Legislation making it easier to remove problematic HOAs stalls in Tallahassee

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — 9 Investigates why legislation that would make it easier for homeowners to remove problematic HOA board members has once again stalled in Tallahassee.

Over the last year and a half, Channel 9 investigative reporter Karla Ray has covered the turmoil inside Kissimmee’s Turnberry Reserve, where after a legal fight, a group of homeowners was able to successfully remove its board. Many thought their efforts would finally bring change at the state level, but we learned this push fails year after year.

READ: Turnberry Reserve whistleblower reflects on year of turmoil, changes

Lawmakers who brought forward this year’s bill aimed at easing the process do not expect it to reach a vote. That’s frustrating to homeowners who have been through the long, drawn-out process of removing an HOA board.

The feeling inside Turnberry Reserve is a lot different than a year ago.

“We’ve been working on the grounds, new vendors. It’s been a full-time job for all of us; there is a lot of work going into restoring the community to where it should be,” Turnberry homeowner and current board vice president Maria Napolitano said.

READ: Former Turnberry Reserve property manager arrested on fraud-related charges

Napolitano is part of a group that led the effort to overhaul the community’s Board of Directors, who had employed Management 35 Firm. That property management company, run by Sherry Raposo and her longtime boyfriend, ex-cop-turned-felon Joseph Conover, was removed last year. The two are facing charges related to Conover’s role as an unlicensed security officer, and Raposo is facing separate charges for alleged fraud involving HOA records.

“We have been able to at least get through most of the homeowner accounts and get those cleared up, and homeowners are happy to know that they have accurate balances on their accounts,” Napolitano said.

READ: Body camera video provides new evidence in case against ex-cop-turned security guard at Kissimmee community

Getting to this point was a struggle. Florida’s process for homeowners to recall a board has long been criticized, with homeowners often bounced around from local courts to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation to force recalls to be recognized.

Still, efforts to change it fail year after year in Tallahassee. In fact, legislation put forward this year by State Rep. Kristen Arrington and State Sen. Victor Torres, both of whom represent parts of Osceola County, is not making any progress. Even if it did, it would only change a small portion of state statute.

READ: Kissimmee property management company owner arrested, charged with fraud, impersonating officer

“It’s frustrating. I can tell you since we started this, we’ve gotten so many phone calls from communities across the state that are in similar situations, and they’re going through the same thing, coming out of pocket, fighting, going in the circle of court to the state, court to the state, with nobody to say, ‘This is our wheelhouse,’” Napolitano said.

First Appellate Court Ruling on CDC Eviction Moratorium Goes Against the Government

A unanimous Sixth Circuit decision upheld a lower court ruling holding that the moratorium is illegal.

| 

Today was a big day for the Centers for Disease Control eviction moratorium! First, the CDC extended the moratorium until June 30 (I wrote about that development here). Then, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued the first appellate court ruling in the litigation over the moratorium’s legality. In Tiger Lilly, LLC v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, upheld a trial court decision holding that the moratorium is illegal. The Sixth Circuit’s reasoning is similar to that of the trial court in this same case, and that of one of the two previous district court decisions against the moratorium. Here is the key part of the opinion:

To slow disease transmission, the HHS Secretary, and the CDC by extension, can impose specific restrictions on both property interests, see 42 U.S.C. § 264(a), and liberty interests, see id. § 264(d). As to the former, the Secretary “may provide for such inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, destruction of animals or articles found to be so infected or contaminated as to be sources of dangerous infection to human beings, and other measures, as in his judgment may be necessary.” Id. § 264(a). The government asserts that a nationwide eviction moratorium is among the “other measures” for disease control that Congress envisioned when drafting the statute.

