Coronavirus legal update

No Shirts, No Shoes, No Shots- No Service?

Posted on by Gerstin

By Joshua Gerstin, Esq.
Click here for .pdf version

As the COVID-19 vaccine rollout begins to spread across the country two opposing sides are emerging, individuals refusing to get vaccinated and others hoping to refuse them service. Board members across Florida are wondering whether their community association can and should require anybody residing in and/or entering their community to be vaccinated. In short, the answer is not clear. Dealing with a novel virus-induced pandemic brings novel legal challenges without clear answers.  

According to the Appellate Court in the case of Hidden Harbour Estates, Inc. v. Norman:

“It appears to us that inherent in the condominium concept is the principle that to promote the health, happiness, and peace of mind of the majority of the unit owners since they are living in such close proximity and using facilities in common, each unit owner must give up a certain degree of freedom of choice which he might otherwise enjoy in separate, privately owned property. Condominium unit owners comprise a little democratic sub-society of necessity more restrictive as it pertains to use of condominium property than may be existent outside the condominium organization.  .  .”

Hidden Harbour Estates, Inc. v. Norman, 309 So.2d 180 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).

The Hidden Harbour Court went on to hold the test to determine a rule’s validity is “reasonableness”. Only if a board of directors has the power to adopt a rule, the rule is reasonable, and the rule does not conflict with some other right contained in a superior governing document, can the association adopt it. In this instance, rules requiring members to be vaccinated may conflict with the easements granted to owners to enjoy the common areas (a superior governing document). In addition to possibly conflicting with a member’s easement to enjoy the common areas, vaccines are not yet available to everyone and members will present religious and medical accommodations. As anyone dealing with emotional support animals in a no animal environment will readily explain, there are many easy-to-find medical providers ready, willing, and able (for a fee) to attest to an ailment or affliction to assist a member avoid a rule. Despite their often-dubious attestations, requiring a vaccine and refusing an accommodation based on a medical or religious exemption is difficult and expensive for community associations to fight. Adding the proverbial fuel to the fire is Florida’s lack of a Covid-19 vaccine mandate and pending legislation to strip the Florida Department of Health’s authority to implement a COVID-19 vaccine mandate  (HB 6003).

Another problematic issue is increased association liability. In addition to the ever-increasing “HIPPA type” liability that comes from storing health records, community associations will be placing themselves as the weak (and liable) link in a chain if an unvaccinated member sneaks in. Further stoking potential community liability is the science (many people seem to ignore), vaccinated people can catch and transmit COVID-19.  Community associations promoting the safety of mingling in their clubhouse or similar area with only vaccinated people may find themselves in a lawsuit from a person infected in an area promoted as safe.

What can a community association do?

Although requiring members to be vaccinated may not be the best approach, requiring individuals other than members to be vaccinated may be a position worth exploring.  Depending on a community association’s governing documents, passing rules requiring all vendors for the common areas and elements to be vaccinated is a good first step.  Association’s that rent clubhouse rooms or common elements (tennis, bocce, pickleball, etc.) to groups in which outsiders are allowed to participate may also want to consider a vaccine requirement for the outsiders. However, for the reasons expressed above related to members, it is doubtful a community association can prohibit an unvaccinated guest of a member who is not part of a member-group renting an area from using the area with a member.

Until the emergency declaration by Governor DeSantis expires, Florida’s community associations will have extended leeway to propose rules limiting the spread of COVID-19.  However, an emergency declaration is not going to overcome the multiple religious and medical accommodations that will be presented in response to a vaccine mandate. Combined with potential liability in storing medical records and the implied notion a common area with only vaccinated people will be 100% safe, community associations looking to require vaccinations should look outward towards their groups that rent common areas and vendors. Combined with this outwardly focus should be a relentless effort on behalf of every community association to educate and promote to its members through easy-to-understand and readily available information the use of the COVID-19 vaccine.

    Stay Informed!

Click Here to Subscribe to the Gerstin & Associates Newsletter

Are the million-dollar PPP loans many PBC golf communities collected justified?

Posted on by Gerstin

In the News:

https://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/20200709/are-million-dollar-ppp-loans-some-palm-beach-county-golf-communities-collected-justified

By Mike Diamond Special to The Post

Posted Jul 9, 2020 at 7:30 AM
   

Six golf country clubs in Palm Beach County – Hunters Run, Quail Ridge, Wycliffe, Old Palm, Banyan Cay and the Loxahatchee Club – may have received as much as $18 million in PPP loans through the Small Business Administration.

