Wasserstein, P.A. – 2015 Legislative Update

Wasserstein Logo CMYK




This shall serve as Wasserstein, P.A.’s newsletter to our clients regarding recent legislative changes of which you should be aware.  As of July 1, 2015 the most significant bill for community associations that was passed into law was HB 791.  Most changes included in HB 791 impact both condominiums and homeowners associations unless otherwise specified.  The following are the key changes and updates:


Electronic Voting: One of the most significant changes passed this session is that associations may now conduct elections and other membership votes via an electronic (internet-based) system. The new law includes requirements necessary to establish an electronic voting method, including a board resolution adopting this manner of voting.  An owner’s consent to online voting is required, but if the owner does not consent then he or she is still entitled to vote by paper ballot.

Electronic Transmission of Proxies: As the law previously existed, it did not allow for proxies to be submitted electronically (scanned, faxed, e-mailed, etc.).  The new law contains language similar to the language already found in Florida Statute 607.0722(10), which governs for-profit corporations, and is being added to Florida Statute 617.0721, which governs not-for-profit corporations, including both condominium and homeowners’ associations.  This new law will allow for owners to submit their proxies electronically, which will certainly facilitate membership voting by making it easier to participate (albeit participation by non-participation since its by proxy!).

Electronic Notice to Owners: This part of the bill removes from the statutes the requirement that electronic notices to owners must be authorized by the bylaws (this requirement generally meant an amendment of the bylaws was necessary since many were recorded back when the Internet was merely just a dream of the U.S. Army, Al Gore, Bill Gates or whomever else claims to have invented it and electronic notice was not even contemplated!). Now, as long as the owner consents in writing, the association may provide the owner with electronic notice and save some trees.

Suspension of Voting Rights and Amenities: A welcomed change and clarification adopted by this bill is that when an owner’s voting rights are suspended, they are effectively removed from the total number of voting interests in the community for purposes of calculating a quorum or obtaining approval of membership action.  Basically, they are removed from the denominator of the fraction.  So if you have a community of 100 units and need 67% to vote in favor of the proposed action, and 10 owners have had their rights suspended, you need only 67% of 90 rather than 67% of 100.  The bill also clarifies that the suspension of right to use amenities applies to owner, their tenants and guests, regardless of number of units owned by the owner.

Fines: This section of the bill clarifies that it is the Board of Directors that is responsible for levying fines and that the fining/covenant enforcement committee hearing must be impartial and limited to the purpose of approving or rejecting the fine levied by the Board.  This is a change I find to be somewhat poorly conceived as it 1) takes away significant authority from the committee and places further burden on the Board and 2) is a somewhat poorly worded amendment to existing law confounding whether the fine is to be determined by the Board and then approved or rejected by the committee after the fact, at a subsequent fining hearing, or if the hearing takes place first and then the fine is levied.


Application of Payment/Assessments: The Condominium Act sets forth that any payments received by owners on a delinquent account are applied first to interest, then late fees, then collections costs and attorney’s fees, and lastly, the unpaid assessments. The bill amends Florida Statute 718.116(3) to reinforce that this application of payments is to be followed regardless of any purported “full accord and satisfaction” or “payment in full” language or any other restrictive endorsement that may accompany a short or partial payment tendered to the association.

The reason for this change is to overrule a 2014 appellate decision (referred to as the St. Croix case) that held that if a check was tendered for less than the total amount owed, but was accompanied by any of the “full accord and satisfaction” or “payment in full” language, the acceptance of the payment essentially settled the account for the amount accepted.  This caused associations, their managers and attorneys to have to be overly cautious when processing each and every payment to make sure they were not waiving any amounts rightfully owed and even to turn away certain payments, but now that fear has been allayed, at least as to condominiums.

What I would like to see clarified is the last part of the statutory application.  The last item to which payments are applied are unpaid assessments but the question remains, to which unpaid assessments are those payments applied, the oldest or the most recent?  It would make sense to apply payments to the oldest unpaid assessments first and that is often how they are handled in practice as it is most fair to the delinquent owner (since the older an assessment, the larger amount of interest that accrues).  However, it would be nice to have a clarification.  Just wishful thinking on the part of an association lawyer.