We disagree. This kind of catchall provision at the end of a list of specific items warrants application of the ejusdem generiscanon, which says that “where general words follow specific words in a statutory enumeration, the general words are construed to embrace only objects similar in nature to those objects enumerated by the preceding specific words.” Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105, 11415 (2001) (citation omitted). The residual phrase in § 264(a) is “controlled and defined by reference to the enumerated categories...before it,” id. at 115, such that the “other measures” envisioned in the statute are measures like “inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination” and so on, 42 U.S.C. § 264(a). Plainly, government intrusion on property to sanitize and dispose of infected matter is different in nature from a moratorium on evictions. See Terkel v. CDC, No. 6:20cv00564, 2021 WL 742877, at *6 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 25, 2021) (holding that the Halt Order exceeded the scope of the CDC’s authority and observing that “eviction is fundamentally the vindication of the property owner’s possessory interest”). The Halt Order thus falls outside the scope of the statute.

Like the two district court rulings, the Sixth Circuit emphasizes that the government’s interpretation of the statute would raise serious constitutional problems, because it would violate constraints on Congress’ ability to delegate power to the executive branch:

As the district court noted, the broad construction of § 264 the government proposes raises…. concerns about the delegation of legislative power to the executive branch. The government would have us construe the phrase “and other measures, as in his judgment may be necessary,” 42 U.S.C. § 264, as a “broad grant of authority” to impose any number of regulatory actions, provided the Secretary believes those actions will help prevent the spread of disease, regardless of whether they are in any way tethered to the “specific intrusions on private property described in the second sentence” of § 264. “In the absence of a clear mandate in the Act, it is unreasonable to assume that Congress intended to give the Secretary the unprecedented power” of that kind. Indus. Union Dep’t, AFLCIO v. API448 U.S. 607, 645 (1980) (plurality opinion). We will not make such an unreasonable assumption.

I have been beating the drum on this nondelegation issue since my very first commentary on the eviction moratorium, back when it was first issued by the Trump administration in September 2020. Many federal judges seem to have the same reservations.

The Sixth Circuit also concludes that the government’s interpretation of the law violates the rule that courts should not interpret federal law to usurp traditional areas of state government authority, unless Congress has clearly indicated its intent to do so:

[E]ven if we were inclined to construe the phrase “other measures” as expansively as the government suggests, we cannot read the Public Health Service Act to grant the CDC the power to insert itself into the landlordtenant relationship without some clear, unequivocal textual evidence of Congress’s intent to do so. Regulation of the landlordtenant relationship is historically the province of the states…. It is an “ordinary rule of statutory construction that if Congress intends to alter the usual constitutional balance between the States and the Federal Government, it must make its intention to do so unmistakably clear in the language of the statute.” Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65 (1989) (quotation marks and citation omitted)… There is no “unmistakably clear” language in the Public Health Service Act indicating Congress’s intent to invade the traditionally Stateoperated arena of landlordtenant relationship.

Technically, today’s ruling is not a final decision on the merits of the case. All it does is reject the federal government’s motion to stay the district court ruling until such time as the appeal process is completed. However, one of the criteria for granting a stay is the appellate court’s assessment of the moving party’s likelihood of prevailing on the merits. For reasons discussed above, the Sixth Circuit panel concluded that the government has little or no chance of prevailing, and that is the reason why it rejected the motion for a stay. Thus, today’s ruling is almost certainly a preview of what the panel will conclude when it does decide on the merits (possibly sometime in the next few weeks).

Like the trial court, the Sixth Circuit decision assesses the legality of Biden’s initial revival of the moratorium first issued by Trump. It does not consider today’s additional extension of the moratorium or the additional justifications offered by the CDC in its extension order. It is possible that the Sixth Circuit will reach a different conclusion when it issues its final decision on the merits, and has a chance to consider the latest version of the order. But for reasons I explained in my post about the extension earlier today, I think it is unlikely that courts will view legal rationale for new extension as any stronger than the old. We may soon see whether I am right about that or not.

In sum, we now have four rulings against the eviction moratorium (including the first appellate court ruling), and two in its favor. I analyzed the the previous decisions herehere, and here.

