what constitutes an "emergency? 

Here's my simple rule of thumb:  Can the situation wait until proper notice is given?  In other words, will the community suffer severe damage that will be cost a substantial amount to repair or be impossible to repair if the board waits 48 hours before it acts?  

Here are a few examples of what I consider an "emergency":
 

• The need for immediate response either before, during, or after a hurricane
• The clubhouse is destroyed or severely damaged by fire or weather related event
• A water main that serves the community breaks and sewage is running down the streets of the community

And, regardless of what board members may think, I don't believe any of the following constitute an "emergency":

• An important issue must be voted on before the next scheduled board meeting and was not placed on the agenda for the board meeting that is scheduled for today
• The association has an opportunity to buy a truck at a great price but has been told it must act today
• A crack has developed in one of the shuffleboard courts and the contractor says he'll give the association a "bargain" price if the board can commit to him immediately

Board members should use a common sense approach when considering whether "emergency" action is permitted.   The members of community associations have the right to know when the board is meeting and what issues the board is considering--and unless a situation truly demands immediate action in order to protect the community, its residents, and its property, the board should simply schedule a "special" board meeting to deal with the situation and post the notice and agenda as required by Florida law.  

Better to wait that short period of time than deal with angry residents or have to explain to our Department of Business and Professional Regulation why the board violated Florida law.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I'm surely not alone in trying to understand the tragedy that occurred just over a week ago in Tucson.   Regardless of one's political views, it's certainly worth considering the clear lack of civility and common courtesy that seems to be the rule rather than the exception throughout our country today.

Several days after the shootings in Arizona, I attended a meeting at one of the communities we represent in Southwest Florida and was saddened to observe a level of disrespect and rage that simply has no place in ROCs.   After the meeting, several residents mentioned to me that had I not attended, the meeting would have been disrupted by a number of unit owners.   Several other members approached me after the meeting and stated that I had been "duped" and hadn't heard the "other side" of the story.

As an attorney that represents many community associations, I've often had to explain to unit owners that we don't have "a dog in the fight".  In other words, my role is not to take sides on any particular issue being considered by a community--I may point out factors to an association's board of directors and membership that should be considered but assuming that the actions being discussed by the association do not violate any state, federal, or local laws, my job is to help ensure that the process that leads to the result is proper and legal.

Board members are volunteers and it's very troubling to attend unit owner meetings where residents fail to treat a director with even a minimal amount of courtesy and respect.    When a board member is shouted down or where his or her name is met with hisses or jeering, I find myself wondering what causes unit owners to demonize one of their neighbors and refuse to listen to any opinion other than their own?

How can a resident owned community survive if members no longer treat other members with simple courtesy and respect?   Does any resident want to live in a community where issues are allowed to fester and be fed by rumor mongering and unfounded criticism of the motives of board members until those issues explode?   Wouldn't that resident much rather live in a community where issues are resolved by civil discussion and debate?

Every member of a resident owned community has the right to attend almost every association meeting and can inspect numerous records of the association.  For example, Florida Statutes Sections 719.106 and 719.104 call for open cooperative association board meetings and access to a cooperative association's official records.

At the same time, every association member has an obligation to be fully informed about issues that come before the board, and to treat all board members--and all unit owners--with courtesy and respect.

In a month where we cope with the carnage in Tucson and commemorate the life and death of the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., I truly hope that we all rediscover the art of listening and treat each other with the civility that every one of us deserves.

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

Now that the annual migration of the "snowbirds" to our resident owned communities is well under way, so are the number of complaints we receive each week about  "nuisances".   Whether it's the dog that barks at all hours of the day and night, the next door neighbor who plays his stereo loudly, or the "shady" character across the street who insists on hosting "wild" parties with the "wrong" crowd every night, I can assure you that every ROC has at one time or another dealt with behavior that at least some of its residents believe is a "nuisance."

There have been some recent decisions from the arbitrators at the Department of Business and Professional Regulation's Division of Condominiums, Timeshares, and Mobile Homes on the subject.

Here's a summary of some of those decisions:

