All too often, we are asked by boards of directors and property managers what steps can be taken to prevent residents from continuing to break rules in their communities. Seldom, however, do we hear community associations that are active and persistent in disciplining their rule breakers. Typically, violations range from disobeying noise ordinances to more problematic ones such as ignoring an association’s prohibition of short-term rentals. Regardless of how big or small—or even how chronic—an infraction may be, it is important that board members do their part in enforcing the rules and regulations of their associations.
Florida community associations are always seeking to implement the most cost-effective options at their disposal to collect unpaid dues and compel unit owners/residents to comply with their rules and restrictions. Condominium associations used to have very few practical remedies at their disposal to address delinquencies and violations. They could file lawsuits or arbitration actions, but the costs of pursuing these cases can be a significant expense, and the imposition of fines requires the use of a fining committee and can be difficult to collect.
As a result of legislative changes to the state’s Condominium Act a number of years ago, associations are now able to suspend the rights of an owner, tenant or guest to use common elements and facilities if the owner of the unit is delinquent more than 90 days in paying a monetary obligation to the association. Condominium associations may also suspend, for a reasonable period of time, the right of an owner and/or resident to use common elements and amenities for the failure to comply with any provisions of the association’s declaration, bylaws or rules. Continue reading
Firm partner Michael L. Hyman authored an article that appeared as a “Board of Contributors” guest column in today’s edition of the Daily Business Review, South Florida’s exclusive business daily and official court newspaper. The article, which is titled “Injunction Against Condo Owner Illustrates Just How Ugly Things Can Get,” focuses on a ruling in Broward Circuit Court last year that granted an injunction to a South Florida condominium association against the owners and residents of a unit in the 55-and-over community. His article reads:
The association alleged that the defendants violated key provisions in the community’s declaration by threatening and disturbing other residents with their aggressive actions. In fact, one unit owner sought a restraining order against Juan Gonzalez, whose conduct ultimately resulted in his arrest for domestic violence and resisting an officer. The association alleged that this sort of conduct had been going on for several years, but it had escalated into more violent and aggressive levels. In addition to seeking injunctive relief against the defendants, it also sought to have the court require them to vacate the dwelling.
The court found that the defendants had threatened and disturbed other unit owners with repeated aggressive behavior and threatening words and actions. It ruled that the “credible evidence also established that the association tried to remedy the defendants’ behavior by speaking to the defendants, having the defendants appear before a committee of unit owners for the development of harmonious relations, calling the police on multiple occasions and having legal counsel send letters of violation demanding that the threatening and aggressive behavior stop, all to no avail.”
The ruling states that the association called a meeting of its grievance committee, during which Gonzalez acknowledged that he had been banging on the ceiling of his unit, and he suggested that he would not have to serve much time in prison if he killed somebody. It reads: “On numerous occasions continuing until the current time, he would use a stick or other object to bang on his ceiling, claiming that the occupant above his unit was making too much noise, but in reality these noises were common day-to-day noises such as walking through the apartment or taking a shower. On one occasion, he walked upstairs to use a baseball bat to bang on the occupant’s door, frightening her deeply that the defendant was attempting to break into her unit and resulting in the police being called to the premises. He later approached this same occupant when she was on the common areas, threatening her to her face. On another occasion, the defendant Juan Gonzalez threatened a staff member with a knife, and threatened the property manager that the defendant would run him over with his car.”
The firm’s Nicole R. Kurtz authored an article that appeared as a “Board of Contributors” guest column in today’s edition of the Daily Business Review, South Florida’s exclusive business daily and official court newspaper. The article, which was titled “Short-Term Rentals Not a Violation of Rules Against Business, Non-Residential Uses,” focuses on the ramifications of a recent ruling by the First District Court of Appeal that found short-term rentals do not constitute a violation of association rules prohibiting business uses of residences. Her article reads:
In the case of Santa Monica Beach Property Owners Association v. David Acord, the association appealed a lower court’s order dismissing its action against the homeowners who rented their homes on a short-term basis. The association’s argument in both the lower court and the appellate court was that such short-term rentals constituted a violation of the community’s occupancy restrictions, which required that the homes be used for residential, non-business uses. Specifically, the association’s argument hinged on the community’s occupancy restrictions, which provided that the plots “shall be used only for residential purposes … nor shall any building on said land be used as a hospital, tenement house, sanitarium, charitable institution, or for business or manufacturing purposes nor as a dance hall or other place of public assemblage.”
