VICTORY -- ILL-ADVISED BILL H319 DIED IN THE SENATE!

An Opinion By Jan Bergemann
President, Cyber Citizens For Justice, Inc.

Published March 13, 2012

Florida's associations and the families owning property in these communities dodged a big bullet when the Senate silently killed H319/S680 -- a bill that was amended to be a total special interest bill. The final version -- H319C3 -- contained absolutely nothing that would have in any way helped associations/owners. By not taking up S680 on the last evening of this year's legislative session, the Florida Senate showed that some senators surely have more common sense than certain House representatives.

I really got a kick out of the coalition that supported this ill-advised bill. Imagine CALL (Becker&Poliakoff), CAN (Katzman Garfinkel & Berger), the Florida Bankers' Association and Bank of America -- all on the same side, against the interests of associations/owners? Oh, my...!

Don't forget: CALL and CAN are publicly claiming that they are lobbying FOR associations. How can that be if they supported H319, a bill that in the end contained absolutely nothing that could be considered favorable for associations and/or their members?

Even if the CALL Alert -- dated March 10, 2012 -- started out with the correct statement (quote): "The 2012 Legislative session ended last night without the passage of any significant legislation to help associations still trying to recover from the real estate meltdown" the question is: WHY? CALL claims that it was misguided opposition that killed H319/S680. Misguided? From whose point of view? The attorneys looking for more billing hours? Let's face it, the passage of H319C3/S680 would have actually done more harm than good for associations and their members.

The so-called "SAFE HARBOR AMENDMENTS" would have strengthened the protection for banks and mortgage lenders against liabilities created by these entities in the first place -- to the detriment of the still paying owners. The proposed language confirmed, in even stronger wording than before, that banks and mortgage lenders are exempt from paying any collection cost or legal fees to the associations -- leaving the still paying owners in these communities to hold the bag -- paying the cost for problems created by banks and mortgage lenders. Or who do you think would have paid for the costs? The law firms that were supporting this bill? I seriously doubt it! They get paid, no matter what. The BIG QUESTION? Getting paid by whom? Guess what -- these law firms feel that the associations, meaning the still paying owners, should pay their bills -- not the banks and mortgage lenders responsible for the foreclosure crisis!

The CALL Alert spoke of all the other "good" provisions that were included in the bill. Let's take a closer look what the attorneys behind this ALERT are trying to tell gullible board members what all the "great" provisions that died with H319 would have done for associations:

Postponed costly elevator upgrades: At the expense of the safety of the people living in these buildings. Remember the argument about retrofitting of older buildings with sprinkler systems? Same deal. Who cares about the safety of the people living in these buildings, often elderly people who have problems "running" downstairs in case of emergencies? Obviously not the supporters of this bill.
Imposed a deadline for election and recall challenges: It was not the idea we opposed, it was the wording of these provisions that would have allowed dictatorial boards to kill any attempt of a challenge by just not handing over the necessary documents in a timely manner, thereby avoiding any challenge at all.
Removed the requirement for a member vote in order for condominium board members to serve two-year terms: That provision was just created a few years back to stop dictatorial board members from passing such rules without members' input.
Clarified the amounts paid by persons (banks and third party purchasers) when taking title to a foreclosed unit: Actually, it would have strengthened the fact that there are two classes of "persons" when taking over foreclosed units/homes: Private buyers, who have to pay every little penny owed to the association, and banks/mortgage lenders who have to pay only the lesser of 1% of the original mortgage or 12 months of unpaid dues -- and absolutely not a dime more, even if the banks dragged their feet foreclosing on the unit/home and left the neighbors paying for the maintenance of their collateral. The disingenuous excuse used by CAN and CALL for supporting this "Bankers' Bail Out" provision? "The bill would have discouraged litigation and excessive collection fees." Gee, these attorneys claiming they went out of their way to protect associations against litigation and excessive collection fees? I have seen bills sent by just these law firms to owners demanding collection fees that were more than just "excessive." And such a claim coming from the same folks that file and defend lawsuits for a living? Sounds to me like a car dealer saying: "Folks, ride bikes -- driving cars is too dangerous."

The CALL Alert left out one important "damage" this bill would have done to associations and their members: A provision that allows board members to revoke voting rights of foes, but not necessarily of friends, leaving it up to the discretion of board members to decide whose voting rights they want to revoke. That's bad enough. But it got even worse when the language requiring the number of suspended voting rights to be deducted from the number of total voting interest was removed from H319. This totally defies common sense. In communities hard hit by unpaid dues and foreclosures, with many voting rights suspended, it is next to impossible to hold annual meetings, to amend the governing documents or even recall members of the board of directors. How can that help associations?

For more detailed explanations, please go to:

LOWLIGHTS OF CONDO/HOA BILL H 319

But I guess CALL and CAN consider this nonsense "FAVORABLE" for associations?

Anyway, the result of these opposing views: Community associations got absolutely zero reforms, nothing that helps associations/owners deal with the financial chaos we see in many communities! Greed killed a bill that contained -- in the very beginning -- a few helpful provisions, but was later taken over by special interest, with the "friendly" help of bill sponsor George Moraitis.

A coalition of board members, owners, grassroots organizations and owner-friendly attorneys succeeded in defeating a bill that was in the end only supported by special interest -- driven by greed. It is long overdue that association board members and owners are finally making their voices heard, not just relying on lobbying groups that effectively lobby for their own interests, often opposing the interests of owners who are paying dearly for all the laws passed by these lobbying groups falsely claiming to lobby for associations.

You can't expect an association attorney to lobby for laws that would create nice, peaceful communities where the owners live in harmony and bring neighbors in need chicken soup and cookies instead of serving lawsuits and foreclosure notices. Such a community would be the absolute nightmare for every association attorney.