Official Records: Previously, the Condominium Act had a catch-all type of provision that made “all other records of the association…which are related to the operation of the association” part of the official records. The new law clarifies that those “other” records are limited to only “written” records.  Effectively, items such as audio or video recordings of meetings or security camera video footage are now no longer considered “official records” and accordingly, do not have to be made available to owners seeking to inspect the official records.  An interesting debate is whether e-mail constitutes a “written” record and if so, whether audio or video files transmitted via e-mail are then made part of the official records.

Distressed Condominium Relief Act: The bill also extended the “distressed condominium relief act” also known as the “bulk buyer law” until July 1, 2018.  It had been set to expire, or “sunset” on July 1, 2016.  This is important for investors that buy distressed condominium projects as it gives them immunity from various obligations affiliated with being a developer.

Insurance: The new law modified a provision that previously made the association responsible for certain “uninsured losses.”  This change really just fixes a glitch and clarifies that the association’s obligation to subsidize insurance shortfalls for items that may otherwise be the unit owner’s responsibility is limited to situations where the association was actually responsible to insure the damaged element.


Homeowners Association Act: Florida Statute 720, which governs homeowners association, is now officially known as the “Homeowners Association Act.”  Neat.

Governing Documents Includes Rules and Regulations: While most everyone has always considered the rules and regulations adopted by an association to be part of their “governing documents,” that term, as used throughout the Homeowners Association Act (my first time calling the statute by its new official name…exciting stuff!) is now deemed to explicitly include the rules and regulations.

Notice of Amendments: While the Homeowners Association Act still requires the providing of notice to the membership of recording an amendment to the governing documents, failure to do so does not affect the validity of the amendment.

Eligibility for the Board of Directors: Taking a page out of the Condominium Act, the Homeowners Association Act now provides that an individual who is delinquent in the payment of any financial obligation owed to the Association as of the last day that he or she could nominate himself or herself to the board is not eligible to be a candidate and may not be listed on the ballot.  Once on the Board, a member’s delinquency leash is a bit looser (so as not to create excessive vacancies) as it is not until they become 90 days delinquent in the payment of any monetary obligation owed to the Association that they are deemed to have abandoned their seat on the Board, creating a vacancy to be filled accordingly.


Evicting Tenants of Properties in Foreclosure:  HB 779 is meant to replace the Protecting Tenants in Foreclosure Act of 2009.  Once a property is acquired at foreclosure, the new owner, whether a lender or third party purchaser, must provide a bona fide tenant (someone who was leasing at arm’s length, at a market rate) with only 30 days’ notice of the termination of the rental agreement before eviction can be pursued (if the tenant does not timely vacate).  This is a much shortened window of time for tenants to vacate as compared to the prior Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 which provided that a bona fide tenant was allowed to stay in the property for the entire remaining term of their lease unless the new owner wanted to actually reside at the purchased property.

Termination of Condominiums: Since this is not something that commonly comes up with condominium associations, thankfully, I will only mention that the Condominium Act now provides that if a termination vote fails, another vote to terminate may not be considered for 18 months and voting interests that have been suspended are still entitled to vote on the termination. Also, a termination vote may not take place until 5 years after the recording of the declaration of condominium unless there is no objection.

Daniel Wasserstein
E-mail: danw@wassersteinpa.com

Common Contractual Conditions to Cover Community Associations


As a community association attorney, I see many contracts come across my desk for review.  What concerns me are the number of contracts that do not.  You aren’t dealing with Vito Corleone and an irrefusable offer!  Any time a vendor is seeking to provide work or services to your community, you are the one in a position of power and it is of the utmost importance that your association insist on some basic protections.

First, you will want to make sure the vendor is licensed, that they are adequately insured, that they provide worker’s compensation coverage to their employees and that they will agree to name the association as an additional insured on their general liability policy.  These base requirements will be applicable to most all vendors providing goods and services to community associations and confirmation from the vendor should be insisted upon at the outset.

