| THE BAD -- AND THE UGLY! |
|
COMMENT: Planned amendment to HB 957 The
two main problems of the initial bill are still unchanged: The service
providers always claim contract law to excuse even violating
constitutional rights! Members of voluntary associations signed a
contract that they live in a voluntary association. End of argument! If the association is not mandatory, FS 720 should not apply. As the Definition says: It’s for mandatory associations only! Voluntary associations are governed by FS 617. Necessary changes for voluntary associations should be included in that chapter. Courts decided it takes 100% vote of approval from all owners. The wording in this bill clearly tries to circumvent these court rulings. We already had the first court cases after the legislation allowed similar things in 2004. Service providers are since years trying to find a way to turn “voluntary” into “mandatory.” This is another bad attempt! It's normally Senator Fasano behind it every year! So far it was always stopped – including a veto by Governor Jeb Bush, because of constitutional concerns. The service providers love it, because it will make them lots of extra money at the expense of the homeowners.
Fines can only be levied for violations of deed-restrictions -- what else? If somebody violates the deed-restrictions, have the association go to court -- due process. Since enacting SB 1184 in 2004, the number of claimed violations has rapidly decreased. Why? Because now the association, manager and attorney have to prove that a violation really occurred. This bill would again make boards and their attorneys: Accuser, judge, jury and executioner -- without due process! If we would have a regulatory agency it would be easier -- see condos. They don't want regulation for homeowners, so they have to go to court! That’s what the Governor’s HOA Task Force members clearly stated in their findings. The service providers can't have it both ways! Why are liens and foreclosures for fines acceptable for homeowners' associations, but not for condos? More money to be made? It seems that especially some legislators are not aware that fining by a private entity (like a homeowners’ association) violates the U.S. Constitution. In Virginia and Rhode Island two State Supreme courts clearly said so! There can’t be any valid contract that claims that you sign away your constitutional rights at the gate of a homeowners’ association! Aren’t legislators supposed to uphold our U.S. Constitution?WHY HB 391 IS NOT CONSUMER-FRIENDLY!
Blatant attempt by attorneys to make dispute resolution in community associations a closed shop in direct defiance for the economy and efficiency of mediation as a tool of alternative dispute resolution. Much less expensive possibilities available. Slap in the face of consumers! Instead of reducing cost, it will increase the cost! Excluding fines and similar issues from mediation kills the main idea for creating the mediation provision. Lengthy discussions at HOA Task Force meetings created this provision. Public testimony about abuses created mediation provision for fines and prohibition of liens and foreclosures for fines. In 2004 the new HOA provisions proved very consumer-friendly and seriously reduced the number of abuses. The proposed changes in HB 391 only serves the bank accounts of attorneys and providing again dictatorial powers to abusive board members. The proposed provisions are detrimental to homeowners, removing important parts of the reforms that had been created by the Task Force bills.
will create more lawsuits. The momentary solution has already proven to be costly to owners. This will get the voluntary associations involved, where people already waiting to make them mandatory. The Department Of Community Affairs is not prepared to take care of the arising problems. It forces homeowners to pay legal fees to opt out. Wrong solution! The dispute voluntary vs. mandatory association already creates enough lawsuits. This is a sneak-in attempt for issues already attempted before. At length discussed at HOA Task Force.
Removes a safeguard against dangerous amendments.
Homeowners often don’t understand the dangerous changes created by
amendments. Mortgage companies do!
This proposed subsection is an attempt to remove
consumer protection created by FS 720 from older associations. HB 391 proposes changes to board meeting procedures, but still doesn’t remove the provision to allow owners to speak only about matters placed on agenda by membership petition. This provision is being used to prohibit members to speak at board meetings. Removes requirement of agenda on notice!
This
will reduce further the already limited disclose options The attorneys
always claim that people knew what they signed. Cost of up to $
150.00! Adding no liability for information. Good faith clause! That
covers about everything! What provision in HB 391 is consumer-friendly? I think that question is a lot easier and shorter to answer! THE REAL UGLY Homeowner's Associations SB 546 The comment for this bill is real short: Senator Fasano forgot, as so often before, that he is supposed to work for the welfare of the constituents that elect him! When he sponsored this bill he either forgot to read it before filing or he has total disregard for his constituents. This bill is about as UGLY as it comes. And that from a legislator who mailed in this candidate's questionnaire before the 2004 election. Read his questionnaire and read the bill. You might wonder if that's coming from the same person! |
| HOME | BACK
TO
NEWS PAGES |