In a letter mailed to the members of the Florida Senate CCFJ, Inc. and its growing number of allies is asking the Senators for their support for Condo Bill SB 2498, after the bill was amended by the House Committee on Business Regulation. Please read the amended version now listed as HB 1223SC . 
Still that didn't calm down the attorneys. But instead of stating the real problem they have with this bill -- the Ombudsman's Office - their e-mails continue to ask board members to write letters opposing the bill using dubious reasons.

And since they can't use the main issue of this bill to gain support among board members, they use all kinds of twisted arguments to explain to these board members why their empire collapses if this bill is enacted. And there are actually some who believe them!

The analysis of HB 1223, written by attorney Gary Poliakoff, starts out again with the totally flawed argument of "just a few disgruntled owners complaining." Amazing to read in his report  that only 150 attended the meeting in Davie  - Article Sun Sentinel: Hundreds gather in Davie to demand changes in condo laws- but he conveniently forgot to mention that a crowd of more than 400 booed him out of the meeting hall, when he tried to explain that everything is just fine in condo-la-la-land. And as well-oiled as the e-mail machine of Becker & Poliakoff is working now, board members were obviously not asked to attend when proposals for changes were discussed. 
Isn't that called selective information?

You can read the analysis any way you like, but I would hang my head in shame if I would have to admit that I'm one of the responsible parties for the disaster we heard about during the hearings of the Select Committee on Condominium Association Governance. Every unbiased party who attended the hearings and read the supplied documents had to admit that reforms are desperately needed. Some condominiums function worse than Banana Republics.

Take the example of grandfathering certain rights. Poliakoff quotes the Woodside vs. Jahren case and is talking about transient rentals. He conveniently forgets to quote the opinion of Justice Quince: "I concur in the majority's decision which quashes the decision by the Second District Court of Appeal. I write simply to urge the Legislature to seriously consider placing some restrictions on present and/or future condominium owners' ability to alter the rights of existing condominium owners." Click here to read the whole opinion of the Florida Supreme Court.

The law firm of Becker & Poliakoff must have had similar bad arguments when they lost the class-action lawsuit in Federal Court for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
This Act was created by the Federal Government for consumer protection. 

But the worst argument of all was definitely: "Who is going to pay for this?"
I would definitely expect a little more from the president of a big law firm. The money is already sitting there in form of the condo trust-fund. There is so much money, paid by the unit-owners, that Governor Jeb Bush proposed to take $6 million and transfer it into the general tax-fund. Don't forget, this is money collected from all condo unit-owners in Florida to pay for services provided by the DBPR! This agency surely isn't doing a good job. Otherwise, why would condo-owners ask for an investigation of this agency - see editorial of the St.Augustine Record.

Actually this proposal would finally put the money to the use it was originally intended  -- consumer protection!

And you can be sure Gary Poliakoff knows it. Didn't the DBPR pay last year $500,000 to the Community Association Institute for educational courses? The law firm of Becker & Poliakoff is the main supporter of this organization in Florida!

In my opinion this analysis is just smoke and mirrors and preys on gullible board members who are being told that their whole empire will fall apart if this bill were enacted.

For everybody with common sense, it's obvious that attorneys and unit-owners are on different sides of the fence. While unit-owners -- and hopefully board members -- would appreciate a peaceful community without lengthy expensive court battles, attorneys live from promoting these battles. 

Board members, who support these attorneys, actually work against the interest of their own community. Because it is their fiduciary duty to use as much of the dues paid by the members for maintenance and beautification -- and not for legal fees.
Or do you want to report one day to your members that 50% of the annual budget had to be used for legal fees? An expense that could have been partially avoided if the Condo Bill HB 1223 would have been enacted as proposed?

It's still time to jump on the side of the proponents and let these attorneys fight alone for their welfare and bank accounts. Even if Johnny Cochrane stated: "The color of justice is green" -- see that it is not your money and/or the money of your neighbors paying for it!

Every person only has a certain amount of credibility. Some use it up more sooner than later!

If you have questions regarding this bill, please feel free to contact us. We might have answers that are not biased by dollar signs!