Many community association boards and property managers are still unfamiliar with Florida Statute 83.561 enacted this summer, offering limited protections to tenants in foreclosed homes.

During the 2008 – 2014 foreclosure crisis, a federal law was passed, The Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act, which assisted bona fide tenants by providing them the opportunity to stay in the property after the completion of the foreclosure. The Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure act expired in December 2014 to be replaced by Florida Statute 83.561.

Similar to the federal act, Florida Statute 83.561 only applies to tenants who are renting under a valid arm’s length transaction rental agreement for a rate that is not significantly below market value, and where the tenant is not the mortgagor in the subject foreclosure or the child, spouse or parent of the mortgagor in the foreclosure.

Unlike the expired federal act, Florida Statute 83.561 requires a new owner, including an association, wishing to terminate the tenancy after acquiring a property via foreclosure, to provide the tenant with a 30-day written notice of termination, which should be in substantially the following form:

NOTICE TO TENANT OF TERMINATION

You are hereby notified that your rental agreement is terminated on the date of delivery of this notice, that your occupancy is terminated 30 days following the date of the delivery of this notice, and that I demand possession of the premises on …(date)…. If you do not vacate the premises by that date, I will ask the court for an order allowing me to remove you and your belongings from the premises. You are obligated to pay rent during the 30-day period for any amount that might accrue during that period. Your rent must be delivered to . . . (landlord’s name and address).

If the tenant fails to vacate the property after the 30-day period expires, the new owner may apply to the court for a writ of possession based upon a sworn affidavit that the 30-day notice of termination was delivered to the tenant and the tenant has failed to vacate the residence after the 30-day period has expired. If the court awards a writ of possession, the writ must be served on the tenant.

Unlike the federal act, Florida Statute 83.561 does not require for the new owner to intend to occupy the residence in order to terminate the tenancy, nor does it seek for the tenant to complete the terms of the rental agreement. Rather, the new law assist tenants in foreclosed homes by providing a 30-day window to seek alternate living arrangements, while ensuring compliance by the new owner of the tenant’s rights as afforded under Florida law.

Community associations that acquire title to a unit via foreclosure and wish to terminate a tenancy should consult with qualified legal counsel in order to ensure compliance with the requirements under Florida Statute 83.561.

Questions regarding compliance with the federal Fair Debt Collections Practices Act for the collection of community association assessments by property management companies have been a source of confusion in the industry for decades. Since the ruling in Harris v. Liberty Community Management, Inc., property management companies that fall within the exemption found in §1692a(6)(F)(i) of the FDCPA are not subject to the restrictions imposed by the Act.

The Act provides an exemption for persons or entities “collecting or attempting to collect any debt owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another to the extent such activity is incidental to a bona fide fiduciary obligation.” Liberty Community Management, as the property management company for Little Suwanee Point Community, was hired to provide management services for the association, which included the right to contract for the regular maintenance, repair and operation of common areas and facilities of the association, contract for utility services, purchase insurance policies, and negotiate the collection of assessments from delinquent homeowners.

Liberty, as the association’s agent pursuant to the management agreement, was also authorized to request, demand, collect, receive and invoice for all charges and assessments due to the association. Homeowners residing at Little Suwanee Point Community brought an action against Liberty claiming it was a debt collector which had engaged in unfair business practices when it sent late letters to homeowners who were delinquent in the payment of assessments.

After reviewing the facts presented and the exemptions set forth in the Act, the Eleventh Circuit held that Liberty was exempt from the requirements of the Act since the collection of past due assessments was incidental to its obligations to the association. Had the collection of assessments been central to Liberty’s fiduciary obligations to the association, it would be considered a debt collector as defined by the Act, subject to the requirements imposed therein.

Whether a property management company meets the requirements of the exemption is a question of fact for each individual case. If the collection of assessments is central to an association’s contract with its property management company, the company’s actions to collect the debt will fall within the meaning of term “debt collector” as defined by the Act, making it subject to the requirements imposed therein.

Our attorneys write about important legal and business matters for community associations in this blog on a regular basis, and we encourage association directors, members and managers to submit their email address in the subscription box at the top right of the blog in order to automatically receive all of our future articles.