Next are the legal protections in the contract itself – indemnification and prevailing party attorney’s fees.  Simple enough to have input into any agreement, but when omitted can lead to disastrous results.  What happens if during the course of a vendor’s work they injure one of your residents or cause damage to a resident’s personal property?  You guessed it – that resident is suing the association.  Without an indemnification provision, the association will likely have to bear the burden of defending itself and potentially paying for a vendor’s mistake.  Now what happens if the vendor does not cause any injuries or property damage, but simply fails to live up to the terms of the contract?  If your contract with that vendor does not allow the prevailing party in litigation to recover its attorney’s fees from the losing party, it means that even if your association won its lawsuit against the vendor, the association would not be able to recover its attorney’s fees, which very well could exceed the underlying claim.

Finally, where appropriate, your association should insist that any guarantees or warranties on labor or materials be provided in writing along with the contract and before work begins so that the association knows exactly what the vendor or manufacturer will be providing (or more importantly, not providing).  Often, a contract will reference generally that the vendor or manufacturer will provide a warranty but does not specify the duration, limitations or conditions.  Make sure to get a copy of these documents before putting pen to paper.

Of course, to best ensure your community’s protection, it is recommended that you retain the services of a community association attorney to review all contracts.  Conveniently enough, the contact information for such an attorney can be found immediately below.

Daniel Wasserstein
E-mail: danw@wassersteinpa.com

Abandonment Issues


All that empty space and no right to use it…until now.

A year ago I wrote an article titled “Is Your Association Down with OPP?”  discussing the pros and cons of renting out empty units without first taking title.  The legislature has heeded the call and last month amended the Condominium Act to allow condo associations certain rights with regard to abandoned units, including the right to rent them out.  Here’s how it works:

After mailing or hand delivering a 2 day notice to the owner of record at their last known address, a condominium association can now enter a unit to clean it up, perform necessary maintenance or repairs, and to turn on utilities (get that A/C going to prevent mold!) if a unit is “abandoned”.   The association can then charge all costs incurred to the unit ledger and lien for the amounts (if they are unpaid) the same as an assessment.  Also, if a unit is “abandoned” a condominium association can petition the court to appoint a receiver to rent out the unit to offset costs incurred with regard to the unit and unpaid assessments.

A unit is defined as “abandoned” if:

  1. The unit is in foreclosure and no tenant appears to have resided in the unit for 4 continuous weeks without providing prior written notice to the association (i.e.-someone sending a letter stating they will be out of town for a month);


  1. When a unit is not in foreclosure, but no tenant appears to have resided in the unit for 2 consecutive months without providing prior written notice to the association and the association is unable to contact the owner or determine their whereabouts after reasonable attempts.

If your association has questions as to how best to make use of this great addition, it is recommended you contact a community association attorney.

Daniel Wasserstein

E-mail: danw@wassersteinpa.com


Speedy Foreclosure Law – A New Way to Avoid Delay


The average number of days it has taken a lender to foreclose in Florida has been estimated at almost 900 days!  In many of these cases the borrower has defaulted in the lawsuit or has otherwise abandoned the property, so responsibility for this delay has often rested with the lender.  

Why would a lender purposely delay obtaining an uncontested judgment?  For one, the lenders have been happy to postpone recognizing the loss on their books.  Lenders have also been adverse to the possibility of taking title without a purchaser ready to assume the responsibilities of ownership.  These responsibilities include maintenance and upkeep expenses, tax and insurance liability, but most notably as to associations, the obligation to pay not only a portion of prior assessments, but also the ongoing obligation to pay future assessments until the property is sold.  

Facing these liabilities, the orchestrated inertia that has permeated in lender foreclosures is certainly understandable.  Delay is beneficial for the lenders because it allows them to move their cases at their own pace and avoid liabilities they are not prepared to take on.  Delay is also beneficial to the borrowers as they receive the gift of an extended reprieve which often equates to months (and sometimes years) of rent free living.  Who does the delay hurt?  The associations, which have continued to bleed assessments as lender foreclosures crawl towards finality.  While some association attorneys, including me, have taken proactive measures to prod these cases along, it certainly helps to have more tools at our disposal.

Enter the new speedy foreclosure bill, HB 87, that was just recently signed into law by Governor Rick Scott.  Amongst other things, it provides associations with statutory leverage to push uncontested lender foreclosures towards completion.  Previously the law allowed only the lender to seek what is called an “order to show cause” where the borrower would have limited time to show cause as to why a final judgment should not be entered.  If the borrower failed to show such cause or otherwise failed to participate in the proceeding, a final judgment of foreclosure would be entered without the need for further litigation.  Of course, with the overarching culture of delay, this tool was seldom used by lenders.  With the new speedy foreclosure law,  this right has been extended to associations and now they too can force the borrower to show cause as to why a judgment of foreclosure should not be entered against them in the lender’s case.  

