FLorida Supreme Court

Here Come the Lawyers! US Supreme Court Declares Criminals Have a Right to Live in Your Community Association and a Right to Sue You for Trying to Stop Them

Posted on by Gerstin

By Seth Amkraut, Esq.neighborhood_watch_05b

Click here for .pdf version of this article

Potential Personal Liability for Board Members.

Many community associations in Florida screen prospective buyers and tenants. This screening process typically includes a comprehensive background check into each applicant’s credit, rental, employment and criminal history.  Recently, an interpretation by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) of a recent United States Supreme Court Case, Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, et al v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., et al., severely curtailed community associations’ ability to deny sales or rentals to convicted criminals.  Enforcing blanket bans on convicted criminals purchasing or renting in your community can now subject both the community association and its Board members, individually, to liability.

With particularly awful circular reasoning, HUD issued an April 4, 2016, guidance memorandum declaring a higher percentage of adult minorities have criminal records when compared to the overall adult population.  Therefore, prohibiting a person with a criminal conviction to buy or rent in your community has a “disparate impact” on certain racial minorities tantamount to racial discrimination. Considering racial discrimination in housing violates federal law, HUD rounds the final corner and declares by extension the blanket use of criminal records to deny housing violates Federal law. This is a critical pronouncement effectively outlawing all blanket prohibitions on individuals with a criminal history and calls into question less restrictive policies. Even a narrowly tailored policy excluding only certain types of criminals must accurately distinguish between criminal conduct representing a genuine risk to other residents or property.

Making matters worse, HUD’s guidance on this issue shifts the long-standing burden requiring a Plaintiff to prove their case. Instead, community associations will be presumed to have discriminated against a proposed tenant or purchaser if a person within a protected class (e.g. a racial minority) is denied housing simply due to the person’s prior criminal record.   To rebut this presumption, community associations will have to prove the association’s denial of housing to persons with a “criminal history” actually assists in protecting resident safety and/or property. The only exception is for criminal convictions relating to manufacturing or distributing controlled substances. In essence, HUD has determined violent felons, such as murderers or rapists, are less dangerous than people manufacturing or distributing illegal drugs.

Individual board member liability.

As experienced Board members will tell you, often times upset owners (and their accommodating lawyers) name board members individually in lawsuits.  More often than not, these lawsuits are defended (and dismissed) by an association’s insurance counsel. However, most community insurance association policies will not offer coverage for housing discrimination or similar claims.  Without such coverage, both the association and the individual board members will have to pay out- of-pocket for representation and any resulting damages.  Although the individual board members may seek reimbursement from the Association (indemnification), claims for housing discrimination are known as intentional torts or intentional statutory violations. Typically, community associations are not required to indemnify individual board members against claims for damages related to intentional conduct. As you can surmise, the result of not a board member not being indemnified by his/her community association can be financially ruinous.

What can an association do? 

There is no one size fits all formula for creating Fair Housing Act compliant criminal background policies. In this new legal landscape, every community association that considers criminal history when evaluating prospective buyers and tenants must be prepared to defend the inevitable claims filed by rejected applicants.

Gerstin & Associates can assist your community association with drafting a criminal background policy allowing for the rejection of the most dangerous applicants while minimizing the risk of liability for discriminatory practices. Contact our office today for a free consultation.

Stay one-step ahead of new legislation, recent case law and new developments that impact your community association by subscribing to the Gerstin & Associates Community Association Newsletter.  Please complete and either email or fax the following to: (561) 750-8185 (no cover page needed).

Name: ____________________________      Association name: _____________________

Position at the association (director, property manager, etc.) _____________________

Email address: ______________________     Telephone number: __________________

Florida Supreme Court Issues Ruling Regarding Property Managers

Posted on by Gerstin

Charged with administering Florida’s laws regarding the Unauthorized Practice of Law, the Florida Supreme Court recently issued an opinion stating the following tasks must be performed by an attorney:

• draft a claim of lien and satisfaction of claim of lien;

• prepare a notice of commencement;

• determine the timing, method and form of giving notices of meetings;

• determine the votes necessary for certain actions by community associations;

• address questions asking for the application of a statute or rule;

• advise community associations whether a course of action is authorized by statute or rule;

• prepare a certificate of assessments due once a delinquent account is turned over to the association’s lawyer;

• prepare a certificate of assessments due once a foreclosure against the unit has commenced;

• prepare a certificate of assessments due once a member disputes in writing the amount owed;

• draft amendments (and certificates of amendment that are recorded in the official records) to declaration of covenants, bylaws and articles of incorporation when members have to vote on these documents;

• determine the number of days to be provided for statutory notice;

• modify limited-proxy forms promulgated by the state;

• prepare documents concerning the right of the association to approve new prospective owners;

• determine affirmative votes needed to pass a proposition or amendment to recorded documents;

• determine the number of owners’ votes needed to establish a quorum;

• draft pre-arbitration demand letters;

• prepare construction lien documents;

• prepare, review, draft and have substantial involvement in the preparation and execution of contracts, including construction, management and cable television contracts;

• identify, through the review of title instruments, the owners to receive pre-lien letters; and

• oversee any activity that requires statutory or case law analysis to reach a legal conclusion.

