“From
Justice As A Foundation All Rights Flow”
DELAND,
May 10, 2008
Please
Veto COMMUNITY Association Bill H 679
Dear
Governor Charlie Crist,
With
all due respect, I would like to ask you to veto the above bill
for a variety of reasons:
1.)
If the provisions of the bill are added to the existing
FS 720, it creates two contradicting versions of dealing with FS
720-303(11) – Recall of Directors.
H
679 provides for the following legal solution for recall
disputes:
858
(3) All
disputes arising after the effective date of this
859 part involving the election of the board
of directors for an
860 association or the recall of any member of
the board or officer
861 of the association shall not be eligible
for presuit mediation
862 under s. 720.505, but shall be subject to
the provisions
863 concerning presuit arbitration under s.
720.507.
Existing FS
720.303(11) calls in detail for arbitration conducted by the
DBPR, which has been a very effective, low-cost solution -- one
of the few provisions that actually provides relief for
homeowners in FS 720 without creating huge legal fees.
(d) If the
board determines not to certify the written agreement or written
ballots to recall a director or directors of the board or does
not certify the recall by a vote at a meeting, the board shall,
within 5 full business days after the meeting, file with
the department a petition for binding arbitration
pursuant to the applicable procedures in ss. 718.112(2)(j)
and 718.1255 and the rules adopted thereunder. For the
purposes of this section, the members who voted at the meeting
or who executed the agreement in writing shall constitute one
party under the petition for arbitration. If the arbitrator
certifies the recall as to any director or directors of the
board, the recall will be effective upon mailing of the final
order of arbitration to the association. The director or
directors so recalled shall deliver to the board any and all
records of the association in their possession within 5 full
business days after the effective date of the recall.
There
is no provision in H 679 to repeal the original version
quoted above.
2.)
H 679, if signed into law, changes language in FS
718.112 (d), which was newly created by H 995, the
Condo Bill you just signed into law on May 1, 2008. H 679
changes the requirement to provide the signed education
qualification certificate from the time of candidacy to the time
after the election. This seriously alters the actual intent
created by H 995 – already signed into law.
Proof
of qualification as a director should be shown before the
election, not after the election. If a candidate is elected and
fails to provide the required proof, the director has to be
removed from office – possibly disenfranchising the membership,
because now the board majority – not the membership –
“elects” a new director of their choice! This is a significant
change to the intent of H 995. Disenfranchising the membership
should definitely not be encouraged by our laws.
3.)
The provisions created by H 679 are confusing. The
mediation/arbitration provisions are convoluted, difficult to
understand and plainly complicate the whole already
non-functioning process. This is the third complete rewrite of
mediation/arbitration provisions in FS 720, since it was first
established by the HOA Task Force Bill in 2004. I
was a member of the HOA Task Force and predicted the failure of
the mediation provisions. But,
since only 3 out of the 15 members of the Task Force were
homeowners; we were clearly outvoted.
None
of the enacted mediation provisions has ever worked, other than
creating outrageous legal bills for associations and owners. The
provisions created by H 679 will only add to the confusion and
cost.
Homeowners
have seen changes in FS 720 each year since 2004, often repealing
what was created the year before. Again,
this bill creates lien and foreclosure provisions for fines
without court protection. State Supreme Courts in other states
have already ruled fine provisions unconstitutional. Removal of
lien and foreclosure provisions for fines was one of the main
achievements of the HOA Task Force in 2004, undisputed because of
the many abuses the members of the Task Force heard at the public
meetings. There was not even an argument against removing this
dangerous and abusive provision during the Task Force meetings.
H
679 does absolutely nothing to remedy the many problems the
House Select Committee members had to listen to during their five
meetings this spring. In
addition, this bill partially contradicts the findings of the
Select Committee.
Chairman
Julio Robaina and Senator Alex Villalobos sponsored an excellent
condominium bill that has the approval of all parties involved. Representative
Julio Robaina has pledged to work with the members of his Select
Committee, the newly created Community Association Living Study
Advisory Council (H 995) and all interested parties on a
homeowners’ association reform bill, which will hopefully create
solutions for the many problems homeowners living in associations
are facing!
Chairman
Julio Robaina did an excellent job creating the Condo Reform Bill.
Why not give him the
chance to do the same for the estimated more than 2.4 million
families living in
Florida's mandatory homeowners’ associations? Enacting
H 679 would only complicate Representative Robaina’s
task!
In
a time where owners are already financially overburdened with
increased assessments, many foreclosed homes not paying
assessments in their neighborhoods, and steadily increasing legal
fees and management costs, Community Association Bill H 679
would do a lot of damage to the financial welfare of Florida’s
homeowners, already under serious financial pressure caused by
high property taxes and high property insurance premiums.
Please
let us wait another year to create a homeowners’ association
reform bill that will achieve the same kind of consensus as the
highly praised Condo Reform Bill H 995.
With
all due respect, I hereby ask you to veto Bill H 679 for the above
listed reasons.
Warm
Regards,
Jan
Bergemann, President
Cyber Citizens For Justice, Inc.
MAY
10, 2008
CYBER CITIZENS FOR JUSTICE, INC.
PLEASE VETO H 679 LETTER
|
|