While HB 87 should facilitate the movement of uncontested lender foreclosures towards a quick resolution, it is important to realize that many lenders may decide to stall even the filing of their actions since they have now lost a degree of control.  Although this new law is certainly a beneficial development for associations, as the sign above suggests it will remain an inevitability to “Expect Delays”.

Daniel Wasserstein

E-mail: danw@wassersteinpa.com


Going Green to Save Some Green – Installing Solar Panels to Reduce Energy Costs

Solar Panels

When it comes to aesthetics, associations in Florida generally try to maintain the uniformity of the community by making sure owners are staying consistent with the original design.  Minor alterations, modifications or additions are usually permissible but many decisions that would otherwise be within an owners control, such as the color of their house or installation of an outdoor enclosure, are often disallowed when one submits to association living.  So long as they are not selectively enforced, these aesthetic restrictions are justifiable because they help to preserve everyone’s property value by maintaining the integrity of the community, and with the economy the way it has been, homeowners certainly need to preserve every dollar of their property’s value.

So what about all this we hear about “going green”.  Sounds like a great idea, right?  That is of course until it shows up in the form of ugly black solar panels on your neighbor’s roof .  Under the aesthetic restrictions just discussed, you would think that your association would be able to preclude your neighbor from installing such an eyesore, right?  Wrong!  The Florida Statutes (section 163.04 for those scoring at home) specifically allow owners in HOAs and condos the right to install solar collectors on their home or on the roof of their condo free from any deed or covenant restrictions that the association would normally seek to impose.  If installed on a roof, the association is only allowed to determine the location where the solar collectors may be placed, but even then the location must be within an area with a southern orientation and the selected location must not impair the effectiveness of the solar collectors.

So it seems that just when you think the association has absolute control over aesthetics, renewable energy proves to be the higher power.

Daniel Wasserstein

E-mail: danw@wassersteinpa.com


Pipe Burst – Who’s Responsible?

A pipe burst in a condominium can be everyone’s worst nightmare.  Its usually a haphazard, unpredictable event causing significant damage, but the aftermath can be even more challenging to filter out than the displaced water.  Both the Association and the affected unit owners will be carefully evaluating the nature of the damage, potential insurance coverage as well as causation, and all of this can certainly put a damper on carefree condo living.

Since most major pipe bursts are random occurrences, the Association should initially focus its efforts on repairing the pipe, analyzing the damage and preparing a claim to be submitted to the Association’s general liability insurance carrier.  The Association is obligated to maintain the common elements and the sooner it can obtain the insurance funding, the sooner the Association can replace certain items such as drywall (or in this case, wetwall) so as to prevent further damage to the common elements and potential health risks.

But what about poor Mrs. Unit Owner who had her hard wood floor coverings, her fancy drapes and her antique furniture damaged by a haphazard pipe burst?  Surely the Association’s insurance must cover those items too, right?  Actually, Florida Statute 718.111(11), which governs insurance requirements for condominium associations, requires that an Association’s insurance specifically exclude coverage for these types of personal property found within a unit and puts the obligation squarely on the unit owner to self insure against this type of loss.

So is Mrs. Unit Owner out of luck if she did not have insurance on her personal property?  Not entirely.  This is where the issue of causation comes into play–what caused the pipe to burst?  It could indeed be that another unit owner was negligent in attempting to make alterations which inadvertently caused damage to the common element pipe.  Alternatively, it could have been a situation where the Association was warned by a professional that a particular common element pipe was weak and preventative maintenance was never taken to address the issue.  In either case, the negligent party could be on the hook for all the resulting damage, not only the damage to the common elements but also to the internal surfaces, components, fixtures and personal property contained inside all affected units.

Daniel Wasserstein

E-mail: danw@wassersteinpa.com


Is Your Association Down with OPP?