In her blog entry below that was posted on Sept. 10, Laura Manning-Hudson wrote about the disturbing trend of increased cases of fraud, theft and embezzlement at Florida community associations that she and many other association attorneys have been seeing. The damage that can be inflicted on associations by unscrupulous managers, employees and board members is indeed very severe, and this article will focus on the types of schemes that appear to be most prevalent and some of the best practices for associations to employ in order to help to avoid becoming a victim.

One of the most elementary strategies that are used by fraudsters is the pilfering of cash received from owners for their monthly assessments, which can be easily concealed by destroying copies of the receipts. The more elaborate schemes often entail under-the-table payments, bribes or kickbacks involving vendors that are actually co-conspirators. This could take the form of overpayments to the vendors that are then returned directly to the employee or board member instead of to the association. Other times it may involve a simple kickback from the vendor as an ongoing reward for their inflated contract.

The association’s checking account tends to be the primary vehicle for the theft and embezzlement of funds. Forged signatures and counterfeit checks may be used, and some fraudsters create fictitious vendors and issue payments directly to themselves using a bogus company name. Association credit cards have also been used in a similar fashion.

Election fraud aimed at taking a majority voting control of an association’s board in order to gain control of its purse strings is also one of the ploys that is being used with considerable success. By tampering with the ballots, stuffing the ballot box with forged and counterfeit ballots, and destroying legitimate ballots, fraudsters have been able to gain control of association boards in order to hatch and execute elaborate schemes to filch thousands of dollars from their associations each month.

Some of the best practices associations may implement to avoid being victimized include employing a high level of vigilance for all assessment payments, including verifying that the account number on the back of all of the returned checks matches the association’s account.

It is also important to ensure the independence of your association’s accounting firm by having it be selected by a vote of the board as opposed to the property manager. These accounting firms are called on to complete comprehensive annual audits, including a thorough review of the files for every member and vendor, as opposed to relying solely on reports.

Associations should also consider requiring two board members to sign all association checks. It is never recommended that associations allow property managers or other non-directors to sign association checks.

A designated board member should also conduct monthly reviews of the bookkeeping with the property manager, and this should include any credit card statements. Bank statements should also be required to be sent to the designated board member as well as the manager. The monthly review of these statements should include a careful review of all the checks that were issued and the signatures for each.

It is also wise to rotate the board membership on a regular basis and avoid having the same individuals in charge of the board or finances for considerable lengths of time.

For any payments received in cash, it is best to use a three-part cash receipt book so that copies of the receipts go to the payer, one for the bank deposit records and one for the bookkeeper.

By using these and other precautionary measures, community associations can make it as difficult as possible for managers, employees and board members to deploy schemes aimed at defrauding associations.

RobertoBlanch2013.jpgFirm partner Roberto C. Blanch was quoted in the main cover story of this week’s edition of the South Florida Business Journal, the region’s exclusive business weekly. The article, which is titled “Listings on Airbnb, Similar Sites Often Violate Rental Rules at South Florida Communities,” focuses on the difficulties that some local condominiums are having with short-term rentals that are stemming from listings on Airbnb and its rival websites.

The article reads:

“It becomes a tough pill to swallow for board members and unit owners who see units advertised for short-term rentals when the rules don’t allow for short-term rentals,” said Roberto Blanch, who specializes in community association law at Coral Gables-based Siegfried, Rivera, Hyman, Lerner, De La Torre, Mars & Sobel. “You have associations that don’t have the means by which to screen these people, who for all you know could be coming in to raise hell on a long weekend.”

. . . One of Blanch’s clients recently asked him if the owner of a short-term rental website could be brought into a claim “to the extent it knowingly or willingly participated in a violation of the association contract,” he said.

But Blanch noted that would be “probably a bit of an aggressive approach, but it is a problem real enough that it merits looking into these questions.”

Our firm congratulates Roberto for sharing his insights into this important new issue for condominium associations with the journalists at the South Florida Business Journal and the publication’s readers. Click here to read the complete article in the publication’s website (subscription required).

sfbj.jpg

MichaelHyman.jpgFor the second consecutive day, an article about important issues for community associations written by one of our firm’s attorneys appeared today in the Daily Business Review, South Florida’s only business daily and official court newspaper. The article by Michael L. Hyman focuses on a recent foreclosure case in which a condominium association was ultimately done in by its own initial pleadings stating that it was only entitled to a capped amount. His article reads:

In the case of Bank of America v. The Enclave at Richmond Place Condominium Association, Bank of America appealed the trial court’s decision that it was not entitled to the statutory “safe harbor” liability caps for past-due association assessments for foreclosing lenders. The Second District Court of Appeal reversed the lower court’s ruling, and it based its decision on the association’s own initial responses and pleadings from the onset of the foreclosure proceedings.

