My Email Regarding HOA Reform Bill and Affordable Legal Representation

I wrote this to Senator Alan Hayes, House Representative Mike La Rosa, Florida Bar President Ramon Abadin and my friend, Jan Bergemann of Cyber Citizens for Justice (www.ccfj.net):

Gentleman,

I am writing to you today, as an attorney who represents both homeowners’ associations and homeowners who are being victimized by their associations. The HOA Reform bill is critical at this point and comes at a time when the president of the Florida Bar, Mr. Ramón Abadin, has pointed out, in the November issue of the Florida Bar Journal, the need for a new business model because the working class cannot afford an attorney and do not qualify for legal aid.  I see this injustice every day in my practice as I have to tell clients the high legal fees and costs they would incur to hire me to protect them from being another HOA victim.  These cases are not the type that are done on a contingency because rarely has someone been physically injured.  I turned down at least one case a day, sometimes as many as five.  Yesterday it was three.   Most firms won’t represent the homeowners because the associations are a “cash cow.” 

The homeowners’ associations are unregulated and the condominium associations have limited regulation with the Dept. of Business and Professional Regulation (“DBPR”) not having jurisdiction over assessments, which is the biggest source of abuse for homeowners.  Even the appellate courts, in a case called Ocean Two Condo. v Kliger, where the Court stated “Because of the statutory lien rights and the power to prosecute the foreclosure action, an association and its attorneys have ample leverage, and the unit owners have very little. Every telephone call, meeting, or hearing regarding the genesis of the dispute and the amount due produces an incremental unit of attorney billings, and every day until resolution of the dispute increases the interest tariff.” 

In my practice I have witnesses law firms that have paralegals do all the work, yet the homeowners are billed attorneys’ fees, not paralegal fees.  I have witnessed a law firm give sales pitches to associations during hiring interviews and state that “95% of the homeowners can’t afford to sue you and the 5% that can will soon learn that money can be used for a vacation, their children’s college, or retirement and will give up.”  Unfortunately, this is true.  I have seen a law firm give homeowners a letter stating they could not call or come to their office to resolve their assessment delinquency, but could fax their credit card or email and then are given the email address of a former staff member.  Once I got involved the charges ballooned from $795 to over $3,600 with the attorney telling me he had to read all those emails the owner sent trying to get a response.  This is outrageous and had I not gotten involved he would have forced the homeowner to pay those ridiculous legal fees.

The industry not only needs more regulation, but more affordable legal representation. Let’s give DBPR jurisdiction to arbitrate assessment disputes.  This is the biggest source of abuse.  Arbitration is less expensive for the homeowner and the threat of arbitration might help tamper the abuse.

Regulation of the homeowners’ associations is needed to help curtail the abuse of out of control board members.

Right now there is a rise in homeowners’ associations setting up their own corporations to perform work normally performed by vendors.   This results in the board of directors putting their family members on the board of these corporations as paid directors, if not themselves in some cases; the board members receiving free services, the members being denied access to see accounting records of these corporations even though their assessments paid to set up this corporation and bought any equipment, furniture or other assets.  Several times I have witnesses where these corporations are either owned or operated by a board member or have contracts with a board member.  Some associations set up these companies to operate a receivership or rental program to take control of homes in foreclosure, which is needed, but instead funnel the rental income to themselves or the corporation without the association getting a dime.

There is also a rise in the community association management firms setting up their own corporations to perform work normally performed by vendors.  These corporations are then paid top dollar and paid promptly with no one given a chance to dispute an invoice.

There is a rise in the number of cases in which deed restrictions have expired under the Marketable Record Title Act but the HOAs continue to operate as mandatory associations and threaten to foreclose on owners who refuse to pay because they know the chances of the owner affording an attorney are slim.

I have witnessed board members targeting homeowners they do not like.  This targeting sometimes includes criminal activity, which is hard to prove.  Any witnesses refuse to get involved because they know they will be targeted.

The Village Condominium Association in Orlando was taken over by a board member who slowly was able to get rid of anyone who did not agree with him and then proceeded to give himself the management contract, the security contract (with armed security despite not having the proper licenses), and the maintenance contract.  This board member marked all the board members’ assessments as paid each month despite no payment.  He was able to take approximately $40,000 a month from the association (which we documented), depleted the reserves and diverted money from insurance claims to his own pocket. A receiver was eventually appointed to take over and the board removed.

I could write a book on the atrocities committed against homeowners, including cars being set fire, fake bombs on lawns, handicapped owners in wheelchairs being refused to attend meetings and harassed, racial discrimination, sex discrimination, discrimination against veterans.  I have witnessed homeowners being evicted from their homes for past due assessments when their home was in a trust and the association demands the rent be paid to them from the “tenant.”  And let’s not forget the Higgins v. Timber Springs case in which Mr. Higgins was foreclosed upon while on active duty in the military.  Our firm was able to get the foreclosure reversed.  We took the case pro bono, one of the few we could afford to handle as a small firm, because Mr. Higgins could not afford an attorney and was trying to deal with this situation while deployed. 

The sad part is when I have to give these homeowners a quote of the fees to litigate they decide it’s easier to sell their home and move, sometimes to another state.

I apologize this email is so long, because I know your time is valuable, but I appreciate the efforts each of you are making in trying to protect the rights of our citizens.  So many of them lose their homes, not because they can’t afford them, but because they upset their HOA, became a victim, and cannot afford an attorney.  Thank you!

