An Opinion By Jan Bergemann 
President, Cyber Citizens For Justice, Inc.

Published February 11, 2014

After reading the provisions in the proposed companion bills H 807 (Rep. Moraitis) and S 798 (Sen.Ring) I could only shake my head in disbelief. I have barely ever seen more anti-owner provisions combined in one bill as in this bill. And knowing that Donna Berger from Katzman Garfinkel & Berger (KGB) claims to be behind this bill, I quickly came to the conclusion that the three worst enemies of Florida's condo owners and homeowners living in community associations have joined forces to destroy what little common sense is in community association law anyway.

Under the usual cover of "clarifying existing laws" there are some really outrageous attempts being made to destroy the idea of public board meetings, giving banks more profits and taking away more rental rights -- just to name three of the issues contained in this anti-owner bill.

Senator Jeremy Ring (D-Distr.29) is the senator responsible for giving banks and mortgage companies the protection of the so-called Safe Harbor provisions that protects banks from paying unpaid costs for foreclosed homes in homeowners' associations. His bill S 1986, filed in 2008, created these provisions that have cost many good Florida families their homes! Until this bill was enacted in 2008, FS 720 had no such provisions. This bill caused many associations to raise their dues, causing more foreclosures on the homes of families who were no longer able to pay the rapidly increasing dues. But why should Ring care? According to the Internet he is a millionaire who cashed in on the Yahoo frenzy.

Representative George Moraitis (R-Distr. 93) is since years filing bills that hurt homeowners and condo owners. In recent years he has tried over and over again to strengthen the Safe Harbor provisions in community association laws, trying to protect banks and mortgage companies even more -- at the expense of the owners whose dues increase even more in order to make up for the unpaid dues banks don't have to pay any longer.

Make no mistake: The so-called SAFE HARBOR PROVISIONS force owners to pay for cost that should normally be the responsibility of the banks and mortgage companies.

If you have to pay increased dues because the banks foreclose and don't have to pay their fair share of maintenance dues, these are the two legislators you mainly have to thank for! Please always remember that when they are coming up for election. They did a lot of damage to your wallet!

I don't think I have to say a lot more about Donna Berger from the law firm of Katzman Garfinkel & Berger -- short KGB. I always thought there is a reason for selecting a name that creates this abbreviation. It says a lot! Donna Berger has since many years never failed to promote herself and slab herself on the back. Maybe other folks don't appreciate her actions so much so she has to sing her own praise? 

Donna Berger, already when she worked for Becker & Poliakoff, was always on the side of anti-owner legislation, while often claiming credit for positive things she didn't have any involvement with. Donna Berger is not only a partner in this law firm, she is as well the Executive Director of CAN (Community Advocacy Network), an organization that in my opinion lobbies under the false pretense of lobbying for "associations." In my opinion CAN is just another organization trying to protect the profits of the service providers. I honestly can't understand that any owner (board members included) is supporting this organization. These bills are speaking for itself!

On the funny side: Attorney Scott Newsom, the attorney who made headlines by falsely claiming that CAN is representing more than 60,000 community associations (CAN ATTORNEYS -- MASTERS OF DECEPTION?) in front of the Marion County Legislative Delegation, is now working for the competition, the law firm of Becker & Poliakoff. Leaving the question: Who is representing whom?

So much about the folks behind these anti-owner companion bills.

The bill is long and contains many booby traps -- provisions that only look good on first view, including more changes to financial reporting. Are owners and board members not already confused enough? Why do we need these provisions to be changed on an annual basis?

Here are just three of the highlights of this anti-owner legislation:

1.) Look at this harmless looking sentence: "A member may use e-mail as a means of communication but may not cast a vote on an association matter via e-mail." Guess what: This provision is a lot more far-reaching than it appears on first view. It gives board members the right to communicate with each other in regards to association issues. Considering the fact that just recently an arbitrator ruled that e-mail communication sent and received from privately owned computers is not an official association record, it actually kills the idea we have been fighting for since many years: The requirement that association business has to be discussed at officially noticed public board meetings. With this sentence enacted, board members could discuss all these issues among each other from their home computers -- and owners would have no access to this e-mail communication. The board members would just show up at the board meetings to cast their official vote on motions already discussed by e-mail in detail. No further debate in front of the owners needed! The votes are already agreed upon by e-mail. That's what this sentence would do: NO MORE SUNSHINE AT THE MEETINGS! 

2.) Convoluted wording that creates more rights for associations to enter units, make repairs and rent out these units, making it sound like it's profitable business for the association. But read the details: The cost for all this can only be recovered if the unit is bought by a private person. If the bank/mortgage company forecloses, they get all the improvements for free, courtesy of the other owners who paid for these repairs. Banks and mortgage companies will sure stand behind such provisions that will help them to get more benefits for free!

3.) The bills are as well "messing" with the wording of FS 718.110(13) --we fought hard to enact in 2004, It protects the rights of owners willing to rent out their units or even bought the units with the sole intent to rent them out. The wording that passed was short and sweet and worked well -- obviously too well for the taste of certain attorneys and board members.

The proposed changes make it just more complicated -- meaning more litigation-friendly!

These are just the highlight of the companion bills that create more convoluted language in statutes that are already more than complicated enough for owners to understand.

Honestly, associations and its members would be much better off without such people like Donna Berger, Jeremy Ring and George Moraitis trying to "clarify" language in these statutes. Living in these community associations is already complicated enough. The cost of living in these communities is increasing with a steady pace. We really don't need more laws that will increase legal billing hours and profits for banks and mortgage companies. Make no mistake: Associations and owners will definitely not benefit from these proposed changes to existing laws!

SB 798: Real and Personal Property -- Senator Ring

HB 807: Residential Properties -- Rep. Moraitis