Can an Association Be Held Liable for Discriminatory Conduct of Residents?

On a daily basis, we read about acts of hatred and discrimination occurring in our society.  As residential communities are microcosms of the society at large, associations, too, are increasingly faced with determining how to deal with such issues.  Legal precedent has established that associations may be held liable for discriminatory acts committed by its Board members as well as its agents, including the association manager.  Pursuant to a 2016 rule enacted by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), however, associations can also be held liable for failing to “correct and end” discriminatory acts of residents.

Specifically, 24 CFR, Section 100.7(a)(1)(iii), provides that a person  is directly liable for “[f]ailing to take prompt action to correct and end a discriminatory housing practice by a third-party, where the person knew or should have known of the discriminatory conduct and had the power to correct it.”  (Emphasis added.)  “Person,” as the term is used in this rule, includes community associations.  “Discriminatory conduct” includes unlawful conduct engaged in because of a protected characteristic (race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin).  Thus, under this rule, it is possible for an association to be held directly liable where it (1) knew or should have known about discriminatory conduct by one resident towards another resident; (2) had the authority to correct the conduct; and (3) failed to take steps to end the conduct.

This rule raises more questions than it answers which is especially concerning given the potentially dire consequences an association may face if it fails to address the discriminatory conduct of a third-party.  For instance, can an association really be expected to “correct and end” the discriminatory conduct of a resident when its enforcement options are limited by statute and the governing documents which may ultimately prove ineffective?   HUD’s published response to this issue was that associations regularly rely upon notices of violations, threats of fines, and fines as mechanisms to compel compliance with the community’s restrictions and they should, therefore, use whatever legal means they may take to end the harassing conduct.  In practice, however, is a fine or violation letter, or even the inability to vote or use the common areas really going to correct the discriminatory acts of a person driven by prejudice?  Further, what if the third-party’s actual activity, even if discriminatory in nature, is not specifically prohibited by the association’s governing documents?  Does that mean that the association does not have the “authority to correct the conduct” and would not be held liable under the rule, or does it mean that the association would be required to amend its governing documents to address discriminatory acts by residents?  Additionally, does this mean that associations are now responsible for looking at the motivations behind a resident’s actions to determine if they are discriminatory in nature?

Presently, there are no real answers to these questions.  Given, though, that the rule requires an association to “take prompt action” the immediate take away is that an association simply cannot ignore a discriminatory situation between residents and would be well advised to consult its community association attorney to discuss the particular facts of the situation and work towards a solution that complies with the current HUD rule.

Originally posted on floridacondohoalawblog.com. Written by Sara K. Wilson

Different Laws Govern Associations

Q: My community has both single-family homes and townhouses. A question has arisen as to whether the laws that govern condominium associations or homeowners’ associations apply. Can you clarify this for us? (B.K., via e-mail)

A: The answer would depend on the language of the governing documents for your association. Condominiums are governed by Chapter 718 of the Florida Statutes, known as the Florida Condominium Act. In order for the property to be a condominium, it would have to have been created pursuant to a recorded declaration of condominium.

Homeowners’ associations are governed by Chapter 720 of the Florida Statutes, known as the Florida Homeowners’ Association Act. Property subject to this law does not have to be created in a specific statutory manner, but is usually created by a declaration of covenants. The statutory tests to determine whether a community and its association are governed by Chapter 720 are whether the association is responsible for the operation of a community where the voting membership is made up of the parcel owners or their agents, or a combination thereof, where membership in the association is a mandatory condition of ownership and where the association is authorized to impose assessments and record a claim of lien against the parcel if the assessments go unpaid.

Condominiums and communities governed by homeowners’ associations take many forms, so you cannot tell just by looking at the property. For example, some condominiums are freestanding buildings (typical single family home) where the units are actually plots of land or the footprint of the building. Conversely, some homeowners’ associations govern townhouse or villa-style dwellings where there are multiple dwellings contained in each building that “look like” condominiums.

Q: Recently, our condominium board discussed replacing our pool deck. Our pool deck is currently made up of composite decking material. The board wants to install a cement deck. Doesn’t this require a vote of our unit owners? (K.M., via e-mail)

A: Possibly. The Florida Condominium Act states that there shall be no material alteration or substantial additions to the common elements except in the manner provided in the declaration. If the declaration is silent, then such material alterations or substantial additions must be approved by a 75% vote of the total voting interest of the association.

