Cyber Citizens For Justice Weblog

A Bill before the Florida Legislature (HB1365) would grant extremely broad powers to condominium boards following damage to the condominium property caused by a significant event, such as a hurricane.

The powers granted are so broad as to:

• Permit a single director to appoint and grant director authority to anyone (not even necessarily an owner) for the purpose of assisting with recovery.
• Practically waive all requirements for posting notice of board and membership meetings.
• Borrow money secured by association assets without owner approval.

The motivation for this Bill is laudible. Associations clearly need to continue functioning following a disaster, when some or many of its owners and directors have truly become unavailable. But such broad powers can be abused - and Florida condominiums do have a history of abuse by overly zealous directors. And where is it defined what the definition of “unavailable” is? A minority of directors (or even one director) could easily decide that the majority of the board was “unavailable” following a disaster, coopt their own cronies onto the board, post notice of meetings in obscure places, then borrow money or make special assessments to fund their pet projects without any oversight at all.

Instead of granting such such broad powers, the bill should have require associations to provide for alternate directors, alternate posting locations, and alternate procedures before a disaster. Such alternatives would then be subject to the oversight of legitimate boards and the owners, and be approved by proper majorities.  The same bill also should rigorously define “unavailable” and restrict post-disaster decisions by a partial board or alternative directors to emergency safety, health and welfare measures.

As currently proposed, HB1365 is seriously defective. Please contact your Florida State Senator & Representative (find their names here) and ask them to vote NO to HB1365.

Last year, then Florida Governor Job Bush, vetoed SB1556/HB0543 because it “changes the default provision of requiring the consent of all unit holders for termination in existing law and permits voluntary termination in virtually any circumstance, thereby diminishing security in ownership of private property”.

The developer’s lobby is back this year with the same bills - now SB0314 and HB0407. The bill’s chief Senate sponsor last year, Stephen Geller of Hallandale, defended the bill stating that “there have been too many cases of condominiums where the condo association has determined that needed repairs were so extreme or costly that they would exceed the condos’ value”.

Why, then, does the bill also allow for 80% optional termination - where there is no prerequisite for “disrepair” or “obsolescence”?

This optional termination allows 80% of the owners to sell the entire condominium property for no reason at all - other than a developer is offering them money, a “good deal”. So what’s wrong with that? If it’s a good deal for 80% of the owners, then isn’t it also a good deal for the other 20%? Not necessarily. In many cases, the condominium’s Declaration will require that the proceeds of sale be distributed equally - but the fair market values of the respective units may be very different. So a unit owner on the ground floor far away from the water would be very tempted by a distribution that amounts to twice their unit’s value. But that same distribution could amount to less than fair market value for a unit on the top floor of a high rise overlooking the bay. So 80% termination could well leave 20% of the owners disenfranchised and out of pocket!

There’s nothing wrong with termination because of “economic waste”. Nobody wants to prolong the life of a condominium which has fallen into disrepair, is an eyesore, and whose owners have abandoned it.

But the provision in SB0314 and HB0407 for optional termination shows these bills for what they are. A blatant attempt by greedy developers to make money at your expense!

Please contact your Florida State Senator & Representative (find their names here) and urge them to vote NO on in SB0314 and HB0407.

Two bills (HB1373 & SB2816) currently before the Florida Legislature will, if passed, appear to bring some long overdue protections to individual condominium owners in Florida.

But we can be sure that the powerful legal and service provider lobbies will work hard to oppose the bills, or dilute their effectiveness - if only because they will change the status quo by shifting some power back to the individual condominium owners.

So, if the bills are to survive intact, you will need to contact your Florida State Senator & Representative NOW (find their names here) and urge their support of HB1373 and SB2816.

The major changes to the Condominium Statute (FS 718) proposed are summarized below:

• 718.111 Requires advance notice of non-emergency access to condominium units, requires association records to be available for inspection by owners within 30 miles of the condominium , further protects personal information of owners and renters. defines how and when a condominium should be reconstructed or terminated after a casualty, and how costs not covered by insurance are to be shared amongst owners.
• 718.112 Removes the limit on the number of unit owner queries which an Association must respond to, prohibits actions and resolutions without open board meetings, enables 20% of owners to require an agenda item at board and owner meetings, requires that ballot boxes be kept locked until an election meeting, limits the amount a board can borrow except in an emergency, and requires more immediate action following a recall.
• 718.113 Requires professional inspection of the condominium building every 5 years, and prohibits association rules which limit religious freedoms, or which conflict with statutes or condominium documents.
• 718.1123: Provides protections from abuse against owners by the Association or its agents.
• 718.1224: Prohibits Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP suits).
• 718.3025: Prohibits contracts between associations and service providers which contain automatic renewal clauses, or whose term exceeds 3 years - and requires association attorney approval of certain high value contracts.
• 718.303: Requires that hearings for rules violations be held by a committee of non-directors, and more stringent notification requirements for rules violations.
• 718.501: Provides for mandatory remedial education of associations which have been found in violation of the statutes, and for owner notification of such violations.
• 718.5011: More clearly defines the role of the Ombudsman.