Full opinion available here sc13-889 .

 

 

New Florida Supreme Court Ruling Should Alert Businesses to Review Their Contracts, Now

Posted on by Gerstin

Although businesses should review their standard “form” contracts annually with their attorney, many do not.  Most often changes to year’s old contracts occur after a deal has gone bad or an expensive lawsuit has been lost. Hidden “time bombs” await businesses in the form of “the law has changed since we first used this contract” or ” this provision has not been enforced by a court in years”.  However, every so often news of a court case, ruling or new statute froths to the top and successful businesses take the necessary steps to adapt their businesses and their contracts accordingly. The recent Florida Supreme Court decision in  Tiara Condominium Assoc. v. Marsh & McClennan Companies, Inc. (SC10-1022) should be one of those instances.

In the Tiara Condominium case, the Florida Supreme Court severely limited the “Economic Loss Rule”. This means business that may not have been able to sue for breach of contract, because the actual contract said they could not (clauses limiting certain damages or liability, etc.) have a second chance.  Lawsuits seeking damages for tort claims like negligence can now be filed even though a claim for breach of contract, on the same set of facts, is not available.

To businesses that update their contracts regularly, the court’s decision restricting the confusing and often sloppily applied Economic Loss Rule will be welcome. These businesses will have their attorneys review their contracts for the best way to adapt to the court’s ruling.  Most likely contract provisions regarding liability and damage limitations, indemnity, insurance and dispute resolution will be modified. Unfortunately, for many businesses the effect of the court’s decision will only be known at a later, much more expensive, date.

 

Emails Confer Long Arm Jurisdiction for Litigation

Posted on by Gerstin

Regardless of whether the sender intended to target Florida residents, an email sent to a group, some of whose members are residents of Florida, confers long arm jurisdiction under Fla. Stat. § 48.193 (1)(b). In turn, a Florida resident can file a lawsuit against the sender of the e-mail in Florida. Price v. Kronenberger, — So.3d —-, 2009 WL 5150236 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009).

Florida Supreme Court Alters Community Association Declarations, In a Big Way

Posted on by Gerstin

Did Florida’s Supreme Court render laws governing condominium and homeowner association declarations useless and unenforceable?

Florida’s community associations across the state are becoming increasingly concerned the legislature can no longer pass laws that affect Florida’s condominium and homeowner associations after the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Cohn v. Grand.  Florida’s community associations should be concerned and need to take action, but as explained below all hope is far from lost.

The Facts:

1.      The Grand was a condo hotel.

2.      When owner Cohn purchased a unit the Grand the Declaration stated “unit owners would governed by the “the Condominium Act of the State of Florida in effect as of the date of recording this Declaration.”

3.      The Declaration did not include the phrase, “as amended from time to time.”

4.      The dispute specifically arose as to whether the unit owners are afforded voting rights in accordance with the Condominium Act in effect at the time the Declaration was recorded or were said voting rights altered over time by each amendment made to legislation relating to condominium associations and in particular voting.

The Legal Argument:

Unit owners’ contractual rights, defined by the terms of the Florida Condominium Act (“Act”) at a fixed point in time, do not vary when changes to the Act are made because the term “as amended from time to time” was not included in the Declaration.

Florida Law Applied to the Facts and the Legal Argument:

An overriding principle embedded in the Florida Constitution is that “state action” (legislation) that impairs a contract is unconstitutional. In determining whether legislation impairs a contract a three part test is used and the results are weighed and balanced:

1)      To what extent are the contractual rights impaired;

2)      Does the state have a good reason for enacting policy that changes contractual rights; and

3)      Are the means the state will use to achieve this policy reasonable?

The issue in Grand related to owner voting which has long been considered a substantive right. As such, the Court gave greater weight to item # 1 above and less to item # 2.

The Court’s Decision:

The Florida Supreme Court held “The Constitution prohibits the impairment of contracts; and the statute regulating mixed-use condominiums (F.S. 718.404(2)) impaired the Grand’s unit owner’s contractual rights, which are established in the Grand’s declaration.” In other words, the law at the time the Declaration was recorded, not at the present time, was the law that applies to owners’ voting rights in the Grand.

Click here to read the Court’s full opinion

What This Means to Your Association:

The Grand decision should not be read as the end of legislative control over Florida community associations.. Surely, rules relating to enforcement of covenants would not be considered a substantive right that any  legislative changes would be outweighed and nullified. Instead, each such case will be reviewed by the courts on a “case-by-case” basis, if the magic words “as amended from time to time” is not in the Declaration.

What to Do:

Check your community association’s Declaration and determine whether the drafter included the words “as amended from time to time” in relation to statutes that will be used to enforce and interpret the Declaration (Condo. Act or HOA Act.). If not, speak with your community association’s attorney and begin the process of amending your community association’s Declaration.