The seminal case defining “material alterations” comes from a 1971 decision from Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal called Sterling Village v. Breitenbach. In Sterling Village , the court stated that if the change “palpably or perceptively vary or change the form, shape, elements or specifications of a building from its original design or plan or existing condition in such a manner as to appreciably affect or influence its functions, use or appearance,” such a change was a material alteration.

Under the test set out in Sterling Village, replacing a composite deck with a concrete deck would appear to be a material alteration and may or may not be subject to owner approval based on the language in your declaration. For example, many declarations allow a board to spend a certain amount of money on material alterations before triggering the requirement for a unit owner vote.

There is also an exception in the law. If an alteration is considered “necessary maintenance” to the condominium property, the owner vote is not required. Convenience and cost savings are not sufficient legal criteria to support changing the common elements without a unit owner vote based on the necessary maintenance exception to the material alteration rule. On the other hand, changes necessary to comply with the law are generally permitted under the necessary maintenance exception. Use of alternative materials always presents a close question. Generally speaking, decisions in this context should be predicated on both a legal opinion, as well as demonstrable evidence from a credible source (for example, an engineer) that the change is “necessary” as that term is used in the law.

Originally posted on floridacondohoalawblog.com. Written by Joe Adams is an attorney with Becker & Poliakoff, P.A., Fort Myers. 

Election Voting Assistance

In the Condominium Act, it is very clear that only a unit’s owner can vote in election. That means that an election can’t be decided through the use of proxies (limited or general). There is an exception for associations with fewer than ten units who have voted to follow a different voting procedure.  In such an instance, the procedure set forth in the by-laws would be followed and if proxy voting is permitted in elections then the condominium could do so.

The question which gets asked a lot is whether a person holding a power of attorney can vote in an election.  The answer is no.  The statute confirms that when an owner needs assistance in casting their election ballot they can get it.  The key however is the definition of “need”.  Going on vacation or delegating to an adult child, realtor or tenant for convenience simply is not the “need” required by the statute.  The assistance needed must be due to blindness, disability or inability to read or write. In those circumstance the voter may request the help of a person of their choosing (e.g., family or friend) and they are not obligated to use an association employee, manager, or even a board member. The help provided is not voting for the person.  On the contrary it is to facilitate the owner voting for themselves by reading the entirety of the ballot (instructions and candidate names as written) to them.  The reader is not supposed to apply any tone or emphasis aimed at gaining a particular vote for one candidate over the other.

You may wonder where voting certificates factor in to the equation.  Voting certificates are only required if the governing documents require them.  For those that do they can impact units owned by spouses, multiple un-married persons, corporations, or any combination thereof.  In such an instance, once the voting certificate is complete and turned in, should the designated voter require assistance, the same criteria noted above would apply.

Originally posted on floridacondohoalawblog.com. Written by Marilyn Perez-Martinez

The Project Costs What!?! That Requires A Membership Vote

Condominium Associations are in the maintenance game it seems at times. Just when one project ends, another is beginning.  Maintenance is simply a fact of life for all condominiums.  A big problem arises in many condominiums, however, when the maintenance project is deemed by the membership to be too expensive as they believe the cost triggers their right to vote on whether the project can proceed.  This hiccup in condominium living usually comes up when the contract for the project is being discussed at a board meeting or when the dreaded special assessment notice gets posted.

It is of crucial importance that both owners and board members understand that just because a project carries a hefty price tag that does not make it subject to member approval.  Maintenance (which for purposes of this article includes repair and replacement work as well) of the common elements simply falls to the association no matter the cost. Note that I said maintenance rather than material alterations or additions.

Material alterations or additions occur for the most part, when you “palpably or perceptively vary or change the form, shape, elements or specifications of a building from its original design or plan, or existing condition, in such a manner as to appreciably affect or influence its functions, use or appearance.”  Sterling Village v. Breitenbach, 251 So.2d 685 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971).  Simply put, changing the lobby carpet to tile and changing the building’s color from white to gray are usually considered material alterations.  Even then, however, a member vote may not always be required.  The Condominium Act provides that if a material alteration is to occur, the association must first obtain the vote of the membership authorizing the alteration.  If the condominium’s declaration is silent as to the approval required, the statute requires it to be by 75% of the total voting interests.  If the declaration, however, touches on the issue of material alterations one applies its requirements.  In such a situation, if the declaration allows the association to undertake material alterations without a member vote then it can proceed.  If it allows material alterations up to a specific financial limit then the association can proceed within that financial limit without a member vote.  The declaration can however still require a member vote and have the vote be a much lower threshold than the 75% set forth in the statute.  It can also be higher.

