HOW TO COMPLICATE A SIMPLE RECORD REQUEST! |
An
Opinion By Jan Bergemann Published December 23, 2009
Reading
FS 720.303(4) + (5) makes record requests sound real simple: FS 720.303(5) explains in detail what needs to be done by association and owner to follow the inspection and copying requirements and what documents are exempt!
If you ignore the part of FS 720.303(5) dealing with possible cost and charges for inspecting and copying records, this is one of the few provisions in FS 720 that has language that doesn't create too many loopholes. And until some attorneys pushed FS 720.311 (PRESUIT MEDIATION) into the way of easy enforcement it worked reasonably well.
The latest example of a simple record request creating havoc happened last week in the POINCIANA VILLAGE NINE ASSOCIATION, INC. in Kissimmee.
Admittedly, this community had its fair share of controversy, from a pending recall of the board to the fact that one owner of 103(??) undeveloped lots, who is clearly not the developer or a successor, doesn't pay his full monthly dues (owners call it a sweetheart deal not backed by the governing documents) but was "given" full voting rights for all his lots. Personally, I surely can imagine why that creates controversy.
One of the owners in good standing demanded by e-mail -- as it was done before on many other occasions -- the financials records for these lots in dispute. Rightfully so, as seen in FS 720.303(4)(j) 2. But instead of complying with the rightful request, the owner received a LETTER BY CERTIFIED MAIL, signed by Richard Murphy, LCAM -- the community association manager working for Leland Management, Inc.
In this letter Murphy referred to record request provisions in FS 617 (The association in question is regulated by FS 720-HOA) and demanded the owner to follow these provisions, like FS 617.1602(3)(a): The member's demand is made in good faith and for a proper purpose, and (3)(b): The member describes with reasonable particularity his or her purpose and the records he or she desires to inspect. Both these requirements are clearly absent in FS 720.303 -- actually FS 720.303(5)(c) states: "The association ............, but may not impose a requirement that a parcel owner demonstrate any proper purpose for the inspection, ...." Murphy even attached copies of these specific statutes to the letter.
The reaction of the homeowner was an e-mail sent to Murphy, copying a whole group of owners and other interested parties. The tone of the e-mail may not have been nice, but the Murphy letter obviously aggravated the owner, and the answer was accordingly:
This e-mail didn't sit too well with CAM Murphy. His response was more or less immediate:
Curious
about his reasoning for quoting provisions from FS 617 (not applicable for
these issues) I sent an e-mail to Richard Murphy, asking politely for the
reasoning of him quoting FS 617:
I didn't get an explanation -- most likely because there is none -- but got this response from Richard Murphy:
I didn't think that my request for an explanation was out of line and "subscribed to her type of behavior" -- and it definitely didn't deserve such a terse answer. From then on the e-mail exchanges pretty much escalated.
It's pretty obvious that Murphy's feelings about Ms. Ward got the better of him and his professionalism.
Community association managers get paid a lot of money and the owners surely expect professionalism for the money they pay. I am not quite sure why Murphy refers everybody to the association attorney? A simple record request should create no such arguments as seen above. And a simple record request surely shouldn't require the legal services of the association attorney, especially if a licensed CAM like Richard Murphy (CAM 17376 -- Licensure Date: 07/17/1996) is being paid to take care of these issues. Maybe Murphy should have consulted with an attorney -- at his own expense -- before writing the letter that refers to FS 617 provisions. May have saved him from some embarrassment?
This example shows how easy it is to make a simple record request very complicated and get the whole neighborhood stirred up over such a normally simple issue.
In these testy economic times more and more associations decide to do without a management company and turn to a CPA firm to take care of their financial needs -- often at half the cost of the services of a management company.
Incidents like the one above may make it easier for board members to make the decision to do without a community association management firm. Who needs this aggravation? Why do we need an attorney? We would rather collect the money! |