Six golf course communities are among the more than 3,000 businesses in Palm Beach County that received Payroll Protection Program (PPP) loans through the Small Business Administration (SBA).

An analysis of the loans released this week by the SBA shows that the six clubs may have received as much as $18 million. The SBA had been sued by a number of newspaper organizations over the identity of the loan recipients. When the applicants applied, they were told the loans would be public record.

The program was designed to keep employees on the payroll. If employers do that and comply with the loan conditions, the loans become grants and do not have to be repaid.

The SBA agreed to identify all recipients of loans in excess of $150,000 but only provided ranges of funds received, refusing to reveal the exact amount.

The data released by the SBA do not include the amount of the loan but rather the loan amount a bank has approved. The actual amount of a loan could be smaller than the approved amount. All amounts are in ranges.

Some golf course communities that accepted PPP loans in Palm Beach County have recently spent upward of $10 million on massive improvements to their clubhouses and golf courses.

The clubs that took the money include:

– Hunters Run ($2 million to $5 million) in Boynton Beach.

– Quail Ridge ($1 million to $2 million) in Boynton Beach.

– Wycliffe ($2 million to $2.5 million) in Wellington.

– Old Palm ($1 million to $2 million) in Palm Beach Gardens.

– Banyan Cay Resort Club ($700,000 to $2 million) in West Palm Beach.

– The Loxahatchee Club Homeowners Association ($150,000 to $300,000) in Jupiter.

Scores of other Palm Beach country clubs had applied for the PPP loans. Many were approved but decided to refuse to accept the money on both moral grounds and legal grounds after reading the fine print. Government auditors are expected to review how the money was spent and can ask for the money to be returned and penalties to be imposed if they find misrepresentations.

Fifty-seven country clubs in Florida accepted the PPP funds. According to CNBC, more than 400 country clubs and golf courses received loans throughout the country. The issue of whether it is appropriate for golf course communities to receive PPP loans has been debated.

Assessment revenue a factor

Joshua Gerstin, a Boca Raton lawyer who specializes in homeowner and condominium association law, said he expects one factor the SBA will consider is how much revenue a country club gets from its assessments.

“If it is mostly assessment driven, the country club might have a problem,” he said. “If members continued to pay their assessments, there was no real loss of revenue. But if much of it comes from dining and other sources that members pay outside of their assessments, they could be eligible.”

According to the SBA, businesses must certify that the loan is needed “to support ongoing” operations and that they are unable to access “other sources of liquidity” to support their ongoing operations.

Addison Reserve General Manager Michael McCarthy said once he and his board saw those revised requirements, they decided that it would be wrong to participate in the PPP program.

“There was no way I could certify that we needed it stay in business or that we didn’t have other sources of liquidity,” he noted.

Wycliffe, Quail Ridge: We preserved jobs

Hunters Run President Michael Soroka declined to comment on the issue. According to the SBA, Hunters Run and Banyan failed to provide data to indicate how many jobs were saved by the loans. Wycliffe was chastised on CNBC early Tuesday morning for accepting its loan. The Post has learned that the Wycliffe loan amount was $2 million. It was able to preserve 281 jobs. Wycliffe’s general manager, Rob Martin, released a statement to The Post that read:

“At Wycliffe, we are thankful to all of our employees for their hard work and dedication through these challenging times. We took PPP money because we care deeply about our team and wanted to make sure that we had the ability to provide them a regular paycheck. Following the legal parameters, we only requested and received enough to cover our payroll needs and did not use our loan in any way to disadvantage other companies. We are thankful that we qualified to receive money so that our employees and their families could make ends meet during these challenging times.”

Quail Ridge GM William Langley said the PPP loan was used as intended. He noted that Quail Ridge would have had to have laid off many of its 300 employees without the loan. “We are not a club with deep pockets,” he said.

The Club at Admiral’s Cove in Jupiter was one of those that returned the funds – $3.1 million. “We saw too many issues, both moral and legal,” said CEO Bret Morris. “We did not want to take the risks.” He said Admiral Cove was able to keep its 500 employees working, noting: “We found other things for them to do.”