The appellate panel found that in its answer to BoA’s initial foreclosure filing, the association affirmatively pleaded:

“The mortgage which is being foreclosed is a first purchase money mortgage which was recorded after April 1, 1992. Pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 718.116, the plaintiff’s lien is superior to any title and interest to any condominium assessments, except for those unpaid dues, which are not to exceed six months’ unpaid assessments or one percent of the original principal balance of the mortgage, whichever is less.”

After BoA acquired the property, the association claimed it was entitled to more than $36,000 in unpaid assessments, interest and various fees. BoA responded by filing a motion to enforce the final judgment, contending that it was liable for only $1,421, which represented 1 percent of the original mortgage debt, the lesser of the two amounts.

The trial court found that it had continuing jurisdiction and could therefore address BoA’s motion, and it ruled that BoA was not entitled to the benefit of the safe harbor provision.

Michael’s article concludes:

In its appeal, BoA argued that the association is estopped from taking a position contrary to that which it affirmatively took in the underlying foreclosure proceeding. The appellate panel agreed, noting in its opinion:

“We conclude that the Association’s affirmative plea of entitlement to only the lesser of six months’ unpaid assessments or one percent of the mortgage debt was a waiver of any claim to a greater assessment figure.”

The takeaway for community associations and their attorneys from this ruling is very clear and extremely important. Rather than being so specific and referencing its own governing documents in the initial pleadings, associations and their legal counsel should use the initial pleading in response to a lender’s foreclosure filing simply to state that it would be entitled to the safe harbor amounts should those caps be deemed to apply.

In addition, if during the course of the proceedings the association and its attorneys determine that they plan to call into question the applicability of the safe harbor liability caps or the provisions of the governing documents, the association must withdraw or amend its related pleadings and affirmative responses prior to the final judgment and the issuance of an estoppel stating the amount that it seeks to collect.

Our firm congratulates Michael for sharing his insights into this important new appellate ruling for Florida community associations with the readers of the Daily Business Review. Click here to read the complete article in the newspaper’s website (registration required).

dbrlogo.jpg

JordanWeinkle.jpg JeffreyBerlowitz.jpg The firm’s Jeffrey S. Berlowitz and Jordan G. Weinkle wrote an article that appeared in today’s edition of the Daily Business Review, South Florida’s only business daily and official court newspaper, about how bankruptcy and community association attorneys must work together in order to assess the strength of an association’s construction defect claim against a debtor company that files for an asset liquidation under the state’s Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors statute. Their article reads:

Unlike federal bankruptcy proceedings, with an Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors (ABC), the assignor, or debtor, company that elects to liquidate its assets in order to repay its creditors is able to do so in a more debtor-friendly state court proceeding in which they are able to select and appoint the assignee, who then serves in the role in which trustees serve in bankruptcy cases to oversee the liquidation of the assignor’s assets in order to pay secured creditors and unsecured creditors.

The ABC liquidation process typically takes the form of a private sale or auction in which creditors and parties of interest are notified of the sale and have the opportunity to present higher and better offers for the assets. Ultimately, the sale of the assignor’s assets must be approved by the state court.

While there is no “automatic stay” on pending litigation imposed upon the filing of an ABC, unlike a bankruptcy stay which is immediately in effect upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition, creditors of the assignor are essentially stayed from continuing their pursuit of claims because the comprehensive liquidation of the debtor’s assets makes it virtually impossible to collect on a judgment.

The most notable benefit of an ABC to the assignor company is the opportunity that the assignor’s principals have to buy back their assets under a newly formed entity, should that newly formed entity offer the highest and best bid for the assets.

With ABCs, the assignors can and often do negotiate the buy-back of their business assets via the liquidation or auction process through a separate entity, enabling them to stay in business with little interruption or disruptions whatsoever while diminishing their debts to pennies on the dollar.