It is, perhaps worth noting that all three of the judges on the Sixth Circuit panel are Republican appointees, as were all three lower court judges who ruled against the moratorium. One GOP appointee and one Democratic one ruled in favor of the government. Thus, it is still possible that we will ultimately see an ideological split over this issue, despite the fact that the eviction order was first adopted by the Trump administration. For reasons I outlined here and here, liberal Democrats have good reason to be skeptical of the legality of this order, as much as do conservative Republicans. But liberal judges may not see it that way.

Be that as it may, it is at least clear that the case against the moratorium has legs. Multiple federal courts have now ruled against it. And the judges who issued those decisions are not easily dismissed as incompetents or wacky extremists. One of the judges on today’s Sixth Circuit panel is Amul Thapar, a George W. Bush nominee who is a major figure in conservative legal circles, and often considered a potential Supreme Court appointee. The fact that he thinks the moratorium is illegal doesn’t automatically prove that it actually is. But it does show that the arguments against it cannot be easily dismissed.

NOTE: The plaintiffs in some of the lawsuits against the eviction moratorium are represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation, where my wife works. I myself have played a minor (unpaid) role in advising PLF on this litigation.

UPDATE: I have changed the phrase where I said that the Sixth Circuit will “probably” issue a final decision in the next few weeks to “possibly.” The latter better reflects the degree of uncertainty surrounding the timing.

Ilya Somin is Professor of Law at George Mason University, and author of Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom and Democracy and Political Ignorance: Why Smaller Government is Smarter.

Class Webinar: HOA/Condo Board Member Certification | Apr 14

HOA/Condo Board Member Certification

Where: Zoom

When: April 14, 2021 | 10AM – 12PM EST

 

If you are planning to serve on your homeowner association board, you probably know that you will need to comply with Florida’s certification requirements within 90 days of being elected.
Our HOA/Condo Board Certification class is designed to satisfy the statutory requirement so that you are eligible to serve. More importantly, it will provide the tools and information you need to perform your job well and to avoid any potential liability associated with your new role.

Topics Covered:

  • Defining your fiduciary duty
  • Analyzing association operations
  • How to properly maintain the association’s books and records
  • The pros and cons of alternative dispute resolution
  • Avoiding common election pitfalls
  • Preparing budgets and funding reserves
  • Understanding financial reporting requirements
  • Assessing insurance needs for common areas
  • Defusing conflict within the community

 

2 ELE Credits

 

Provider: #0000811

Course #9630016

 

PLEASE NOTE: Instructions to receive CEU credits will be emailed 1-2 days after the class has concluded.

SPEAKER:

Becker - Jane L. Cornett
Jane L. Cornett
OFFICE MANAGING SHAREHOLDER
Stuart
Becker
jcornett@beckerlawyers.com

CO-SPONSOR:

CenterState Bank

Governor DeSantis Signs COVID-19 Liability Bill

Becker - CALL - Community Association Leadership Lobby

Governor DeSantis Signs COVID-19 Liability Bill

Yesterday Governor DeSantis signed SB 72 which gives civil immunity to not-for-profit corporations, hospitals, nursing homes, government entities, schools and churches for COVID-19 related claims as long as the alleged negligence doesn’t involve gross negligence or intentional misconduct. “COVID-19 related claim” means a civil liability claim against a person, including a natural person, a business entity, an educational institution, a governmental entity, or a religious institution, which arises from or is related to COVID-19. The term includes any such claim for damages, injury, or death.

What does this mean for community associations who have taken significant steps to safeguard their residents throughout this pandemic?

Florida condominiums, cooperatives and homeowners’ associations are classified as business entities protected by this bill which is welcome news!

Boards who took steps to comply with local, state and federal guidelines should be able to rely upon this new law for protection.

The new law imposes significant legal hurdles for individuals who want to sue over coronavirus-related injuries or deaths. Plaintiffs who file suit will need to provide a physician’s affidavit to establish the basis for the injury claim. They will also need to prove in court that a defendant did not make a good faith effort to comply with public health standards and to prove that a defendant committed gross negligence under a “clear and convincing” evidentiary standard.

