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

Published June 21, 2011

Most of you familiar with community association issues have heard the name Gary Poliakoff -- or even know him. He is the patriarch of the law firm that carries his name: Becker & Poliakoff P.A., once the Number One address in Florida for community association law.

I have only met Gary Poliakoff twice in person, and both times I was amazed at his arrogance. The first time I saw him was in an elevator in the Capitol in Tallahassee , where he was bragging to lobbyists.  Poliakoff claimed that he was showing these disgruntled owners and the legislators trying to help them who was boss here.

A few years later Poliakoff and I were members of a panel at a town hall meeting organized by the Sun Sentinel [http://www.ccfj.net/CCFJSSTH102909.htm]. This was at the beginning of a financial crisis for associations, caused by unpaid dues and/or foreclosures. After many owners had voiced their dismay about the fact that they have to pay more -- and even pay special assessments -- to make up for the failure of their neighbors to pay their fair share of the association bills, I was appalled when I heard Gary Poliakoff's response. He told these owners that he doesn't really understand why they are complaining -- since they signed a contract!

Despite the fact that Poliakoff is officially claiming that he (quote) "retired from Firm Management in March of 2009, and is not involved in the day to day decisions nor its legislative agenda," everybody “in the know” is fully aware that nobody in the firm even dares to sneeze without Poliakoff’s prior approval. 

His blogs and columns clearly show that he may have "retired," but is still playing a big part in forming the opinion of the community association lawyers that remain in the firm -- after lots of very experienced attorneys left the firm to look for greener pastures.

Poliakoff stated in a blog that he tries to give readers alternative viewpoints -- and he actually does exactly that. After reading his blogs posted on the webpage LIVING WITH RULES of the Sun Sentinel for many months, this is my conclusion about the goals Poliakoff tries to achieve, besides making free advertising for himself, his book and his law firm:

1. Give lots of dictatorial powers to associations and its board members.

2. Indemnify board members against every violation -- even if they knowingly violate the laws and their own rules.

3. Make homeowners and condo owners serfs with no rights, but with the duty to pay any amount the board demands.

4. Create vague laws that allow attorneys to interpret them as they see fit -- just to create lots of lawsuits.

5. Create laws that make attorneys rich and owners poor.

You may say: WOW! -- what makes you come up with that opinion?

How about this: A wide majority of the horrible provisions we saw in S1196 and H1195 (S530) were created and pushed by the members of the law firm of Becker & Poliakoff. Nothing in these bills actually helps associations/owners to deal with the financial crisis created by unpaid dues and/or foreclosures. Most of the provisions that are "supposed to help" instead pit owners against owners -- without really putting money in the associations’ coffers. Actually, trying to enforce these provisions will create lots of billing hours for attorneys. Most of these legal fees can't be recovered by the association -- creating even higher cost for the owners still paying dues and special assessments.

Other provisions create more board meetings behind closed doors, higher cost for owners making record requests -- and the list goes on.

From what I hear -- more or less on a daily basis -- is that the attorneys still working in the community association department of the law firm of Becker & Poliakoff are more and more getting a reputation of being the protectors of bad boards -- meaning board members under fire by "disgruntled" owners.

If you read Poliakoff's blogs carefully, you will find a pattern that reminds me of the tactic used by Shakespeare's Marc Antony in his famous speech at Caesar's funeral. Marc Antony praised Caesar's killers, but actually made them look to be totally in the wrong. ["Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears; I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him."]
   

Two recent court rulings -- considered by other attorneys as very significant rulings -- were plainly pooh-poohed by either Gary Poliakoff or members of the law firm of Becker & Poliakoff P.A. These rulings are obviously important rulings which definitely clarify existing law, but are not helping Gary Poliakoff's vision of legislative power to violate contractual rights or the absolute power of associations to collect dues and special assessments.

[Cohn v. Grand Condominium Association, Inc.]

[Qualcom Corporation v. Global Commerce Center Association, Inc.]

Considering Poliakoff's statements and blog-postings, it seems that he loves to quote contractual rights whenever convenient for his purpose, but doesn't mind seeing rights trampled upon by bills pushed by his firm.

When evaluating Poliakoff's statements, you have to consider that for many years the law firm of Becker & Poliakoff was THE Florida mouthpiece of the Community Associations Institute (CAI), the Virginia-based trade organization for community association service providers -- among its members are financial institutions.  Also, please consider that a big part of the Becker & Poliakoff law firm is dedicated to representing developers. In my opinion that is a very problematic issue, because -- as we all know -- it's very difficult to serve different masters, especially since the interests of these three groups often collide!

But it may explain why Poliakoff always tries to blame the federal government for the financial shortcomings that besiege our community associations – instead of blaming developers and/or banks that are blamed by most experts for these problems.

If Gary Poliakoff is proud of his "record" -- that's his prerogative. In one of his posts he states that he is proud of "close to 40 years of accomplishments for the betterment of shared ownership communities."

That's how opinions differ. In my opinion we see today a failed experiment at the expense of homeowners and unit owners that were lured into these community associations under false pretenses. I have never heard any owner who claimed that he was informed that he would have to pay for his neighbors’ failure to pay the dues. Anybody who claims to be proud of what we see happening in our community associations today must run around with blinders.  Or he is unwilling to admit his own shortcomings -- possibly caused by greed?