Florida Community Associations, Disclosing the Names of the Infected.

Posted on by Gerstin

– Disclosing the Names of Infected Members in Florida’s Community Associations.

By: Joshua Gerstin, Esq.     (click here for .pdf version)

If a community association is aware a member has the coronavirus, the first step for the association should be to alert its members without naming the infected member(s). In this initial alert, the Association should remind its members to follow the guidelines of the local governing authorities and the CDC regarding staying healthy during this pandemic (washing hands, social distancing, etc.).  After sending the initial alert, determining whether the association can or must disclose the identity of an infected member is the troublesome next step.  Although this issue has not been decided by the courts or an administrative agency yet, there are various laws governing the disclosure of confidential medical information Florida’s community associations should familiarize themselves with.

The most widely known law covering medical information confidentiality is the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act known as “HIPPA”.  According to HIPPA, community associations do not qualify as a “covered entity” (ex. doctor’s office, etc.). As such, HIPPA generally does not apply to most of Florida’s community associations.  However,  Florida Statute §456.057 entitled Ownership and Control of Patient Records; report or copies of records to be furnished; disclosure of information (“Florida Medical Records Act”) and Florida Statute §720.303(5)(c)(4) (for homeowner associations) or §718.111(12)(c)(3)(d) (for the condominium associations) pertain to medical records within an association’s Official Records and may apply if the association has possession of the owner’s medical records indicating he/she is infected.  Based on a “strict reading” it is reasonable to conclude these Florida statutes ( §720.303(5)(c)(4), §718.111(12)(c)(3)(d) and §456.057) prohibit a community association from disclosing the identity of an infected member when knowledge of the infection was obtained from information contained in the infected member’s medical records.

In most instances, a community association will not be in possession of medical records indicating a diagnosis of infection.  Often times, an association will learn a member is infected from the inadvertent or purposeful disclosure by a care provider. In such instances, the association should determine whether the sick member authorized the disclosure to the association.  If so, the association should ask the sick member for written authority to disclose the information identifying him/her as having the coronavirus. Without written approval from the sick member, the purposeful or inadvertent disclosure by a medical professional of an infection does not give the association the ability to broadcast the same information to all of its members free from liability for its actions.

Most often, the association will have third or fourth hand information from an owner who knew or saw something leading them to conclude a member has been infected. Broadcasting such information to other members, although it may seem at least anecdotally accurate, will subject the association to liability.

Some alternative approaches to disclosing the name of the infected member(s) are:

1. Contacting the local health authorities and obtaining their opinion as to whether this person, based on the surrounding demographic, should be brought to a hospital for quarantine or what steps the person and the association should take.

2. Contact the individual to determine whether he or she would consent in writing to the disclosure of the infection. If the answer is yes, no problem, the association can disclose.

3. The Association should determine whether the individual and the in-home care givers are both isolating in the home and not going outside other than in their backyard or on their balcony. The association should routinely check-in with the person/caregivers via telephone and driving by as much as practical. Many condominium associations have security cameras that can monitor whether the infected member has left his/her unit and entered a common area or came into contact with a common element (ex. elevator).  The Association should continue this for the longest maximum time the CDC states a person is infectious. If an infected member flouts the CDC isolation guidelines, the police and local health department should be notified and asked to take action.  Relaying this health related information regarding an infected member to the health or police authorities would most likely not violate the above cited laws.

4.  Florida’s condominium associations should enact an action plan for banning any infected members from using the common areas and common elements (if they are not closed already). These plans should be done at a meeting of the board of directors with its attorney that is closed to the membership due to the discussion of medical information and anticipated litigation. However, the infected member(s) cannot be denied ingress or egress to their units/homes.  Therefore, especially in Florida’s condominium associations, a plan for extra, sustained cleaning of all common elements (ex. elevators) and common areas are a must.

Community association members, especially those in 55+ communities, are rightfully afraid of catching the coronavirus. As we become aware of the increasing amount of infections, community association members will demand their associations release the names of the infected with impassioned pleas for their own safety.  When this happens at your community association, your initial focus should be on alerting members to the many ways they can protect themselves while consulting with the association’s attorney and local health professionals in the development of an action plan.

Stay Informed!
Click Here to Subscribe to the Gerstin & Associates Newsletter