Property Maintenance Company Cannot Foreclose on Condo Units

Originally posted on February 27, 2012 by Ryan

Parc Central Aventura E. Condo. v. Victoria Group Serv., LLC, 54 So. 3d 532 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011).

A Florida court of appeals determined that a company providing cleaning, concierge and security services to a condo association could not foreclose on individual units when the association failed to pay $290,737.27 for services under three separate contracts.  The trial court issued a judgment in favor of the maintenance company and an order of foreclosure on the basis that the individual owners consented to and authorized the services through the contracts entered into by the association. The trial court relied on Florida’s mechanic’s lien statute to order the foreclosure of condo units.

On appeal, the court held that the maintenance company did not have a valid lien under the mechanic’s lien statute.  The court held that the services provided by the company were not permanent improvements, and maintenance of property is non-lienable.  Under Florida’s Condominium Act, “if a valid lien encumbers multiple condominium parcels, each owner of an encumbered parcel may exercise the rights of a property owner . . . .”  The court reversed and remanded the case with instructions to issue a monetary judgment instead of foreclosure.

This site and any information contained herein is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice.  Seek a competent attorney for advice on any legal matter.

Advertisements

Self-Help and Covenant Enforcement- Drawing a Line in the Sand

Originally posted on February 27, 2012 by Ryan

Frustrated board members often find themselves in a predicament: how far is too far in covenant enforcement?  Oftentimes, the governing documents of an association will allow the board to use self-help to enforce the covenants in a handful of situations.  For example, the covenants may state that if an owner refuses to maintain his or her yard the board may hire a landscaper to mow and then charge the owner for the service.  Unfortunately, boards sometimes go too far in seeking enforcement measures and step into the realm of vigilante justice.  This was the situation in a Florida case where the board of Palomino Lakes Subdivision literally blocked access to the subdivision on three occasions to prevent an owner from delivering what they thought was a mobile home.  Parton v. Palomino Lakes Prop. Owners Ass’n, Inc., 928 So. 2d 449 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006).

The covenants for Palomino Lakes prohibited mobile homes, but the owner was actually delivering a modular home, which was to be attached to a concrete slab and was permitted by the covenants.  By blockading access to the neighborhood, the board violated the covenants.  The owner later sued the association and the board members individually for breach of contract and injunctive relief.

At trial, a jury determined that the owner was entitled to $5,000 in compensatory damages and punitive damages of $60,000 against one board member, $50,000 against another board member, and $40,000 against a third.  As the prevailing party, the owner was also entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees.

Board members should think twice before taking self-help measures and subjecting themselves to personal liability.  Always ensure that board actions are permitted by the governing documents.

This site and any information contained herein is intended for informational purposes and should not be construed as legal advice.  Seek a competent attorney for advice on any legal matter.

Alcoholic Beverage Licences for Homeowners’ Associations

Originally posted on February 22, 2012 by Ryan

H. 3295 is a bill introduced in the House on January 12, 2011 and signed by Governor Haley into law on June 17, 2011. This bill authorizes homeowners associations to hold state licenses to sell alcoholic beverages. In order to meet the definition of a homeowners association under H. 3295, the association must be chartered as a nonprofit by the Secretary of State and “conduct[ ] a business bona fide engaged primarily and substantially in the preparation and serving of meals or furnishing of lodging.”  Prior to the enactment of H. 3295, the Department of Revenue ruled that homeowners associations were not entitled to alcoholic beverage licenses.

This site and any information contained herein is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice.  Seek a competent attorney for advice on any legal matter.