Their article concludes:

As a result, we are now starting to see cases in which condominium associations and homeowner associations that either have pending construction defect litigation or have filed a notice of claim against developers, general contractors, subcontractors or other firms are being notified that their payouts will be determined via ABC actions in state court.

The ability to assess the strength of an association’s construction defect claim against a debtor company filing an ABC requires a unique blend of bankruptcy law and community association law knowledge.

The analysis of the association’s construction defect claim against the debtor would not only take into account the merit and magnitude of the underlying claim itself but also the strength of the claim as it relates to the ABC.

The association counsel, together with experienced bankruptcy counsel, should review the number of secured and unsecured creditors of the debtor, its assets and liabilities, the priority that the association’s claim would take compared to the other claims, the amount that the association might recover through the post-liquidation payouts to creditors, and the practical nuances of an ABC in general.

Depending on how far along in the defect litigation the association may be when the ABC is filed, it is also important to consider whether the assignee will have adequate documentation regarding the association’s claim in order to effectively determine how much of the claim, if any, will be allowed.

They will typically consider all of the engineering reports and evidence of the defects, but they will also take into account the practical considerations of the total sum that the sale of the assets will generate and the sums that are due to other creditors.

An association may seek to resolve its claim with the assignee who has been engaged to liquidate the assets and make distributions on allowed creditor claims by reaching a settlement with them for an allowed unsecured claim in the ABC, staving off unnecessary attorney fees to prove the construction defect claim.

Our firm congratulates Jeffrey and Jordan for sharing their insights into this matter for community associations that file construction defect claims against defendants that resort to using the state’s Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors statute. Click here to read their complete article in the newspaper’s website (registration required).

dbrlogo.jpg

If it seems as if there have been more and more stories in the news recently about condominium association’s funds being stolen or misappropriated by either board members or property managers, it’s because it’s true. Many of the reports have been coming from Bob Norman of Local 10 News (WPLG), the ABC affiliate for Miami-Dade, Broward and the Keys.

Norman’s latest story aired on Aug. 28, and it can be watched below. The story discusses the arrest of the former property manager of The Waterway condominium in Hollywood, Fla., for the alleged embezzlement of $228,000 from the association.

The information uncovered by Norman for this report is similar to that of many other cases that he and other Florida journalists have chronicled over the last several years which appear to be a disturbing trend in condominium and homeowner associations. Board members should pay close attention to the business of the association in order to avoid becoming the next victim of an unscrupulous manager or director. As we have discussed in the past, a board member’s responsibility is not limited to simply showing up at meetings to vote. Recall that board members are charged with a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interests of the entire association and all of its members. This means being vigilant about the business of the association.

The association in this case broke one of the cardinal rules of association management by allowing the property manager to sign checks on its behalf. Board members should be the only individuals allowed to sign checks, and I typically recommend that at least two board member signatures be required. Looking at the supporting documentation, backup and invoices for those checks is also important.

In addition, associations should be diligent when hiring new managers including performing background checks and checking references. While individuals who have been convicted of a felony (whose residency rights have not been restored) cannot serve as directors, some associations even go so far as to run background searches on candidates or seated board members.

Associations should also request duplicate statements from their banks, and the statements should be sent to someone other than the person who is handling the bookkeeping. In addition, association accounts should be independently and professionally audited at least once per year.

By taking these and other precautions, associations can help to avoid becoming the victim of fraud, theft and embezzlement.

LauraManningHudson.jpgFirm partner Laura M. Manning-Hudson wrote an article that appeared in today’s edition of the Daily Business Review, South Florida’s only business daily and official court newspaper, about the recent spate of decisions by the Second, Fourth and Fifth District Courts of Appeal with regard to whether the court in a mortgage foreclosure action retains jurisdiction to determine the amount of unpaid condominium and homeowners association assessments that a foreclosing lender must pay. Her article reads:

In July, the Fifth District Court of Appeal issued an opinion in Central Park A Metrowest Condominium Assoc., Inc. v. Amtrust REO I finding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to decide a post-judgment issue – namely the amount of assessments owed by the foreclosing lender for the prior owner’s past-due condominium assessments. The lender’s complaint had averred that the condominium association “may claim some interest in or lien upon the subject property by virtue of [a] Claim of Lien.” The association answered the complaint and asserted a counterclaim for unpaid assessments. The appellate court, however, found that despite litigating the issue of past-due assessments in a counterclaim, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to determine the issue post-judgment where the final judgment merely provided that “[j]urisdiction of this action is retained to enter further orders as are proper including, without limitation, a deficiency judgment.”