Regards,

Barbara Billiot Stage, Esq.

CAMs in Control

In the past few weeks I have been contacted by community associations regarding issues they have with their community association managers (“CAM”) making decisions on behalf of the association without the board of directors being involved.  This seems to be an alarming new trend as certain CAM firms have started their own maintenance companies and terminate contracts with vendors to give their own companies the contract for services – all without the board’s knowledge or approval.  In one instance a CAM actually refused to allow a board member to vote and provided a legal opinion the board member was ineligible, which is clearly the unlicensed practice of law.  In another instance, which I have seen before, a CAM took it upon himself to take action against an owner despite the board voting to table the issue until they had a chance to talk to the association’s lawyer.

A CAM does not have the authority to make board decisions.  The CAM works for the Board of Directors, not in place of it.  CAM contracts have indemnification clauses, which means the association is liable for the CAMs actions and must pay for a legal defense should someone try to sue the CAM.  Owners cannot sue the CAM in most circumstances because the owners are not in “privity of contract” to sue the CAM, as established in the case of Greenacre Properties. v. Rao, 933 So. 2d 19(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist.2006), meaning the owners are not a party to the CAM contract.  This shield against liability means there are not many consequences for the CAM acting outside their scope of authority.

In my opinion, CAM firms being allowed to set up their own maintenance companies to provide services to the associations is not a good idea.  There is an inherent conflict of interest.  The CAM usually controls the association’s bank account.  The CAM will then make sure their maintenance company is paid, even if the work is not satisfactory.  I have come across instances where the work was not satisfactory, but the board was not aware of the issue because the CAM did not inform the board.  Why would they complain about their own work?

When the associations hire a CAM it is now important to inquire if the CAM firm has its own maintenance company and review the contract thoroughly to see how much control the board will relinquish to the CAM in hiring vendors or other actions which create liability for the association.  Many CAM contracts also provide the CAM with a “bonus” of 10% of the value of the contract for procuring a contract on behalf of the board.  I think it’s more of kickback then a bonus, but this is a common practice in Florida.

Selecting a CAM is an important task for associations.  It is up to the board of directors to perform their due diligence and make sure the contract is clear regarding decision-making activities.  The actions of an overzealous CAM could be costly and lead to litigation against the association.

Covenant Violations and the Fining Process - What Your Rights Are as a Homeowner

This is the time of year where our firm gets a lot of calls about covenant violations, mostly lawns that took a beating during the winter months.  The Florida climate, which goes from almost freezing to tropical in a 24-hour period, tends to be harsh on lawns, but I digress.  That's a blog about Florida-Friendly Landscaping.

There are several things the homeowner should know about the fining process because if you know what the law provides, it is less likely you will be taken advantage of by your HOA.  Remember -- knowledge is power.

A board of directors cannot impose a fine against a homeowner.  The HOA is required to have a committee of at least three (3) members, who are independent and are no relation to the board of directors, the property manager, officers, agents or employees of the HOA.  The committee should be comprised of an odd number to avoid a tie vote.  The odd number of members is industry standard and not part of the statute.  The committee has to agree by a majority vote to impose a fine, which cannot be retroactive, and the board of directors cannot override the vote to impose a fine, but can override the vote to withhold a fine being imposed.

The HOA is required to give the homeowner notice of a hearing to be held to vote on the fines.  The HOA is required to give the owner at least 14 days notice. Now here's where many HOAs get it wrong.  The statute, Fla. Stat. 720.305(2)(b) states "A fine or suspension may not be imposed without at least 14 days’ notice to the person sought to be fined or suspended...."  The statute does not say mailed at least 14 days in advance, IT REQUIRES THE NOTICE TO BE GIVEN TO THE OWNER AT LEAST 14 DAYS IN ADVANCE.

The statute also provides this is a hearing, not a meeting.  The HOA should not be noticing the hearing to the membership to attend as a lynch mob.  Hearings do not require notice.  The only people that should be present are the homeowners, the committee and if the HOA is going to present the case to the committee, a representative of the HOA.  This is usually the property manager or a board member.  The representative of the HOA should not be sitting in on deliberations and voting by the committee.  This would prevent the committee from making an independent decision.

If you find yourself in front of the committee, bring a recorder.  You have the right to do so, although the committee will probably say you don't.  Even board meetings are cut short and adjourned because board members tend to think you have no statutory right to record meetings.

You are entitled to obtain a copy of the minutes from the hearing.  The committee should create minutes and record the vote, listing the vote of each committee member.

If a fine is imposed, you should pay it and then challenge the decision.   Never risk your home.  If you pay the fine, the risk to your home is removed and you can challenge the decision without worrying about losing your home to a foreclosure.  Unpaid fines in excess of $1,000 can be the source of a lien and foreclosure.

Now, off topic, if you have one of those troublesome lawns that doesn't thrive no matter what you try to do to save it (you know, those St. Augustine lawns), then look into Florida-Friendly Landscaping (FFL).  You still have to submit an application to the ARC or ACC or whatever your HOA calls it, but by law the HOA cannot prohibit you from implementing FFL.  Check out the website by the University of Florida's IFAS extension at floridayards.org. 

As far as other violations go, please do not make improvements to your home without filing the ARC/ACC application and please do not store boats, trailers, RVs, 4-wheelers, jet skis and other recreational items on your property.  These are the biggest sources of fines in HOAs.