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

Published April 7, 2008

If your life is boring and you don't know what to do with yourself, why not move into one of Florida 's many mandatory associations -- no matter if you like single-family homes, town homes or condominiums? They all create lots of entertainment -- some quite expensive for the owners!

If you want to serve on the board of directors, please don't have an inquiring mind. That's what a board member in a condo in Port Charlotte had to find out, who was facing a recall, caused --  according to the president -- by her not following "board policy." She collected information from "outside accepted channels," in this case other condo associations. The "board's policy": Board members must have the board's permission before seeking "outside" information. Maybe she discovered "trade secrets"?

A condo owner in Miami got a surprise when she asked to see the bids for a valuable roofing contract and the minutes of the board meeting where the board voted on the contract. Response from the management company: "The actual bids themselves cannot be released due to confidentiality agreements that must be respected." It seems that board and CAM were so far unable to "locate" the minutes of the meeting with the actual vote on the roofing contract! The latest development: The Consultant hired to oversee the roofer has all the documents!

Owners in the same condo had a surprise when trying to attend a posted board meeting. The board meeting already took place the day before, due to a "communication error."  Owners who missed the unannounced meeting were asked to go to the website: "The unofficial minutes of the unofficial meeting will be posted soon!" Oh, my ... I guess somebody forgot to read the statutes!

Board members of a condo association in Bradenton were collecting petitions in support of their community association manager Carl Romano, who is facing a complaint against his license for unbecoming conduct. Actually, it seems to be a pretty lengthy complaint. But faithful board members, obviously not very concerned about violations of statutes and bylaws of the community, feel he deserves their support. They are sending this "petition" to the DBPR and are stating that (quote from a recent board meeting): "They are pleased with Carl Romano's support and performance as our community association manager representing Sentry Management, Inc." Owners unwilling to sign this petition received a "tongue-lashing" for not supporting the community.

But this manager must have a way to attract complaints from owners. Owners from a neighboring condo association filed last week a lawsuit naming Carl Romano as one of the defendants.  Remember the old saying: "Where there is smoke there is fire."

A retired attorney from out of state is obviously unhappy that the board cancelled a posted election in a condo in Jacksonville Beach after they found out that they didn't follow the condo election guidelines. They clearly didn't follow the two-envelope rules and felt that it would be wrong to hold an election knowing that it wasn't done according to the Florida Condominium Act, Florida Statute (FS718 section 112(2d)) and Florida Administrative Code (FAC) Chapter 61B-23.0021. But the retired attorney was the one running around with a booklet of the statutes before the election -- and he would have most likely been the one crying "foul" if he wouldn't have been elected. Now, with the election cancelled and a new election -- using the correct election material -- being announced, he took matters in his own "capable" hands. He called for another meeting today to count the remaining ballots, without the approval of the board. According to an e-mail he sent around the "appointed" election committee will count the ballots -- whatever they can find -- and the newly "elected" board will hold its first meeting. Oh, my ....!

He wouldn't be the first former attorney who drags his community into very expensive litigation because his ego gets the better of him! Why do certain attorneys think they know it all?

Talking attorneys? The Sun Sentinel published last Wednesday Joe Kollin's column under the headline "Condo board says arrangement to help disabled vet breaks rule," which was another condo commando story in itself, creating more than 300 angry entries on the bulletin board.

Hardly noticed -- it seems -- the Q&A section contained a statement by an attorney named S. C. Chase Adams of Fort Lauderdale. The question: "Does a legal spouse who isn't listed as an owner on the deed have any rights?" Adams' answer (quote): "... a spouse can serve on the board unless the documents prohibit it. It seems strange that a spouse can be locked out of board meetings but can serve on the board, blame it on the law."

I'm not an attorney, but I seriously argue that statement. What about the sentence in FS 718.112(2)(d)1: "Any unit owner desiring to be a candidate for board membership ..... " or the well-known Arbitration Ruling from 2004 that supports the fact that eligible candidates have to be DEEDED OWNERS of the association. See: Maya Marca Condominium Association, Inc.

I guess that attorney might want to do his homework next time?

New board members of an association in Delray Beach are wondering why their management company is trying so hard to push them to have an attorney defend a complaint filed by many owners against a member of the prior board.   Alleged payments directly reimbursing the treasurer for funds he paid to contractors working on association projects raised more than just a few eyebrows.

But in the end the owners ask: Why is the management company so interested in defending the complaint? Shouldn't they all just help the Bureau of Compliance to investigate and publish the findings? If things went wrong shouldn't owners have the right to know? Actually, owners are getting suspicious because it seems like the management company answering the complaints can only mean two things: "They have something to hide themselves or the daughter of the owner of the management company needs some more billable hours!"