For the Fifth DCA, the issue was not whether the assessments had been litigated in the underlying action, but whether the court had specifically retained jurisdiction in its final judgment to determine their amount.

However, in the two most recent opinions issued by the Second and Fourth District Courts of Appeal, the standards vary. But, there’s a lesson here.

In Citation Way Condominium Association v. Wells Fargo Bank and Leslie Linder, the Fourth DCA found that the lower court had retained jurisdiction to determine the post-judgment issue of past-due condominium assessments where “[t]he issue of unpaid assessments was raised in the underlying foreclosure action and the third-party purchaser, Fannie Mae, had a direct relationship with the plaintiff, Wells Fargo.”

Wells Fargo, as the servicing agent for Fannie Mae, had alleged in its complaint that “its lien was superior to any other claims against title and interest except for unpaid condominium assessments as provided in section 718.116, Florida Statutes.” Unfortunately, the opinion does not reference the language in the final judgment, but apparently it was sufficient basis for the appellate court to decide that the issue had been raised in the underlying action and therefore the lower court could retain jurisdiction.

However, in Grand Central at Kennedy Condominium Association v. Space Coast Credit Union, the Second DCA, citing the Central Park opinion, agreed with the association, concluding: “The trial court lacked jurisdiction because entitlement to assessments was neither litigated nor adjudicated and the trial court did not specifically reserve jurisdiction to determine the amount of assessments due pursuant to section 718.116(1)(b).” The underlying final judgment did not address the condominium’s assessments but merely “contained only a general reservation of jurisdiction.” Apparently, condominium assessments (pre- or post-judgment) were never considered in this case.

Laura’s article concludes:

As shown by these three rulings, the standard in each of the Second, Fourth and Fifth Districts varies as it pertains to post-judgment jurisdiction. While for some courts the issue depends on whether the assessments were litigated at the trial level (albeit, the extent of that litigation was not exemplified), for each of the courts the specific reservation of jurisdiction was key. In fact, the message could not be any clearer than it is in a footnote in the Second DCA’s opinion:

“This appears to be a prevalent issue in mortgage foreclosure actions to which homeowner or condominium associations are parties. In such cases, we would encourage the circuit courts to consider including in their final judgments specific language concerning the reservation of jurisdiction to address the issues of entitlement to and the amount of any unpaid assessments.”

Because attorneys typically submit proposed final judgments to the trial courts for consideration, these three opinions should serve as an instruction to practitioners to include specific language in their final judgments reserving jurisdiction to address the issue of unpaid assessments. Additionally, in order to ensure that the issue is “litigated” in the underlying case, association counsel should be similarly instructed to raise the issue of assessments (pre- and post-judgment) in their affirmative defenses to lender foreclosure cases.

For both the lenders and associations involved in foreclosure cases, it is almost always preferable that assessments be determined by the trial court as part of the foreclosure proceedings rather than via a separate action, thus saving the client both legal and court costs.

Our firm congratulates Laura for sharing her insight into these important new appellate decisions with the readers of the Daily Business Review.

dbrlogo.jpg

Insurance coverage and claims are often among the most confusing and troublesome matters that developers and community associations must address, and large claims involving serious property damage from any type of disaster will typically require the guidance and expertise of attorneys and public adjusters.

Florida law stipulates that associations must maintain insurance for all portions of the property as originally installed or renovated. However, the statutes exclude certain portions of the units from the insurance coverage which an association must carry, and they do not provide that associations’ insurance coverage must extend to the personal property of individual residents. As such, unit owners are responsible for maintaining their own insurance to cover damages to the floors, walls, ceilings, electrical fixtures, appliances, cabinets, counters and window treatments in their units.

In the event of a loss that will require the filing of an insurance claim, your first responsibility is to mitigate the damages and do everything in your power to stop it from getting worse. Leaks should be plugged and blown out windows should be boarded, but by no means should an association make any permanent repairs prior to an insurance claim being properly filed. Insurance policies will typically require that the carrier have the opportunity to have its representatives investigate the loss prior to any permanent repairs by the policyholder, as repairs made prior to the investigation may interfere with such right.