The association’s complaint for declaratory judgment alleged that the Acords’ two homes in the beachfront community were being used for a “business purpose” not permitted by the association’s occupancy restrictions, as the owners offered the homes for rent on the home-sharing site VRBO.com, received income for renting the properties on a short-term basis, were required to collect and remit state and local sales and bed taxes, and had obtained a license to operate their properties as transient public lodging establishments under the name “Acord Rental.”
The Acords responded by contending that the association’s complaint failed to state a cause of action, and that the short-term rental use of the homes did not violate the restrictive covenants. They argued that because the short-term tenants were using the homes for residential purposes, regardless of the fact that they were paying for their stays, the homes were being used in accordance with the community’s occupancy restrictions.
The trial court agreed with the Acords and dismissed the association’s complaint. It reasoned that the proper focus in making a determination as to whether the short-term rental of the homes was in violation of the association’s occupancy restrictions was to determine the actual use undertaken at the properties. The trial court found that the nature of the homes’ use was not transformed from residential to business simply because the owners were subject to regulations that required licensure and they earned rental income. The court also noted that because the restrictive covenants were silent on the issue of short-term rentals, and failed to provide for a minimum lease term, any ambiguity as to whether short-term use was permitted must be resolved in favor of the homeowners’ free and unencumbered use of their properties.
Firm partner Roberto C. Blanch authored a “My View” guest column that appeared in today’s edition of “Business Monday” in the Miami Herald. The article, which was titled “Condos’ Task: Addressing Airbnb Short-Term Rentals,” focuses on how local municipalities and community associations are responding to the issues that are being created by short-term rentals using Airbnb and its competitors. Roberto’s article reads:
The issues created by short-term rentals facilitated by Airbnb and its competitors have been among the most pressing problem areas for condominium and homeowners associations during the past several years. While most community association governing documents prohibit short-term rentals, the enforcement of these restrictions has proved to be challenging and costly, and as a result, many association boards of directors and property managers are implementing strategic countermeasures and monitoring tactics.
South Florida has been particularly affected, given the area’s standing as a major international tourist destination, and the Miami market has ranked among the top five home-sharing markets in the U.S., according to Airbnb.
A number of South Florida municipalities have adopted new measures to enforce restrictions on these nontraditional rentals. In particular, the City of Miami Beach has been leading the charge with some of the most stringent regulations and fines in the country.
Miami Beach ordinances allow for vacation and short-term rentals (less than six months and one day) in certain zoning districts, but they are banned in all single-family homes and in a number of zoning districts. Fines for violators previously ranged from $500 to $7,500, but they were increased dramatically in March 2016 by the city commission to $20,000 for first-time violators.
At the start of summer, associations should evaluate their pool rules and procedures in addition to conducting all of the necessary inspections of their pools, spas and related equipment.
With the help of qualified professionals, the inspections should include all pools and pool equipment as well as the surrounding amenities, including gates, fences, signs, locker rooms, etc.
Association pool rules should focus on health and safety, and should avoid focusing on classes of protected persons, particularly families with children. Making the activities of children the focus of prohibitory rules can substantially increase the potential that an association will receive a complaint alleging discriminatory conduct under federal, state and local fair housing laws. Even prohibiting something as seemingly innocuous as “pool toys” could be deemed discriminatory, if directed specifically at children, rather than at all persons.
Likewise, unless your community avails itself of the Housing for Older Persons exemption to the anti-discrimination provisions of the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, designating “adults only” pools or use times may give rise to FHA violations. Furthermore, some courts have found that not permitting children access to pools and other amenities unless accompanied by parents could also give rise to FHA violations.
- No running.
- No glass containers.
- No diving in shallow areas.
- No pushing, horseplay, roughhousing, or dunking.
- No smoking and/or tobacco products in the pool area.
Firm partner Gary M. Mars authored an article that appeared as a “Board of Contributors” guest column in today’s edition of the Daily Business Review, South Florida’s exclusive business daily and official court newspaper. The article, which is titled “Airbnb Gone Wild? Ruling Clarifies Rules on Short-Term Condo Rentals,” focuses on a recent decision by the Second District Court of Appeal that found that the fairly standard language present in the declarations of condominium and accompanying rules and regulations for many properties does not grant unit owners with the unrestricted right to lease their residences. Gary’s article reads:
The ruling came from the Florida Second District Court of Appeal in the case of Le Scampi Condominium Association v. Hall. Le Scampi had petitioned the lower court for injunctive relief against the unit owners to prevent them from leasing their residence for less than one month without prior approval by the association in violation of its rules.
