The bill prevents attorneys from representing a board if the attorney represents the management company.
Since when does an attorney represent a board? An attorney represents an association, not the board. Moreover, the Florida Supreme Court governs the conduct of attorneys, not the Florida Condominium Act. There are already ethics codes in place that deal with this conduct and this does nothing to address the concerns raised in the Grand Jury Report.
FIX: DELETE THIS PROVISION.
The bill prevents a board member or management company from purchasing a unit at a foreclosure sale resulting from the association’s foreclosure of its lien.
I honestly don’t understand why a Board member has less of a right to participate in a public auction than anyone else. Laws already exist that prevent a board member from usurping a corporate opportunity. If a board knows about the sale, and that board is not interested in buying the unit at a foreclosure sale, why should a board member be prevented from participating in the public process? In fact, if the board member buys the property, rather than the association, that board member may wind up owing a large amount of assessments to the association. So, it may be a win-win for the association. Again, makes no sense and does nothing to address the Grand Jury’s concerns.
FIX: A BOARD MEMBER OR MANAGER MAY ONLY BUY A UNIT AT A FORECLOSURE SALE IF PRIOR TO THE FORECLOSURE SALE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS HAS PASSED A MOTION AT A PROPERLY NOTICED MEETING THAT APPROVES THE PURCHASE OF THE UNIT BY THE BOARD MEMBER OR MANAGER. IF A MANAGER OR BOARD MEMBER DOES BUY THE UNIT, ALL SUMS DUE TO THE ASSOCIATION FOR PAST DUE ASSESSMENTS SHALL BE PAID WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS.
The bill would give the renter the right to access the association’s official records.
Why is this so important? Why should a renter be entitled to access the official records of a corporation that he or she is not a member of? Should anyone be allowed to access the official records of any other private corporation? I don’t think so. The statute does not even allow renters to attend meetings. Again, this does nothing to address the Grand Jury’s concerns and in effect only makes the problem worse by adding to the job of managers.
FIX: A RENTER IS ENTITLED TO ACCESS TO THE ASSOCIATION’S RECORDS IF THE OWNER OF THE UNIT APPOINTS THE RENTER AS THE UNIT OWNER REPRESENTATIVE UNDER 718.111(12)
Any director who knowingly, willfully and repeatedly violates the access to records law is guilty of a misdemeanor in the second degree. “Repeatedly violates” means more than two violations within a 12 month period.
Under present law…..a director is not under a responsibility to provide access to records, an association is. So, a director cannot be found to violate the law, only an association can. You can’t say a director is guilty of a crime if the statute does not impose an obligation on the director to provide access. And….Who determines if a violation has been committed? The statute says records request cases get determined by an arbitrator. Need there be a finding first by an arbitrator that a director “repeatedly violated” the law? Can a criminal court judge make this finding without going to arbitration first? Do we want to clog the courts with records cases now? Do we want people being able to go directly to the police before going to arbitration?
FIX: AMEND FLORIDA STATUTE 718.1255 TO STATE “IN ANY ARBITRATION PROCEEDING INVOLVING ACCESS TO RECORDS, IF THE ARBITRATOR FINDS THAT A SPECIFIC DIRECTOR OR DIRECTORS WILFULLY IMPEDED AN OWNER’S ACCESS TO RECORDS THREE OR MORE TIMES IN A TWELVE MONTH PERIOD, THAT DIRECTOR OR THOSE DIRECTORS SHALL BE PERSONALLY ASSESSED THE PETITIONER’S ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS, AND SAID FEES AND COSTS SHALL NOT BE ASSESSED BY THE ARBITRATOR AGAINST THE ASSOCIATION. IN ADDITION, THE ARBITRATOR SHALL ENTER AN ORDER IMMEDIATELY REMOVING THOSE DIRECTORS FROM THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND THE VACANCY OR VACANCIES SHALL BE FILLED BY THE REMAINING DIRECTORS. THE DIRECTORS THAT ARE REMOVED AS A RESULT OF THE ARBITRATOR’S ORDER MAY NOT BE ALLOWED TO SERVE ON A CONDOMINIUM BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD. BEFORE THE ARBITRATOR ENTERS A FINAL ORDER, HE OR SHE SHALL ENTER AN ORDER JOINING THE DIRECTOR(S) AS A RESPONDENT AND SAID ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON THE DIRECTOR(S) WHO SHALL BE ENTITLED TO NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. JOINDER, NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD IS SATISFIED IF THE DIRECTOR(S) ALREADY TESTIFIED IN THE ARBITRATION PROCEEDING. ANY DIRECTOR ASSESSED FEES AND COSTS AND/OR REMOVED FROM THE BOARD IS ENTITLED TO FILE FOR A TRIAL DE NOVO, BUT SHALL NOT USE ASSOCIATION FUNDS FOR THE FILING FEE OR FOR THEIR ATTORNEY’S FEES.
Comments