The law establishes a one-year statute of limitations to sue from the later of the date of death, hospitalization or the COVID-19 diagnosis that forms the basis of the claim. This newfound statutory protection applies to claims that accrued before the enactment of the law and within one year following the Governor’s signing of it, but it does not apply to lawsuits that have already been filed.

While we applaud the passage of this new law, it is important for boards to remember that the State of Florida is still under a statewide state of emergency until April 26. Less than a quarter of Florida’s population has been fully vaccinated at this point and federal and local health officials continue to warn of possible surges due to variants. Many county ordinances requiring facial coverings in association common areas remain in effect. It is not only reasonable but prudent for boards to continue to exercise due caution when operating and opening common amenities and enforcing COVID-19 safety protocols.

Please continue to utilize our Bill Tracker which is updated on a weekly basis. This tool allows you to review all of the bills CALL is tracking and see where they’re headed.

Limiting Liability for COVID-19; Criminalizing Inspections & Elections; Permitting Single Petition Property Tax Appeals

Becker - CALL - Community Association Leadership Lobby

Limiting Liability for COVID-19; Criminalizing Inspections & Elections; Permitting Single Petition Property Tax Appeals

This week, we’re going to discuss a few bills that will impact all types of Florida community associations.

CS/HB 7 / SB 72 (Brandes) are bills which would protect “business entities” against COVID-19 related claims for damages, injury or death. These bills do include condominiums, cooperatives, and HOAs within the definition of a business entity. Given that most association policies have coverage exclusions for communicable diseases, these bills could help insulate associations from frivolous COVID-19 claims in the coming months or years.

In order to be eligible for this protection from civil liability, a defendant would have to show that it made a good faith effort to substantially comply with authoritative or government-issued health standards or guidance at the time the cause of action accrued. Most community association boards have wisely followed the advice of medical professionals such as the CDC, DOH, and local government health officials when crafting and enforcing COVID-19 safety protocols.

SB 1998 (Pizzo) would create a new Section 718.1285, F.S. outlining fraudulent voting activities which would subject violators to a potential felony charge in the third degree.

  • This bill would require boards to provide an itemized list to the individual requesting a document inspection, and require a sworn affidavit from the person handling the document inspection request regarding the veracity of the itemized list. Any director or manager who knowingly, willfully, and repeatedly violates these requirements would commit a misdemeanor of the second degree.
  • This bill would also require associations operating twenty-five (25) or more units to maintain a website on which their official records must be posted. Currently, associations operating 150 or more units must maintain an association website for this purpose so, if passed, this bill will require thousands more Florida communities to set up websites.
  • SB 1998 would permit a condominium association to file a single joint petition for a tax appeal and makes the use of a debit card a theft even if done so by mistake.

Conducting elections and overseeing document inspection requests are two areas where deadlines can easily be missed and mistakes made. Even without the penalties imposed by a bill like SB 1998, it is important that boards and managers have comprehensive election and inspection protocols and policies in place. Reaching out for guidance from your legal team is also advisable.

Lastly, HB 649 (Fernandez & Barquin) / SB 996 (Garcia) would also allow condominium and cooperative associations to file a single joint petition on behalf of their unit owners with the value adjustment board to appeal property taxes. Unit owners could opt out but they would have to do so within fourteen (14) days from receipt of the association’s notice or they will be included in the association’s petition.

RESOURCES

Please continue to utilize our Bill Tracker which is updated weekly thanks to Becker attorney Maritrini Soto Garcia. This tool allows you to review all of the bills CALL is tracking and see where they’re headed.

Please also use our Legislator Connect tool to contact your representatives as well as the Committee Members hearing these bills. Please do not underestimate your ability to make a difference in terms of which bills pass and which are defeated.