Note that the cost of a project which is otherwise purely maintenance does not factor into whether a member vote is required.  Nor is cost a consideration when a material alteration is going to occur unless the declaration specifically takes cost into consideration.

Something else for associations to consider is that the same project may have elements of maintenance for which a member vote is not required and elements of work which rise to the level of material alterations where a vote is required.  To figure out if your project has elements of both requires an understanding of what the law deems a material alteration coupled with the findings of any industry professionals and the involvement of the association’s counsel.

There are also exceptions to the material alteration doctrine which make a project maintenance despite it obviously palpably and perceptively changing the common elements in the manner described in Sterling Village. If you feel your condominium’s project might be subject to one of these exceptions, you should discuss it with the association’s attorney who will help create a roadmap for determining if the exception really exists.

 

Originally posted on floridacondohoalawblog.com. Written by Marilyn Perez-Martinez

 

Enforcement Tool Belt – Fining/Suspension

In the proverbial “tool belt” of enforcement options available to an association for violations of the rules and regulations, the imposition of fines and suspensions is one that we frequently get questions about due to the procedures that must be followed.  If the process is not followed properly, it may result in invalidation of the fine or suspension, and can also result in potential legal exposure to the association.

Whether you live in a condominium, cooperative, or homeowners’ association, owners and their guests, tenants and invitees are bound by the association’s governing documents, which may include the declaration, articles of incorporation, bylaws and rules and regulations.  When owners or their guests, tenants or invitees violate the governing documents, associations have certain remedies available to it under Florida law.  In many circumstances, a friendly letter from the community association manager is sufficient to resolve the matter.  In other circumstances, a more formal “notice of violation” will bring an end to continuing violations.  However, in some instances further action is required to enforce a violation.

Florida law for condominiums, cooperatives, and homeowners associations authorizes an association to assess fines and to levy suspensions to enforce the governing documents of a community.  All three types of associations (condominiums, cooperatives, and homeowners associations) have the ability to impose reasonable fines, or to suspend for a reasonable period of time, the right to use common elements, facilities or association property for failure to comply with provisions of the declaration, the bylaws, or rules and regulations of the association.

Sections 718.303 (for condominiums), 719.303 (for cooperatives) and 720.305 (for homeowners’ associations) provide fining and suspension as a remedies available to the association, and also provides the procedures that the association must follow to enforce such remedies.

Generally, the board must appoint an independent committee (often called the fining committee or compliance committee). The committee cannot be comprised of officers, directors, or employees of the association, or the spouse, parent, child, brother, or sister of an officer, director, or employee. If a violation is to be considered for a fine or suspension, the board meets at a duly-noticed meeting, reviews the matter, and “levies” a fine or suspension, if deemed appropriate. After the board levies the fine or issues a suspension, the person to be fined is then entitled to a hearing before the committee. Notice must be received at least 14 days in advance of the hearing. If the association does not hear from the party to be fined or suspended, or the individual does not actually appear at the hearing, the hearing should still be held. At the hearing, the committee must afford basic due process and allow the accused to be heard, state their case, and challenge evidence against them. The committee must then either “confirm” or “reject” the fine or suspension. If the committee rejects the fine or suspension, the matter is over. If the committee confirms the fine or suspension, the board then “imposes” it. After the board has imposed the fine or suspension, a letter should be sent advising of the amount of the fine and the date due.  With regards to a suspension, a letter should be sent advising the length of the suspension.

Originally posted on floridacondohoalawblog.com. Written by Jennifer Horan

Competitive Bidding Explained

Q: My condominium association recently solicited bids for major repairs to our condominium buildings. The cost of the project is several hundred thousand dollars. At the recent board meeting where the contractor was selected, the board discussed all of the bids and voted to proceed with a particular contractor. However, this contractor was not the lowest bid received. When the association must put out contracts for bid, isn’t it obligated to go with the lowest price? (C. J., via e-mail)

A: No. Section 718.3026(1) of the Florida Condominium Act applies to contracts for the purchase of materials or equipment and the provision of services. Any such contract that requires payment of an amount that exceeds five percent of the total annual budget of the association, including reserves, requires competitive bids.

