|
COPY
OF E-MAIL SENT TO DBPR BY:
Stuart
J. Zoberg, Esq.
Katzman
Garfinkel Rosenbaum
Stuart
J. Zoberg, Esq.
1501 NW 49th Street
, 2nd Floor
Ft. Lauderdale
,
Florida
33309
June 22, 2009
Ms.
McCallum:
This email responds to your email below (if you scroll below our
signature line, you will see your last email). First, thank
you for your patience, it takes a while to “dig out” such old
records. As we also discussed at great length, many of the
policies of the Association have been changed as a result of the
Division investigation and inquiry (i.e. the disbandment of the
building presidents in this multi-condominium association, better
record keeping, etc…), but these practices were in place for
decades without complaint, and as explained below, I do not
believe support the complaint filed. I also note that the
person complaining lived in the community for years before levying
the complaint, which was likely due to an election loss.
Moreover, I could have (when first contacted) attempted an
argument to support the practice of board liaisons to the various
buildings, but I chose the path of least resistance and instructed
the client (and they complied) to simply disband these liaisons
(which they referred to as building presidents) and make sure all
decisions ran through the Board, which has the monumental task of
operating several condominium buildings as this Association
governs several condominium buildings. I respectfully submit that
the Association should be commended for its efforts, and no
punishment or warning letter is required simply because the
Association has made decade old practices even better to ensure
that such complaints do not occur again. In any event, with
regard to what you specifically asked me about checks, I state is
as follows:
Your
first two deal with checks to Michelle Herzmark, who is the
president of the Association. The first two checks were for
reimbursements. Check #1 was for reimbursements in the
amount of one hundred dollars and eighty five cents ($117.85) for
funeral flowers of an employee who had died. The second check was
also to this same individual, and it was reimbursements for
flowers for an employee named Kathy. The next five checks on
your list were to a Mr. Chuck Wiggins, who is the association’s
property manager. It was paid due to the time he spent
related to his work in connection with Hurricane Wilma, including
the mediation and all related extra tasks necessary.
Frankly, I have not reviewed the bills, but clearly it is a proper
expense for an association to pay its manager for work related to
a hurricane. In fact, many of the larger management
companies (provisions I always take out, as they seek absurd
amounts, unlike the small amount in comparison here) seek amounts
far in excess of the amount paid to the property manager.
Thus, it appears these checks were properly paid and within the
Board’s business judgment; whether or not they could be
nitpicked
After
the five checks to Mr. Wiggins you point to two additional checks
made payable to Michelle Herzmark. I truly think the amount
of these checks is worth of note. The first, was for sixty
two dollars and eighty one cents, and the second was for twenty
five dollars. The first was for reimbursement of money the
president laid out for “catering” expenses (i.e sodas, snacks,
etc…) and the second was for a charitable contribution in the
amount of twenty five dollars due to the death of an employee.
The next five checks are labeled petty cash, but they are all in
December of their respective years, and were holiday gifts/bonuses
to the Association’s staff. Some of these checks (which
can be provided if you wish) clearly delineate thereon in the
notes section that they are for Holiday gifts. Same with the final
check on your list (which is out of date in order) in December of
2005. The only other remaining check in question was yet
another payment to the property manager for work performed outside
the scope of the contract and their appears to be one check to the
property manager for reimbursements for refreshments at
association meetings.
I
could debate the issue of whether some of these items were a
proper common expense, but I would rather not. The
Association’s condominium documents are extremely broad, and the
Board has the power to declare anything within reason for the
benefit of the community as a common expense. I hardly think a
warning letter, regardless of what your position is on this issue,
over a nominal amount spent on food and drink and for refreshments
warrants a warning letter. I also note these practices have been
changed. Moreover, although other condominiums in the state
have received warning letters for similar issues, the statute
clearly says that in addition to those common expenses listed in
the statute, anything listed as a common expense in the
Declaration or Bylaws is a common expense and these documents are
worded more broadly then most to provide the Board such authority,
and regardless the policies have changed, so there is no need for
a warning letter. Perhaps more importantly, when this
investigation first started, it was not a complaint over flowers
or refreshments, it was a complaint that money was being stolen
from the Association. Clearly, that is not the case.
For this reason too, I respectfully ask that the Division not go
outside the scope of the original complaint, which frankly, and I
have spent the time to look at these checks and the memos thereon
again, does not seem to have any merit.
In
summary, absolutely no fraud took place, and every check has been
explained. Therefore, I respectfully request that you
dismiss the complaint. Should you have any further questions
or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very
Truly yours,
Stuart
J. Zoberg, Esq. |