Keeping the Reins: Beware of Underhanded Boards and Their Tactics to Remain in Power

Originally posted on January 9, 2012 by Ryan

Although the SC Nonprofit Code and the governing documents of an association maintain safeguards for fair elections, many boards are coming up with crafty ways to ensure re-election. An article in the Orlando Sentinel lists these as the most popular methods for power-corrupt boards to hold on to their seats:

  1. Create a Nomination Committee, stacked with spouses and friends of the sitting board members. They plainly nominate the sitting board members – nobody else — and the ballot mailed out to the eligible voters will only contain the names of the “wanted” candidates, because the committee declares every other candidate who volunteers not fit to serve. Any owner trying to “nominate himself or herself as a candidate for the board at a meeting” has anyway no chance. The written mailed-in ballots already give the sitting board members the votes necessary for re-election.
  2. HOA elections normally require a quorum of 30% of the total voting interests present in person or by proxy. 30% is quite a high hurdle, and the proxies collected by the board will only be used if it serves the advantage of the sitting board. It’s much easier to declare: “No quorum present” – therefore the old board is the new board.  Before anybody can object, the board and its supporters quickly leave the meeting room. Election won – no matter how many of the other owners complain about procedure.
  3. Mail out general proxies, claiming these proxies only serve the purpose to fulfill the quorum requirements. But since they are actually made out as general proxies, they can be used by the board secretary to count as votes – if necessary.
  4. Intimidation is another often used method to swing the election. Sitting board members go door-to-door to “collect” proxies with themselves named as proxy- holders. Especially the many elderly will often sign the proxy, just to live in peace. Violation letters and fines are the common threats used to “convince” the owners who are not voluntarily willing to sign over their voting rights!

This site and any information contained herein is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice.  Seek a competent attorney for advice on any legal matter.

Proposed Gun Range in Posh Condo Penthouse

Originally posted on January 9, 2012 by Ryan

Here’s an article from the Baltimore Sun about a penthouse unit owner in the Baltimore Ritz-Carlton Residences seeking to obtain a permit to build a gun range inside the unit.  Condo association rules, state laws and local ordinances may prove to be a difficult burden to overcome in getting the firing range approved.

This site and any information contained herein is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice.  Seek a competent attorney for advice on any legal matter.

Board Committees

Originally posted on December 12, 2011 by Ryan

From time to time, a Board of Directors may find it helpful to delegate responsibilities to Board Committees.  Committees are authorized by the Nonprofit Code in S.C. Code Ann. § 33-31-825, except where prohibited by the Association’s bylaws or articles.

A majority of Board members must approve the creation of a Committee, unless the Association’s bylaws impose a more stringent requirement.  Committees must abide by the same rules as the Board in terms of meetings, actions without meetings, notice and waiver of notice, and quorum and voting requirements.  Additionally, the Board may delegate non-board functions to Committees.

Some examples of Committees include: a Nominating Committee, Architectural Standards Committee, Covenants Committee, and a Social Committee.  Board Committees should always exercise reasonable care in delegating and supervising Committees and Committee members, as this delegation of authority does not exonerate Board Members from their responsibilities to the Association.

This site and any information contained herein is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Seek a competent attorney for advice on any legal matter.

Association Can Enforce Zoning Regulations

Originally posted on December 12, 2011 by Ryan

Ariyan v. Pine Orchard Ass’n, Inc., No. CV084034207S, Conn. Super. Ct., Dec. 3, 2010.

The court in this case held that the Pine Orchard Association had the authority to enforce zoning regulations within the association.  Ariyan began constructing a gazebo on her lot, which is zoned with a 20-foot rear setback. Behind her lot is a private, unimproved right-of-way.  Ariyan did not initially seek approval of the zoning board before starting construction.  However, she eventually did submit an application for a permit, which was denied.  She later submitted a second application for a permit and that was also denied based on the setback requirement.

Ariyan then submitted a variance request for the setback requirement, arguing that because there was no barrier between her property and the private right-of-way, the gazebo would not be noticeable if it violated the required setback requirement.  Her variance was also denied, and was shortly followed with a cease and desist order for the partially constructed gazebo.  Ariyan was asked to remove the gazebo.  After the Zoning Board of Appeals upheld the decision, Ariyan appealed to the Connecticut Superior Court.

Ariyan argued on appeal that the decision was illegal, arbitrary and an abuse of discretion.  She based most of her argument on the fact that the regulations did not define “structure.”  The court found this unconvincing and held that “structure” is defined using its common and usual meaning.  The court also held that the appeal lacked merit because zoning regulators are required to apply the regulations when appropriate, and the fact that the gazebo would not obstruct her neighbors’ views was irrelevant.

This site and any information herein is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice.  Seek a competent attorney for advice on any legal matter.