The Halls did not dispute to the trial court that they had rented their unit for periods of less than one month without prior approval, which constituted violations of the association’s rules. Their defense was based on arguments that those rules were unenforceable because they conflicted with their right to lease their unit under the community’s controlling documents.
The lower court issued a final summary judgment in favor of the Halls based on its finding that the conflict indeed existed and the language in the original declarations of condominium for the property supersedes any lease restrictions in the rules and regulations.
The appellate panel found that the trial court’s interpretation of the declaration was inconsistent with its plain language. It ruled that the section in question does not provide that the right to sell, lease or transfer a condominium unit is unrestricted with the exception of a notice requirement. Instead, the declaration merely imposes a prior-notice requirement and specifies the contents of the notice, but it does not otherwise address a unit owner’s right to sell, lease or transfer their unit to persons other than family members.
One of the most common problem areas for condominium associations and their property management is parking. Spaces are at a premium in most communities, and issues arise when unit owners and tenants fail to park in their designated spots. Associations and their property managers must be well prepared in order to effectively contend with parking violations.
Most condominium bylaws allow for the adoption of reasonable rules and regulations governing the use of the common elements, which typically include parking areas and spaces. Boards and management should determine whether the bylaws and/or rules are already adequately addressing parking in the community or if amendments to the governing documents and/or rules may be needed.
Some of the most typical issues addressed by parking rules are designated parking areas and spots for owners, guests and vendors, and spaces for commercial vehicles, boats on trailers, recreational vehicles, personal watercraft, campers, motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles. Some communities have restrictions on the number of vehicles that a unit owner is allowed to park onsite, and some have time limits for the parking of vehicles in certain areas.
Bear in mind that all parking rules and restrictions must comply with the Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines developed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) with respect to designating handicap parking.
Once clear rules and restrictions are in place, condominium boards should develop effective enforcement measures, which will typically include warnings, fines (typically using a graduated scale that increases commensurately with each violation, but consistent with statutory constraints), and towing. The bylaws or rules pertaining to towing should allow for the association to assess the costs to the corresponding unit owner, and towing notices and requirements must strictly comply with Florida law.
With the approval of Amendment 2 last November to legalize the use of medical marijuana in Florida, the state legislature and Department of Health are now developing the rules and regulations that will govern the use of cannabis by those who suffer from a number of ailments listed in the new constitutional amendment. Likewise, now is also the time for associations to begin discussing and considering the implementation of their own rules and restrictions regarding the use of the drug by unit owners in their communities.
For most communities, the question of whether the use of medical marijuana should be allowed in the common areas will likely cause the most unease. Other concerns include the use of cannabis inside of the residences, especially in condominiums where the odor could permeate into the common elements or other residences, and some properties may wish to ban the drug from the community in its entirety.
It remains unclear whether the state’s lawmakers will attempt to ban the smoking of medical marijuana. If smoking marijuana is allowed under the laws that will be adopted in order to comply with the amendment, community associations will need to address whether they must make exceptions to their rules in order to allow residents with a doctor’s prescription to smoke medical marijuana.
The growing use of drones by consumers across the U.S. is leading to the adoption of new rules and restrictions by the federal government, state governments and community associations. Questions regarding safety, property damage and privacy abound with drones, and associations are responding by establishing clear parameters for their use by unit owners.
Last year, the Federal Aviation Administration enacted new regulations for the use of unmanned aircraft systems, which are more commonly referred to as drones. For recreational users, the FAA now requires that drones must be properly registered and labeled with the registration number. They must only be flown below 400 feet and always within sight of the operator, and they are banned from use near other aircraft and airports as well as over groups of people, stadiums, sporting events, or emergency response efforts.
Privacy concerns over the use of drones with cameras were addressed by a new Florida law that was enacted last year. The law stipulates that drones with cameras may not be used to record images of privately owned properties or of the owners, tenants or occupants of properties in violation of their reasonable expectations of privacy without their written consent. Reasonable expectations of privacy are presumed if individuals are not observable by others located at ground level in a place where they have a legal right to be, regardless of whether they are observable from the air with the use of a drone.