H 319 -- ANOTHER BANKERS' BAIL-OUT BILL

OPEN LETTER TO GOVERNOR RICK SCOTT AND ALL FLORIDA LEGISLATORS

February 27, 2012

 

Dear Florida Governor, Dear Lt. Governor, Dear Florida Legislators:

  

Florida's homeowners and condo owners living in community associations are always asking: Why do Florida legislators fall over each other trying to protect bankers against liabilities they created, but when owners ask for much needed legislative help, they are plainly being ignored?

  

The latest example: House Bill 319, sponsored by Rep. Moraitis. What started out as a pretty good bill (as you can see in the still intact companion bill S680) was destroyed by amendments filed by the sponsor at committee stops. H319 is now another bail-out bill for bankers and mortgage lenders, who really caused the whole financial disaster in our community associations. The still paying owners have to make up for the budget shortfalls caused by the so-called Safe Harbor provisions protecting banks to the detriment of the owners.

  

If the banks want strengthened protections against legal fees, they should give something in return. Quid Pro Quo! Make it just 12 months of unpaid dues and eliminate the "1% of original mortgage" clause. Why should the owners always carry the financial burden to pay for the maintenance of the banks' collateral?

  

The wording of H319 has a lot more flaws, from more or less legalizing election fraud -- owners have no chance to get election documents in 60 days, short of using armed robbery -- and sitting board members can suspend voting rights of foes, but don't have to suspend voting rights of friends. Is that what our country is all about?

 

Why bail out bankers even more?

 

In case you want to take a look to see why we are seeing more and more foreclosures? Owners, who fell behind in dues, are getting fleeced. I call it legalized Highway Robbery.

 

Look at this example of a SETTLEMENT STIPULATION I heard about last Friday. $1,664 in unpaid dues mushroomed to $9,237.43 in total demand -- or foreclosure on home. No Safe Harbor provisions for owners. In this case the owners even dispute the initial debt, but every time they tried to reason with the law firm, more legal fees were added. In this case the owners’ English isn’t perfect and they don't have the money to hire an attorney to fight for their rights. But even if the owners are behind in their dues, the question is: Does the punishment (either pay $9,237.43 or lose the home) fit the crime (failure to pay $1,664 in association dues)?

 

Here is our suggestion to save this bill: S680 is still more or less intact as filed -- without Safe Harbor and other ill-advised changes. Please use S680 in the Senate version, as of today. Please make two small changes to the wording and you have a bill that will get you more or less no controversy, but it will earn praise from nearly everybody, except certain special interests. If H319 were enacted as is, it will be a very long summer for the sponsors of the bill. When media reports hit the headlines of newspapers, the bill’s sponsors will have to explain why the provisions in this bill cause so much misery for homeowners and condo owners.

   

Have a little compassion for the homeowners that got involved in this financial misery. Don’t pass more laws that will create even more financial turmoil for your constituents. Please pass some laws that will help them to resolve urgent association problems! 

 

Warm Regards,
Jan Bergemann, President
Cyber Citizens For Justice, Inc.


NEEDED CHANGES FOR OBVIOUS REASONS (Common Sense):

1.)  Election Challenge

FS 718.112           Lines   324 --   325

FS 719.106           Lines 1171 -- 1173

FS 720.306(9)(a)  Lines 1974 -- 1976

  

324  c. Any challenge to the election process must be commenced

325  within 60 days after the election results are announced.

  

This stops any election challenge since there is no way in this world to force boards to hand over election documents within 60 days. Believe me, bad boards don't mind paying $500 from association funds after 61 days in exchange for staying in power for another year after cheating with the election. It has to be changed to 60 DAYS AFTER turn-over of election documents.

 

2.) Suspending Voting Rights:
FS 718.303(5)      Lines   676 --   689

FS 719.303(5)      Lines 1587 -- 1601

FS 720.305(4)      Lines 1868 -- 1882

The word MAY should be replaced with the word SHALL: It shouldn't be up to the board members whose voting rights they chose to suspend. This language allows boards to suspend voting rights of foes, but not the voting rights of friends. Removal of the requirement of deducting the number of suspended voting rights from the number of total voting interest can cause serious problems: In communities with lots of suspended voting rights it will be impossible to amend the governing documents or recall members of the board of directors. I doubt that is the intention of the bill sponsors.


NEWS PAGE HOME LEGISLATIVE SESSION 2012