People often ask if three bids are required by the statute. I believe the reference to “competitive” bids means that two bids are sufficient, though there is certainly nothing wrong with getting more. It is important that bids be for the same scope of work, however.

As to your specific question, the statute states that “nothing contained herein shall be construed to require the association to accept the lowest bid.”

It is also important to remember that certain contracts are exempt from the competitive bidding requirements of the statute. Exemptions include contracts for hiring association employees, as well as contracts with accountants, architects, association managers, engineers, landscape architects, and attorneys.

Section 720.3055(1) of the Florida Homeowners’ Association Act contains similar requirements for homeowners’ associations, although the obligation to obtain bids under this statute only arises when the proposed contract exceeds ten percent of the association’s annual budget, including reserves.

As with many issues in community association operations that are regulated by statute, it is also important to remember that the governing documents for an association can impose stricter requirements than regulations contained in the law.

Q: Our condominium has some different factions. I agree with one group and others are part of a second group. I recently ran for the board and lost by only a few votes. Right after the annual meeting, one of the people from the other group, who had not been up for election because she still had one year left on the board, resigned. The rest of the board then appointed one of their supporters to fill that seat. We think I should have been appointed to that seat and that this whole thing was rigged and underhanded. What do you think? (L.S., via e-mail)

A: Condo politics can be as rough as any. Unless there is a very unusual provision in your bylaws, candidates who run for the board but are not elected have no greater claims to vacancies that open up on the board than anyone else.

Section 718.112(2)(d)9 of the Florida Condominium Act states that vacancies occurring on a board are filled by majority vote of the remaining directors, even if they constitute less than a quorum. Vacancies are filled for the unexpired term of the seat being filled, unless otherwise provided in the bylaws.

Q: We just had the annual meeting for our homeowners’ association and I was elected to the board. Our manager said we have to now do an “annual MRTA review” but he was not exactly sure what that was, nor are we. Can you shed any light on this subject? (C.F., via e-mail)

A: MRTA is the common abbreviation used for Florida’s Marketable Record Title Act, which is Chapter 712 of the Florida Statutes. It is a rather complicated real estate statute, but of interest to you, it can extinguish your covenants after 30 years if certain steps are not taken to protect them by certain recordings. The Florida Homeowners’ Association Act was amended in 2018 to require the board of every HOA, at the first meeting of the board each year (excluding the organizational meeting) to review the association’s status under MRTA.

Originally posted on floridacondohoalawblog.com. Written by Joe Adams is an attorney with Becker & Poliakoff, P.A., Fort Myers. Send questions to Joe Adams by e-mail to jadams@beckerlawyers.com

Keeping Meeting Minutes Forever

How long is a condominium required to keep minutes of its meetings?   Prior to July 1, 2018 the answer was seven years.  This requirement had both its pros and cons.  Likely the biggest advantage was minimizing storage requirements, as months, years, and even decades of minutes add up, particularly for older communities or those that held monthly board meetings.  Conversely,  the manner or reasoning for certain board actions could not be verified after seven years. This left many boards to simply declare, “this is how it’s always been done” or owners to claim improper alterations had been approved by prior boards, which essentially impaired the ability of the association to enforce a covenant.

As of July 1, 2018, the requirement to keep minutes has changed.  Rather than seven years, minutes must now be kept forever.  This applies to all meetings of the association, whether of the board, members, committees, etc.  Essentially, the change applies to any meeting where minutes are taken.   Although the Legislature had its reasons for this change, concerns of storage nowadays are simply not the same given the advent of cloud storage.

What does this mean in terms of the good and the bad which may be lurking in the minutes?  On any given day what is written in the minutes could benefit or hurt the association.  Nonetheless, minutes are crucial to confirm the proper operation of the condominium.  That said, keep in mind that minutes should reflect who was present, motions made, and the logistics of the motion (who moved, seconded, and the vote).

Originally posted on floridacondohoalawblog.com and written by Marilyn Perez-Martinez

To Record or Not Record? That Is The Question!

