Priority Bills 2006 -- Discussion

CONDO-OWNER-FRIENDLY REVISIONS TO CONDO ACT FS 718

HB 1227 clarifies a lot of gray areas in Condo Act FS 718 and closes serious loopholes that cause serious arguments -- and expensive litigation

Here are the main issues:

Clarifies reconstruction after casualty losses, an issue that created many serious disputes after recent hurricanes. Some disputes are still not settled!
Clarifies regulations regarding parking spaces for the disabled.
Simplifies method of requesting inspection of public documents.
Creates term limits for officers and restrictions for co-owners to serve on the board.
Adds agenda items to annual meeting by petition.
Simplifies vote on reserve funds and limits specific use of these funds.
Clarifies regulations regarding hurricane shutters.
Clarifies liability for different parties to pay dues.
Requires notification of unit-owner by certified mail before filing of lien.
Clarifies method of setting up payment schedule for special assessment and prohibits commingling of special reserves with other funds.
Creates safeguards against abuse of owners.
Prohibits SLAPP suits.
Requires certified notification before actual fining process.
Improves training programs.
Clarifies responsibilities of DBPR and Ombudsman.
Closes loopholes in functions of Ombudsman.
Provides grandfather rental rights of co-op owners.
Replaces Advisory Council on Condominiums with Advisory Council on Mandated Properties.

This bill will be very helpful for condo-owners and associations by clarifying a number of issues where the wording of the Condo Act was vague and created costly litigation. Most of the smaller changes of wording were proposed because of experiences noted by the Ombudsman during 2005. Especially the hurricanes took a big financial bite out of associations and made some changes absolutely necessary. Vague wording in the Condo Act leaves condo-units still in a stage of disrepair today. Owners are losing their homes because of unclear language. This bill will fix a lot of the known shortcomings.

The creation of the Advisory Council on Mandated Properties will be another step in the right direction to simplify statutes for all different kinds of associations that will create a in the end a unified system much easier to govern for all parties involved. Even specialized attorneys are confused about slight differences in the various statutes.

In order to avoid even more increased litigation in these communities, the legislature needs to find ways to simplify the system to govern all associations under one umbrella!

COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS BILL HB 839

HOMEOWNER-FRIENDLY REVISIONS TO HOA STATUTES FS 720

HB 839 clarifies a lot of gray areas in Homeowners' Association Statutes FS 720 that cause serious arguments -- and expensive lawsuits.

Defines obligations of directors of the board.
Creates necessary vote of approval by members before commencing with costly lawsuits.
Creates accountability for directors who harass members
Clarifies enforcement of covenants and limitations.
Creates provision for reserve accounts.
Sets time limits for providing financial reports to owners and requirement of audits.
Clarifies assessments and guarantees.

This bill will be very helpful for homeowners in associations, just by clarifying certain issues that are often the cause of bitter arguments and costly litigation.

Condo Associations/Unpaid Assessment SB 586

The general idea for the bill is very good! This bill needs some amendments before being brought to a vote on both floors! Despite what the opposition says, this bill wasn't created to protect deadbeats. It was created to protect owners from abuses and huge attorney bills for small amounts of unpaid dues. We have heard Donna Berger stating: "In some associations it can mean that an owner can avoid paying dues for 8 years!" If she can name one association where dues for 8 years don't amount to more than $2,500, people will outbid each other to move into this association. Typical scare tactics of the industry!

There is no argument that owners need protection against huge legal fees for tiny amounts! California already recognized the need for such a bill and enacted it with overwhelming support of legislators from both parties! When will Florida follow?