• A Summary Final Order by an arbitrator in November of 2008 provides that proof of a "nuisance" requires evidence of repeated behavior which interferes with a protected legal right in a substantial, appreciable, and tangible way.  Nuisance is not established by evidence limited to two isolated incidents of subjective reactions to the operation of a Segway on the community's common elements.
• Last December, an arbitrator found that a single incident of yelling at board members did not, as a matter of law, constitute a "nuisance".
• No "nuisance" was found in a January, 2009 decision that involved an allegation of a single instance of a drunken brawl in the ROC's jacuzzi involving tenants of the unit owner. 
• In August of 2009, an arbitrator determined an arbitration petition that only alleged a single incidence of yelling and drunkenness was not sufficient to establish a "nuisance."
• However, an arbitrator's order entered in September of 2009 found that where a unit owner was alleged to have removed extensive portions of the common element drywall in his condominium unit, which made it much easier for cigarette smoke to pass from his unit into adjoining units, that unit owner was ordered to restore all of the drywall in his unit and to cease smoking in the unit until the required drywall was restored.
• Finally, an arbitrator's decision in January of 2009 required a unit owner to remove pit bulls exceeding 20 pounds from her unit.  The ROC's declaration of condominium permitted pets weighing less than 20 pounds and prohibited nuisances or practices that were a source of annoyance to the residents or interfered with other unit owners' peaceful possession of their units.  One of the pit bulls had already bitten a resident and the unit owner had demonstrated that she would continue to flout the requirements of the declaration without an order from the arbitrator requiring compliance.

Thanks to my colleague, Karl Scheuerman, for compiling a very comprehensive summary of the DBPR'S arbitration decisions.

Paradise Bay and Imperial Bonita Estates did a fine job of hosting last week's seminars and we're looking forward to this week's seminars at Village at Riverwalk in North Port and Hammock Estates in Sebring. 

• 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

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) just issued its predictions for the upcoming hurricane season, which begins June 1.

If NOAA's forecast is correct, we'll have a very busy summer tracking storms in the Gulf and the Atlantic:

According to NOAA, there is a seventy per cent chance of the following:

• 14 to 23 named storms (either tropical storms with top winds of at least 39 miles per hour or hurricanes)
• 8 to 14 of those storms will reach hurricane status (with top winds of at least 74 miles per hour)
• Of those 8 to 14 hurricanes, 3 to 7 will become major hurricanes (with top winds of at least 111 miles per hour)

I've posted on hurricane preparedness before but this is certainly a good time for ROC managers and board members to review their existing hurricane preparedness plans and to remind their residents (snowbirds and full-timers alike) of a few important points:

• Residents should not wait until the last minute to evacuate their communities--especially those in need of special care or with pets
• Do not leave lawn chairs, tables, etc. outside when a storm is on the way.  Anything that can become a projectile should be brought inside or be otherwise safely secured.
• A mandatory evacuation order means just that: evacuate your community.  Unless your clubhouse is a Red Cross certified storm shelter, it should not in any event be used to "ride out" the storm.
• Make sure all contact information for residents is readily available
• Appoint one or two "full time"residents (not the manager) to serve as the "information centers" in the event that a storm hits the community.  All residents should be advised to contact these residents rather than the manager or other board members for updates on conditions at the community.   The manager and the other board members will have their hands full in dealing with the challenges facing any community in the aftermath of a storm.

We all hope that this hurricane season will be as quiet and uneventful as last year's but, as always, taking the proper steps to prepare for the worst is the best course of action for managers, board members and residents in our communities. 

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

I want to bring two recent items to the attention of my blog readers.   I've touched on one of the items in a past entry and thought the other item was extremely important.

I've covered the issues raised by golf carts in resident-owned communities in an earlier post.   As those of you that attended our most recent ROC seminar presentations know, golf cart owners may be unpleasantly surprised to discover that their automobile insurance does not cover injuries or damages caused by or to their golf carts.   My earlier post dealt with safety issues and stressed that ROC boards and managers should remind the residents in their communities that golf carts must not be treated as toys and must be used with great care.

I was saddened, but not surprised, to hear that a six year old child in the Lakeland area died this week as a result of injuries she suffered in a golf cart accident.  It might not be a bad idea to post one of the news reports about this tragic death on the bulletin board in your community to remind all residents that great care must always be used in operating golf carts.

I have to confess that I've never watched Oprah Winfrey's show.  However, she wrote a short piece that appeared in last Sunday's edition of the New York Times and I highly recommend that this column also be posted on the community bulletin board.   I intend to explore how ROC boards, managers (and their attorneys) are all feeling the stress of having to instantly respond to complaints and concerns of residents in a future entry.   For the time being, however, I suggest that we all consider Ms. Winfrey's message about the dangers of  "multi-tasking"--especially texting and using our cell phones while driving--a well-intentioned warning to concentrate on the most important task at hand when driving--whether that be a golf cart, sports car, or mini-van. 

That task, of course, is to arrive safely at our destination--whether around the corner or on the other side of the country.

As I post this entry, Senate Bill 1196 has been approved by both houses of the Florida Legislature and has been sent to the Governor for his signature.  I'll let you know if and when he signs the bill and what that means for ROCs in future blog entries.