Class Webinar: Take a Bite Out of Fraudulent Assistance Animal Requests | March 31

 

Take A Bite Out of Fraudulent Assistance Animal Requests

1 ELE Credit
3.31.2021 | 3PM – 4PM EST
 
ESA

Take A Bite Out of Fraudulent Assistance Animal Requests

Where: Zoom

When: March 31, 2021 | 3PM – 4PM EST

 

Participants will learn about the Fair Housing laws on the state, federal and local level that impact community operations and actions with respect to requests to maintain emotional support animals on the property despite pet or animal restrictions.

Some topics to be discussed:

  • Fair Housing Act and Disability Accommodations
  • New Legislation Regarding Emotional Support Animals
  • Establishing a Handicap
  • Competing Definition of Service Animal Under ADAAA and FHAA
  • Fraudulent Requests for Service and Support Animals
  • What to do When the Disability is Not Obvious
  • What a Disabled Person Needs to Provide in Order to Own a Service Animal
  • Innate Qualities of Service Animal
  • Failing to Make Reasonable Accommodations and Modifications
  • What to do when “Skeptical” Information is Provided
  • Damages and Penalties for Discrimination

 

1 ELE Credit

 

Provider: #0000811

Course #9630287

 

PLEASE NOTE: Instructions to receive CEU credits will be emailed 1-2 days after the class has concluded.

SPEAKERS:

Becker - Steven H. Mezer
Steven H. Mezer
SHAREHOLDER
Becker
smezer@beckerlawyers.com

Becker - David G. Muller
David G. Muller
SHAREHOLDER
Becker
dmuller@beckerlawyers.com

Becker - JoAnn Nesta Burnett
JoAnn Nesta Burnett
SENIOR ATTORNEY
Becker
jburnett@beckerlawyers.com

Becker - Kevin L. Edwards
Kevin L. Edwards
SHAREHOLDER
Becker
kedwards@beckerlawyers.com

Class Webinar: HOA/Condo Board Member Certification | March 24

Filing a Property Damage Claim Might Get Much Harder if HB 305 and SB 76 Pass

Becker - CALL - Community Association Leadership Lobby

Florida is always potentially in the path of a deadly storm during hurricane season. Because of that geographic vulnerability, property insurance changes are hotly debated each year during Florida’s 60-day Legislative Session.

Every year seems to bring increasingly active hurricane seasons and, naturally, property insurance rates climb ever higher. Another reality is that insurance companies continue to pursue legislative changes to make it more difficult for Florida’s property owners to file legitimate claims.

SB 76 proposed by the Committee on Banking & Insurance and Senator Boyd (and its counterpart HB 305 sponsored by Representative Rommel) could dramatically reduce the time a property owner has to make an insurance claim and how much money an insured can recover for roof damage, as well as disincentivize attorneys from handling claims against insurance companies.

These bills are proposing dramatic changes to roof coverage. As the law currently stands, if your roof was damaged in a hurricane, your insurance company would be required to replace the cost of the roof with today’s prices minus any applicable deductible. HB 305 and SB 76 amend Section 627.7011, F.S. to allow an insurer to provide a reimbursement schedule which provides in part for roof reimbursements of no less than:

  • Seventy percent (70%) for a metal roof type;
  • Forty percent (40%) for a concrete tile and clay tile roof type;
  • Forty percent (40%) for a wood shake and wood shingle roof type; and
  • Twenty-five percent (25%) for all other roof types.

These bills also state that “cash value coverage may not apply to a roof if there is a total loss to a primary structure in accordance with the valued policy law under Section 627.702 which is caused by a covered peril.”

If SB 76 and HB 305 pass, an insurance company would only be obligated to pay you what your roof is worth in today’s dollars at the time of the loss and would include a sliding scale where every passing year reduces your recovery. Given how long and hard many insurance companies fight before settling legitimate claims, this bill simply cannot be seen as consumer friendly.