The claims process will typically begin with the filing of a formal incident report to the insurance carrier. Since these reports are often filed immediately following the loss, it is important that they be updated and corrected with new information on the extent of the loss as it becomes available during the claims process. Should a dispute arise, the carrier may point to a lack of notice of the extent of the damages, so it is vital for the report to be kept as accurate and up-to-date as possible. Additionally, association counsel and a qualified adjuster should assist associations in the filing of this report.

In addition to having the insurance carrier’s adjuster inspect the damage, it is usually also wise for the property to have its own independent expert conduct a thorough inspection. water.jpg This is especially true if there are any questions as to the cause and origin of the damage. Insurance carriers may not provide all of the information to their insureds from the reports that they receive from their own claims investigators, so it is typically very helpful for the property to have its own detailed analysis of the nature and extent of the loss.

The next phase typically involves the hiring of a mitigation contractor to conduct the necessary repairs. It is imperative for properties to use reputable contractors that are properly licensed and insured. Also, in order to help avoid any potential problems with the contractors after their work has commenced, it is advisable to have the property’s attorney review the contract prior to finalizing it.

Some of these contracts call for an assignment of benefits to enable the contractor to speak on behalf of the property to the carrier and receive the payments directly from the insurer. This may not be in the best interests of the insured. Bear in mind that the insurance company is not tasked with policing the quality of the repairs, so it is incumbent on the association to have its own experts conduct ongoing inspections to certify the work.

There are many aspects of the claims process that typically require the guidance of qualified professionals for associations and developers. Insurance carriers may require recorded statements, proof of loss statements, and examinations under oath to evaluate the claim and determine whether the extent of the loss is being exaggerated by the insured.

In addition, in determining the amount of coverage that will be provided for the claim, insurers may use different figures based on the replacement cost value, actual cash value and actual cost of construction. Experienced insurance attorneys and independent adjusters can help associations to force the carriers to properly categorize the costs for the necessary repairs and maximize the recovery.

LauraManningHudson.jpgFirm partner Laura M. Manning-Hudson wrote an article that appeared in today’s edition of the Daily Business Review, South Florida’s only business daily and official court newspaper, about the recent decision by the Fifth District Court of Appeal in the case of Central Park A Metrowest Condominium Association v. Amtrust REO I. Her article reads:

As part of the condominium association’s apparent strategy to aggressively pursue its collections for the previous owners’ debts, the association issued an estoppel to Amtrust REO demanding the full amount of past-due assessments totaling more than $30,000.

In turn, Amtrust REO responded by demanding that the association apply the safe-harbor liability limits set forth in the state Condominium Act, and it also filed a motion to determine amounts due in the foreclosure action seeking to have the same judge who had entered the final judgment determine the amount that it now owed to the association. The foreclosure court considered the motion and ruled that the agent was entitled to the statutory safe-harbor limits, and the association appealed.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal agreed with the association’s position that the trial court’s order must be reversed because it lacked jurisdiction to decide a post-judgment issue that was not a part of the lender’s foreclosure case, to wit the amount which the agent owed to the condominium association for past due assessments.

Laura’s article concludes:

However, while the association won on the technical issue regarding the post judgment jurisdiction of the trial court, it apparently lost the argument that an agent or servicer of a first mortgagee is not entitled to the safe-harbor protections afforded under the Condominium Act. Section 718.116(1)(b), F.S., provides that the liability of a first mortgagee “or its successor or assignees” which acquire title to a unit by foreclosure is limited to the lesser of 12 months of assessments or 1 percent of the original mortgage debt.

The Fifth District opinion also concluded: “Although the trial court appears to have correctly interpreted the substantive law at issue, the trial court lacked continuing jurisdiction to issue a ruling on that matter.”

Accordingly, while the trial court’s decision was quashed due to lack of jurisdiction, the opinion appears to have interpreted that an “agent” or “servicer” is the same as a “successor or assignee” and is therefore entitled to safe-harbor protection.

If the association now continues to demand the full amount of past-due assessments owed on the unit, the agent/servicer will be required to file a new action to determine its rights. If that is the case, the servicer could very likely seek — and be awarded — its attorney fees from the association.

Our firm congratulates Laura for sharing her insight on this new appellate decision with the readers of the Daily Business Review. Click here to read her complete article in the newspaper’s website (registration required).

dbrlogo.jpg