Community association boards often ask the question of whether they must record a claim of lien on a property in order to protect the association’s right to recover past due assessments on the property. Although the answer to this question changes based on the specific set of facts controlling each scenario, there is at least one scenario where the answer is NO!

In Calendar v. Stonebridge Gardens Section III Condominium Association, Inc., the association was faced with a scenario where a property was sold at a tax deed sale and there were surplus funds in the registry as a result of the tax deed sale. Pursuant to §§197.582(2) and 197.522, Fla. State., the association was entitled to file a statement of claim against the surplus funds. However, the association did not have a claim of lien recorded in the public records at the time of the tax deed sale. The association filed a statement of claim against the surplus funds, as did the prior homeowner. The prior homeowner argued that the association was not entitled to the surplus funds as the association did not have a recorded claim of lien on the property. The trial court disagreed and entered an order awarding the surplus funds to the association. The prior owner appealed.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling, citing to the case of Bessemer v. Gerstein, 381 So.2d 1344, 1348 (Fla. 1980) and the specific language found in §718.116(5)(a), Fla. Stat, which states:

The association has as lien on each condominium parcel to secure the payment of assessments. [T]he lien is effective from and shall relate back to the recording of the original declaration of condominium. However as to first mortgages of record, the lien is effective from and after recording of a claim of lien in public records of the county in which the property is located.

Based on this language and the holding in Bessemer that the owner’s acceptance of a deed referencing the recorded Declaration of Condominium puts the owner on notice of the lien provisions found in the Declaration, the appeals court found that the association had a statutory lien on the subject property and that this was sufficient to protect the association’s ability to collect the surplus funds from the tax deed sale.

While in this case the appeals court ruled in favor of the association despite the lack of a recorded claim of lien, uncertainty remains as to whether the statutory lien alone will always protect the association’s ability to collect past due assessments. In its opinion, the appeals court references scenarios in which an association also needs to have a recorded claim of lien to recover past due assessments, namely scenarios where a first mortgagee is also asserting a claim. Given this uncertainty and the various fact-specific scenarios faced by associations, obtaining the advice of counsel on this issue is the best way to protect the association and its membership.

Originally posted on floridacondohoalawblog.com and written by K. Joy Mattingly

Owner’s Don’t Have Right to Call in to Board Meetings

Q:        My condominium association is mostly composed of seasonal owners and every member of the board leaves town for the summer. At the last board meeting, the board announced that it intends to post notice of upcoming board meetings over the summer on the condominium property but that all of the board members will be attending the meeting by conference call. While we have a speakerphone in our meeting room, the owners are being told they cannot call into the conference call but have to attend the meeting in the office. Aren’t seasonal owners also entitled to call into the board meeting, as well?  (F.W. via e-mail)

A:        No. The Florida Condominium Act requires that board meetings be properly noticed. Other than certain specific board meetings, such as board meetings to levy assessments or adopt rules regarding unit use, the notice must only be posted at least 48 hours before the meeting on the condominium property. Further, owners are entitled to attend meetings and may speak at the meeting as to all designated agenda items.

The statute contemplates that the meetings will take place at a specific location and that notice of that meeting need only be posted on the condominium property.  The statute provides that board members may participate in a meeting via telephone, video conferencing or similar real-time electronic or video communication, and such participation counts towards the quorum. Board members participating by remove means may vote as if they were physically present in the room. The Condominium Act does not mention unit owners attending board meetings through remote means.

While the board can allow board members to participate or remote means, there is no legal requirement to do so. I am aware of a few associations which allow owners to call into board meetings, but it is certainly not the norm.

Q:        As a member of a homeowners’ association, do I have a right to review the association’s contract with its manager? I am curious to know the terms. (D.L. via e-mail)

A:        Yes. You are legally entitled to inspect the management agreement, if you make a written request to inspect the association’s official records.

Included on the list of official records that homeowners’ associations are required to maintain under the “a current copy of all contracts to which the association is a party, including, without limitation, any management agreement, lease, or other contract under which the association has any obligation or responsibility.”

While the statute provides that certain “personnel records” of association or management company employees are not subject to owner inspection, such as disciplinary and health records, this prohibition does not include written employment agreements between the association and its management company. Further, agreements between the association and its employees are also not included within “personnel records.”