All quiet on the recall front?
Actually, not quite! Last week three boards certified -- or just accepted by default -- successful recall petitions by owners. It seems more and more recalled board members see the writing on the wall: They can't win if the recall is done correctly -- and if they fight it and lose, they face a mad crowd in their neighborhood for wasting association dues for attorney's fees for recall arbitration.

Owners started last week 4 (four) new recall petitions!

This week's recall highlight took place in a condominium in Miami, where the association had not only failed to file the 2007 Annual Business Report, but where the former president made sure that repairs to her unit were paid from association funds, despite statements from the claim adjuster that the problems in her unit were not caused by hurricane damage.

Owners chose to recall the president by recall in a special meeting. All went well, including the meeting, when the "former" president acknowledged the recall. But after the meeting something must have changed her mind, because the new board suddenly hears "rumors" -- especially from the management company (hear, hear!) that she doesn't accept the recall, because she was "notified by e-mail." Leaders of the recall movement acknowledge that she received an e-mail inviting her to the recall meeting, but the meeting was as well noticed by public postings. Otherwise, how would so many owners have known about the meeting?

The rumor mill is working overtime in this community. The latest: The former president hired an attorney to fight the recall. The special meeting took place on March 13, 2008. And, according to the statutes, there is a time limit for filing for recall arbitration. It looks more like the service providers are interested to keep her in office -- maybe she was "easier" to work with than the new board? The new board is asking the question: "We have a law firm as registered agent [RANDALL K ROGERS & ASSOCIATES PA], and a management company [Phoenix Management] paid for by our monthly dues -- but they all failed to see to it that the annual business report was filed! Who is at fault that our association was administratively dissolved for failure to file the annual report -- and we have to pay the penalty?"

REVITALIZATION was creating serious headaches again. From Day One this provision has -- as predicted -- created nothing else but lawsuits. It turned out to be another cash cow for attorneys to the detriment of the owners. The ambiguous language of this provision (FS 720.403-720.407 and FS 712.11) has annoyed owners from the beginning. The fact that the Department of Community Affairs has so far failed to follow the law and allowed voluntary associations to revitalize as mandatory associations didn't improve the situation. The House Select Committee on Condominium and Homeowners Association Governance faced some irate owners, who were involved in legal battles with their "revitalized" associations. The latest victims of the DCA: Owners of the SPANISH PINES (FIRST ADDITION) HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. in Dunedin . Quote from a letter written by Leslie O. Anderson-Adams, Assistant General Counsel: "Since you are apparently involved in a dispute with the Association about whether the revitalized covenants apply to your parcel, I would suggest that you consult an attorney in private practice to see whether any legal remedies are available to you." Great advice from the person who created the mess in the first place!

The owners of the GLEN ARDEN HEIGHTS CIVIC ASSOCIATION, INC. in Altamonte Springs still have to live with slandered titles after the DCA first approved revitalization of the expired deed restrictions -- the association filed new covenants in court -- and then reversed the decision in a letter (quote): "Unfortunately, that letter was sent in error." PERIOD!

A "claimed" revitalization in a homeowners association in Miami will most likely end in a full-grown court battle, because owners claim that the community association manager collected association dues knowing full well that the deed restrictions -- and with it the right to collect dues -- had long expired! 

As a kid, I learned to clean up my own mess. That obviously doesn't go for Florida government agencies that create the mess by allowing voluntary associations to revitalize and then tell the annoyed owners to hire a private attorney to clean up the mess they created. This raises the question:  "Are the folks from the DCA getting kickbacks from law firms -- or why is it so difficult to get it right in the first place?"

We have said it over and over again: "Association funds are less protected than cookies in a cookie jar without a lid." This time a HOA General Manager in a homeowners’ association in Orlando couldn't resist the temptation to help himself: "HOA General Manager Admits To Stealing Money, Residents Worried About Fees" was the headline of a news report. More than $40,000 are missing -- peanuts compared to other cases, but it proves our point!

Homeowners from all over Florida are begging legislators for help to regulate their associations. But so far -- absolutely nothing. In a news report aired last week Michael Cochran (Division Chief Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes) came up with the most pathetic advice (quote): "Make sure you know your rules and regulations before you move in!" Don't forget that Cochran was part of the House Select Committee on Condominium and Homeowners Association Governance and listened to the testimony of many homeowners who often slammed his Division as a total failure for owners. Is this the best the State of Florida has to offer as an answer to many rightful complaints of her constituents?   

Those are just the highlights of one week of association stories I dealt with! And I mean: JUST THE NEGATIVE HIGHLIGHTS!

Many other stories will go to litigation -- and can't be discussed yet. But one thing becomes very obvious: In a wide majority of cases, the so-called service providers (attorneys + managers) play a negative role in the complaints of owners and association boards, which gives many owners the impression: 

The service providers are the problem, definitely not the solution.