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

Board members and managers in resident-owned condominiums and cooperatives may recall that tucked away in Chapters 718 and 719 of the Florida Statutes are several provisions that require associations to "retrofit" their "common areas" with handrails or guardrails and fire sprinkler systems or other "engineered life safety" systems.   The statutes provide that these retrofitting requirements may be waived by the members of associations where the common areas are not in a "high rise building," which is defined as "a building that is greater than 75 feet in height where the building height is measured from the lowest level of fire department access to the floor of the highest occupiable story".

ROC board members should note that even if a community does not have a "high-rise building" the members must still waive the retrofitting requirements.   The voting procedures differ for the waiver of the two different types of retrofitting:

• Florida Statutes Sections 719.1055(5) and 718.112(2)(l) allow for limited proxies, ballots personally cast at a duly called meeting of the members, or a member's written consent to be used in a vote to waive the requirement to retrofit a fire sprinkler system or other engineered life safety system.
• However, according to Florida Statutes Sections 719.1055(6) and 718.1085(1), neither limited nor general proxies can be used for a vote to forego retrofitting for handrails or guardrails.  This vote must be made in person at a duly called membership meeting or by execution of a written consent by that member.

The decisions to waive or forego these retrofitting requirements become effective upon the recording of a certificate attesting to such vote in the county where the ROC is located.  The association also must notify the members of the decision to forego retrofitting after the vote--within 30 days after the vote to waive the sprinkler system retrofitting and within 20 days after the vote to forego the handrail retrofitting.

Since the statutes provide that the local authorities that would have jurisdiction over the community buildings cannot require retrofitting of the common areas until the end of 2014, ROCs still have a few years to plan and schedule the membership meeting where these votes will occur.  

Just something to keep in mind during the "off season".  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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 (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I had an interesting discussion about bees with a ROC manager last month while visiting one of the communities we represent in Manatee County.   The manager had attended a presentation on the "Africanized Honey Bee" (also referred to as the "Killer Bee"), a much nastier and far more dangerous "cousin" of the European Honey Bees that have lived in Florida for many years.   Unfortunately, the Africanized Honey Bee has now infiltrated almost all of the east coast of Florida from Palm Beach County south.   The most heavily populated areas for these "killer bees" on Florida's west coast are currently Hillsborough, Pinellas and Lee Counties with a smaller population being found in Sarasota and Manatee Counties.  It's predicted that within the next five to ten years Africanized Honey Bees will have spread throughout the entire area of the state south of Interstate 4.

Here are just a few of the more sobering aspects of the invasion of these "killer bees":

• European Honey Bees will send out a few bees that may only hit a person that approaches their hive as a warning if these bees feel threatened.   These bees may swarm and sting if they still feel threatened.   However, the Africanized Honey Bee may feel threatened if a person gets within 150 yards of their hive--and, while they may only send out a few bees to investigate, if they still feel threatened (and remember, this may be at a distance of more than a football field from the hive!), the person may find himself under attack by at least one-third of the hive--or a minimum of 1,000 bees.
• Any general commotion (such as lawn mowers or edgers, radios, sirens, loud talking,  or children playing) may be viewed as a threat to the hive and once the "killer bees" begin their attack, unless and until the perceived "threat" gets at least 300 yards away from the hive, the attack will continue. If the victim dives into a pool or other body of water to escape the attack, the bees will simply wait for the victim to come up for air and start stinging again, even though a bee will die approximately sixty seconds after stinging its victim.
• These bees can fly at a speed of approximately 12 miles per hour, which is faster than most children or seniors can run.   If a victim is able to take cover in a car, home, shed, or other shelter, the bees may, again, simply wait for the victim to leave that protected area to recommence the attack and the hive may not return to normal for approximately twenty-four hours after the "killer bees" first perceive the threat.

The community's manager referred me to the University of Florida's Africanized Honey Bee website and I'd suggest that ROC managers and board members visit this site as it contains additional important information.

An attack by what might very well have been a swarm of these "killer bees" was brought to my attention by the manager of a community in Lee County during my visit there earlier this month.   Check out the article from the Fort Myers News Press and in particular the victim's unsuccessful attempt to escape the bees by diving into a body of water as well as an ingenious approach to solving the Africanized Honey Bee problem.

Apparently, these bees prefer to build their hives under mobile homes (obviously an unfortunate choice for many ROCs), temporary buildings, live and dead trees, logs, certain pieces of playground equipment, holes, bird houses, abandoned vehicles, eaves and soffit areas of homes and even in patio furniture.  Hives can reach five to ten gallons in size and potential victims obviously include lawn crews and landscapers, but these "killer bees" may view any person or pet coming too close to their hive as a threat.

If a hive of bees is discovered in your community, I'd suggest that the ROC manager or an authorized board member contact a pest control company trained to handle bee removal and let the experts (not the board or the manager or one of the community volunteers) get rid of the hive and the bees.   

• 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