The Florida Condominium Act contains similar provisions relating to official records.

Q:        Does the upcoming change to the Florida Cooperative Act mentioned in your previous article about keeping minutes apply to future minutes only, or all minutes? (H.A. via e-mail)

A:        You are referring to the amendment to Section 719.104(2)(a)4. of the Florida Cooperative Act. The current law requires cooperative associations to maintain minutes for a period of seven years. The law effective July 1, 2018 will require minutes to be retained perpetually.

In my opinion, if the association has destroyed minutes that are over seven years old, it is not a violation of the current law (though in my opinion, it is generally not a good idea). However, as of July 1, you will be obligated to retain all minutes the association has in its possession, even if over seven years old, and will be obligated going forward to maintain all minutes as part of the official records, regardless of age.

Written by Joe Adams and originally posted to the FL Condo HOA Law Blog

Legislative Review Wrap-Up

This week we conclude our annual review of 2018 legislation affecting Florida community associations, with a review of the amendments to Chapter 712 of the Florida Statutes, the Marketable Record Title Act, or MRTA, which become effective on October 1, 2018.

MRTA is primarily intended to facilitate real estate transactions, by eliminating “stale claims” against real property. However, the courts have found that covenants and restrictions of a homeowners’ association can be extinguished by MRTA. The general yardstick for MRTA extinguishment is thirty (30) years from the “root of title.” Though usually not the exact extinguishment date for most parcels, the most prudent yardstick for determining potential MRTA extinguishment is 30 years from the recordation of the original covenants and restrictions.

MRTA includes a process that allows residential homeowners’ associations to preserve the covenants and restrictions to prevent extinguishment. There is also a process in the Florida Homeowners’ Association Act, Chapter 720 of the Florida Statutes, which allows a community to “revitalize” covenants and restrictions that have been extinguished by MRTA.

One of the most significant changes regarding MRTA is actually found in the Homeowners’ Association Act. The new law requires that at the first board meeting after the annual members’ meeting, excluding the organizational meeting, the board shall consider the desirability of filing notices to preserve the covenants or restrictions affecting the community or association from extinguishment under MRTA.

Therefore, pursuant to the new statute, the board of every homeowners association, must annually consider the impact of MRTA even if the 30 year deadline is not imminent, or even if a preservation notice has already been filed.

Updates to Definitions in Chapter 712

  • Creates a new definition for “community covenant or restriction” to mean any agreement or limitation contained in a document recorded in the public records of the county in which a parcel is located which:
  • Subjects the parcel to any use restriction that may be enforced by a property owners’ association; or
  • Authorizes a property owners’ association to impose a charge or assessment against the parcel or the parcel owner.
  • Changes the term “homeowners’ association” to “property owners’ association” and defines the term to include a homeowners’ association as defined in Section 720.301, a corporation or other entity responsible for the operation of property in which the voting membership is made up of the owners of the property or their agents, or a combination thereof, and in which membership is a mandatory condition of property ownership, or an association of parcel owners which is authorized to enforce a community covenant or restriction that is imposed on the parcels.
  • Amends the definition of “parcel” to mean any real property that is subject to any covenant or restriction of a property owners’ association (and no longer requires that the property be used for residential purposes).

Filing Notice to Preserve

  • A property owners’ association may preserve and protect a community covenant or restriction from extinguishment by the operation of MRTA by recording, at any time during the 30-year period immediately following the effective date of the root of title:
    • A written notice in accordance with Section 712.06 of MRTA; or
    • A summary notice in substantial form and content as required under Section 720.3032(2) of MRTA; or an amendment to a community covenant or restriction that is indexed under the legal name of the property owners’ association and references the legal name of the property owners’ association and references the recording information of the covenant or restriction to be preserved.
  • The new law also includes a form which satisfies the notice obligation and constitutes a summary notice sufficient to preserve and protect the referenced covenants and restrictions from extinguishment under MRTA.

Revitalization of Covenants and Restrictions by Parcel Owners Not Subject To A Homeowners’ Association

  • Creates a process for communities not governed by a homeowners’ association to revitalize covenants and restrictions to revive covenants or restrictions, with certain exceptions.

Written by Joe Adams and originally posted on the FL Condo HOA Law Blog