During the current economic crisis, associations across Florida have searched for novel and alternative ways to combat their mounting assessment delinquencies.  Taking control of OPP, also know as “other people’s property,” has become a common way for associations to recoup their losses, but this may prove to be naughty, by nature.

The most traditional and legally sanitary way for associations to take control of delinquent properties in the community is through the foreclosure process.  Once a property becomes delinquent, an association can file their lien (after complying with all statutory pre-conditions) and then foreclose on a property through the court system.  If the resulting foreclosure sale does not yield a third party buyer, then title is vested in the name of the association.  The association is then free to sell the property, or, as more commonly occurs, rent it out until such time as the mortgage lender forecloses their superior lien and takes title.  The association can take such actions because, of course, the association legally owns the property.

But what about the situation where the association has not obtained title to a particular property in the community, but believes it to have been abandoned by its owner?  This is not such an uncommon occurrence, especially where many properties in Florida were purchased during the real estate boom as second homes or investments.  When the economy went sour, the owner may have simply decided to walk away because they either could no longer afford the property or because they were upside down on their mortgage, or both.  From this situation, emerged a new strategy whereby associations began renting out these abandoned properties without actually taking title to them or obtaining consent of the owner (come to think of it, my friend owes me $100, maybe I should rent out the treadmill in his garage–I know for a fact he abandoned that piece of equipment long ago!).

While the renting of abandoned properties may derive well-needed income for the association and the actual owner may never know, or for that matter, care, this author does not recommend the practice.  Renting a property is one element of the “bundle of rights” that only an owner has with respect to their property.  Such rights can only be conveyed to third parties, such as the association, if provided for by Florida law.  While the Florida Statutes were indeed amended in 2010 to allow an association the right to collect rental payments from the tenant of a delinquent owner, they do not allow for an association to change the locks and actually place a tenant in a property owned by a delinquent owner–a key distinction.

The bottom line is that while the businessman sitting on one shoulder is telling me that this is a great way to score some needed cash for associations with the motto “it isn’t wrong unless you get caught” the lawyer sitting on my other shoulder is reminding me of all the ponzi schemers, robo-signers, etc. that lived by that same mantra and we all know how they have fared over the last few years.

Daniel Wasserstein

E-mail: danw@wassersteinpa.com


Quest for Quorum

For community associations in Florida, when it comes to having a valid meeting of the membership the statutes applicable to condominiums and homeowners associations both require that there be a “quorum.”  A quorum, as defined by the internet equivalent of Webster’s dictionary, Dictionary.com, defines a quorum as “the number of members of a group or organization required to be present to transact business legally.”  So although this word may sound like just another typical piece of lawyer jargon derived from a dead language (Latin, not Sanskrit, for those scoring at home), it has the potential to be the undoing of a lot of hard work if the proper number is not achieved.  One of the confounding circumstances is that many assume that the condo and HOA statutes are completely in sync and while this may often be the case, the statutory requirement for a quorum at a meeting of the membership of a condo differs quite significantly from that for HOAs.

Chapter 718 governs condominiums in Florida and with regard to achieving a quorum, subsection 718.112(2)(b)(1) states that “unless a lower number is provided in the bylaws, the percentage of voting interests required to constitute a quorum at a meeting of the members is a majority of the voting interests.”

Chapter 720 governs HOAs in Florida and with regard to achieving a quorum, subsection 720.306(1)(a) states that “unless a lower number is provided in the bylaws, the percentage of voting interests required to constitute a quorum at a meeting of the members shall be 30 percent of the total voting interests.”

So unless a number lower than these figures is provided for in an association’s bylaws, for condominiums to have a quorum at a meeting of the membership there must be at least 50% of the membership plus 1 present, in person or by proxy.  This is significantly higher than for HOAs where only a minimum of 30% of the membership must be present, in person or by proxy.  It follows that if your association wants to take action on something requiring a vote of the membership, such as amending of the governing documents, knowing the appropriate quorum requirement is crucial to ensuring the validity of the proceedings.

It is also important to note another related difference between the statutes.  While Chapter 720 is silent on the issue, Chapter 718.112(2)(b)(2) provides that “a voting interest or consent right allocated to a unit owned by the association may not be exercised or considered for any purpose, whether for a quorum, an election, or otherwise.”  In the current economy, where units are often foreclosed upon and taken title to by associations, it is important that condo associations understand that per this statute, they cannot use ownership of units to satisfy a quorum requirement, nor can the association vote the interest of these units in any way whatsoever.