The proposed bills would also dramatically alter the way attorneys get paid. They amend Section 627.428, F.S. to provide that “In an award of attorney fees under this section for a claim arising under a property insurance policy, a strong presumption is created that a lodestar fee is sufficient and reasonable. Such presumption may be rebutted only in a rare and exceptional circumstance with evidence that competent counsel could not be retained in a reasonable manner.”

By making it more difficult for attorneys to be paid to handle these claims, it’s reasonable to expect that there will be far fewer Floridians who will be able to afford to hire an attorney to file legitimate claims against their insurance companies.

The proposed bill would also reduce the time for property owners to file claims for loss or damage caused by any peril (not just windstorms or hurricanes) from three years to two years. In addition, the bill proposes additional procedural requirements for the filing of a lawsuit that will make the filing of a lawsuit more cumbersome.

Please use our Bill Tracker to find out where these and the other bills CALL is monitoring are headed and make your voices known to your own legislators as well as to those who are hearing these bills in committee.

Should Condominium Associations Be Permitted to Invest Operating and Reserve Funds? SB 1490 Says Yes!

For years there have been significant legal constraints on a condominium association’s ability to use reserve funds. In addition to the statutory requirement to obtain membership approval for non-designated reserve usage, the prevailing school of thought was that association funds could not be invested since investments can and do fail.

A newly filed bill by Senator Jason Pizzo, SB 1490, could create a significant change in terms of an association’s ability to invest the community’s operating and reserve funds in depositories other than a traditional bank or savings and loan.

The bill provides as follows:

“Unless otherwise prohibited in the declaration, and in accordance with s. 718.112(2)(f), an association, including a multicondominium association, may invest any funds in one or any combination of investment products described in this subsection.”

If this bill passes and an association invests funds in any type of investment product other than a depository account, the association must meet all of the following requirements:

  1. The board shall annually develop and adopt a written investment policy statement and select an investment adviser who is registered under s. 517.12, F.S. and who is not related by affinity or consanguinity to any board member or unit owner. Any investment fees and commissions may be paid from the invested reserve funds or operating funds.
  2. The investment adviser selected by the board shall invest any funds not deposited into a depository account in compliance with the prudent investor rule in s. 518.11, F.S. It is important to note that the statutory prudent investor rule is a test of conduct and not resulting performance. Under this statute, no specific investment or course of action is, taken alone, considered prudent or imprudent. Instead, the investment adviser is deemed to be acting as a fiduciary and he or she may invest in every kind of property and type of investment, subject to that statute. The fiduciary’s investment decisions are evaluated on the basis of whether he or she exercised reasonable business judgment regarding the anticipated effect on the investment portfolio as a whole under the facts and circumstances prevailing at the time of the decision or action. Although the proposed statute requires that funds invested be subject to insurance under the Securities Investor Protection Corporation, it is important to note that this insurance is only there if the brokerage firm fails, not if the investment turns out to be ill-advised and loses the association’s money.
  3. The investment adviser shall act as a fiduciary to the association in compliance with the standards set forth in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 at 29 U.S.C. s. 1104(a)(1)(A)-(C).
  4. At least once each calendar year, the association shall provide the investment adviser with the association’s investment policy statement, the most recent reserve study report or a good faith estimate disclosing the annual amount of reserve funds which would be necessary for the association to fully fund reserves for each reserve item, and the financial reports.
  5. The investment adviser shall annually review these documents and provide the association with a portfolio allocation model that is suitably structured to match projected reserve fund and liability liquidity requirements. There must be at least thirty-six (36) months of projected reserves in cash or cash equivalents available to the association at all times.
  6. Portfolios managed by the investment adviser may contain any type of investment necessary to meet the objectives in the investment policy statement; however, portfolios may not contain stocks, securities, or other obligations that the State Board of Administration is prohibited from investing in under ss. 215.471, 215.4725, and 215.473, F.S. or that state agencies are prohibited from investing in under s. 215.472.

Lastly, the bill would exempt registered investment advisors from having their bids subjected to the competitive bidding requirements found in Section 718.3026, F.S.  The companion bill to SB 1490 is HB 1005 (Killebrew/Fine).