Daniel Wasserstein

E-mail: danw@wassersteinpa.com


Rent Your Condo…I Don’t Think So!

It’s my property and I can do whatever I want with it, right?  Wrong!-at least when it comes to renting out a condominium unit.

Most condominium owners in Florida are allowed to rent their units subject to approval by the governing association.  However, when an owner is delinquent in paying assessments on a unit, the condominium association has the right under Florida Statute 718.116(4) to withhold approval of any lease on the unit, regardless of the reasonability of lease or quality of the tenant (provided, of course, that the governing documents of the condominium allow the association the right to approve or disapprove of leases).

While this law may prove frustrating for owners who might look to the rental income as a way to pay down their assessment debt, the purpose of this law is to prevent delinquent owners from entering into below market leases that they can afford only because of their non-payment of assessments and other obligations such as their mortgage.  Not only does this law protect the community from depressed rental values, but it also helps to avoid the stigma that might be associated with an association permitting a delinquent owner access to a stream of revenue where he or she has little to no expenses and little incentive to pay down their debt.  It also protects a prospective tenant from getting in over their head with a landlord who may have little to no interest in laying out any cash, including that which may be necessary to fund major repairs to the unit such as air conditioning or plumbing.

Now lets say a unit owner pushes hard for approval of their lease and it is at fair market value and the prospective tenant passes an initial screening.  An alternative to disapproving the lease in the manner described above is founded in another law, Florida Statute 718.116(11), that allows an association to demand and receive rental payments from a delinquent owner’s tenant.  If this can be agreed upon as a condition of approval, it may prove to be a viable option for the association and serve as a justification to the rest of the community as to why the lease was approved.  For more information on this option, see “Got Rent? Going After Delinquent Owners’ Rental Income“.

Either way, the association should make sure that it creates a policy for dealing with these scenarios to ensure that all unit owners are being treated fairly and uniformly.

Daniel Wasserstein

E-mail:  danw@wassersteinpa.com


Wheeling and Self Dealing: Can Directors Contract with the Association?

A fiduciary duty is defined as a relationship of trust and confidence between two or more parties.  In Florida, association board members owe a fiduciary duty to their fellow unit owners.  Florida Statute 718.111(1), which governs condominiums, sets forth that “the officers and directors of the association have a fiduciary relationship to the unit owners.”  Florida Statute 720.303(1), which governs homeowners associations, sets forth that “the officers and directors of an association have a fiduciary relationship to the members who are served by the association.”  As a result of these fiduciary relationships, there are several actions that are off limits to board members, but this has led to many misconceptions as well.  Possibly the most common misconception is that a board member (or his or her company) cannot contract with the association because it would be a conflict of interest and thereby, a breach of a fiduciary duty-this is not true.

Florida Statute 617.0832 deals with conflicts of interest for directors of non-profit corporations (ie: condos and HOAs).  It provides that “no contract or other transaction between a corporation and one or more of its directors or any other corporation, firm, association, or entity in which one or more of its directors are directors or officers or are financially interested shall be either void or voidable because of such relationship or interest” provided that 1) the fact of such relationship or interest is disclosed or known to those who are entitled to authorize the contract or transaction and 2) that the contract or transaction is fair and reasonable at the time it is authorized.

As long as this type of contract or transaction is before the board of directors for approval and is authorized by the affirmative vote of a majority of those directors who do not have a relationship or interest in the transaction (and as long as it is more than a single disinterested director that approves), the transaction will be deemed properly authorized under the statute.  It should also be noted that the mere presence or casting of a vote by a director having a relationship or interest in the transaction does not invalidate the process so long as the transaction is otherwise properly authorized.

The most important thing for a board member to consider is that while contracting with the association is statutorily permissible, it may nevertheless carry with it the appearance and stigma of self-dealing.  There is always a possibility that no matter how above board the transaction may be, other owners in the community are likely to think that the transacting director is acting with the same mindset as the cartoon character above.

Lesson: Don’t become the cartoon character.

Daniel Wasserstein

E-mail: danw@wassersteinpa.com