As more associations change their old habits and begin to fund reserves, the allure of more aggressive investment vehicles for these funds, which can be substantial amounts, is undeniable. However, the risk is also undeniable. As such, if this bill becomes law and the investment of reserves becomes available, boards are strongly encouraged to take an extremely cautious, measured approach with reserves.

While investment of your association’s operating and reserve funds might result in a substantially better return than a savings account, you might also see significant losses. The investment of association funds must be done with careful consideration of the demographic in your community, the age of your buildings and facilities, the required liquidity of your funds and, most importantly, the sensitivities and risk tolerance of your membership all taken into account. If your members fuss about your board’s landscaping decisions imagine the potential fallout if you make the wrong investment decisions!

Becker’s Community Association Video Series | Catch Up on Past Episodes

  
Calling all Board Members and Community Association Managers!Becker’s “Can They Do That” video series tackles some of the unique problems that homeowners and renters face today. We answer your questions, no matter how far-fetched they may seem. From service animals to nudists in your community, we get to the bottom of it and let you know – “Can They Do That?”

Do you have a question about your community that you would like answered? Email topic suggestions to becker@beckerlawyers.com

Catch up on past episodes from this series below.

Episode 01: Medical Marijuana Use in Your Community Association

Hosted by: Donna DiMaggio Berger

Watch Now
Episode 02: Nudists in Your Community Association

Hosted by: Kenneth Direktor

Watch Now
Episode 03: Service Animals in Your Community Association

Hosted by: Donna DiMaggio Berger

Watch Now
Episode 04: Social Events Hosted by Your Community Association

Hosted by: Rosa M. de la Camara

Watch Now
Episode 05: Pooling Your Community Association Reserve Funds Together

Hosted by: Rosa M. de la Camara

Watch Now
Episode 06: Can Associations Force Residents to Leave During a Hurricane

Hosted by: Kenneth Direktor

Watch Now
Episode 07: Visitors at All Hours of The Night

Hosted by: Howard Perl

Watch Now
Episode 08: Drones in Your Community

Hosted by: Donna DiMaggio Berger

Watch Now
Episode 09: Refusing to Install Fire Alarm Speakers

Hosted by: Robert Rubin

Watch Now
Episode 10: Amending Leasing Restrictions

Hosted by: David Muller

Watch Now
Episode 11: Adjacent Development Planned Next to Community

Hosted by: Kathleen O. Berkey

Watch Now
Episode 12: Damages Stemming From an Abandoned Unit

Hosted by: Robert Rubin

Watch Now
Episode 13: Disruptive Owners Interfering at Board Meetings

Hosted by: David Muller

Watch Now
Episode 14: Levying Special Assessments for Renovations

Hosted by: Jay Roberts

Watch Now
Episode 15: Painting Over Cracks in Stucco

Hosted by: Patrick Howell

Watch Now
Episode 16: Employer Mandated Quarantine After Traveling

Hosted by: Jamie Dokovna

Watch Now
Episode 17: Insurance Company Litigating Local Claims Out of State

Hosted by: Hugo Alvarez

Watch Now
Episode 18: City Notice that Property is in Violation of Local Code

Hosted by: Jeremy Shir

Watch Now
Episode 19: Unofficial Community Websites Causing Harm

Hosted by: Rachel Farkas

Watch Now
Episode 20: Association Hurricane Shutdowns

Hosted by: Howard Perl

Watch Now
Episode 21: Forbidding Political Signage

Hosted by: Donna DiMaggio Berger

Watch Now
Episode 22: Condominium Funding Reserves

Hosted by: Kenneth Direktor

Watch Now
Episode 23: Can Board Change the Way We Fund Reserves

Hosted by: Kenneth Direktor

Watch Now
Episode 24: New Budget That Includes a Contingency Fund

Hosted by: Kenneth Direktor

Watch Now