2018 Condo Legislation a Green Light for Electric Vehicle Owners
House Bill 841, approved by the governor and taking effect on July 1, 2018, paves inroads for electric vehicles at condominium developments while extending the Distressed Condominium Relief Act and the deadline for associations to meet condominium website requirements, among various other changes intended to bring increased coherence to provisions of the Condominium Act.
April 24, 2018 at 10:16 AM
5 minute read
House Bill 841, approved by the governor and taking effect on July 1, 2018, paves inroads for electric vehicles at condominium developments while extending the Distressed Condominium Relief Act and the deadline for associations to meet condominium website requirements, among various other changes intended to bring increased coherence to provisions of the Condominium Act.
Electric Vehicle Charging Stations
Newly enacted Section 718.113(8) now provides that regardless of any restriction, an owner can install an EV charging station, at their expense and subject to specified restrictions, within the boundaries of their limited common element parking area (a parking area subject to the owner's exclusive use as a part of their ownership interest). The owner cannot irreparably damage the common elements, must separately meter and pay for electricity, and is responsible for maintaining, repairing, operating, installing and insuring the station. Additionally, an EV station installer's mechanic's lien can only be filed against the owner's unit. The association can (and should) require protections such as installer licensure, insurance, architectural compliance, reimbursement for insurance premium increases, etc., and may utilize statutory collection remedies, ostensibly including lien rights, if the association has to cover the owner's costs. The benefits of this legislation are obvious and profound: by pre-empting and minimizing the likelihood of potential disputes over an area that will increasingly gain importance as EVs become more prominent, the law benefits owners and residents alike while enabling reasonable protections for associations.
DCRA Extension
The Distressed Condominium Relief Act (Condominium Act, Part VII, also known as the DCRA), previously scheduled to sunset at the end of 2018, will now be extended indefinitely. Extending the DCRA has significant implications for associations and those acquiring distressed condominium assets because of the protections it affords to bulk assignees and bulk buyers from developer liabilities.
Changes to Website Requirements
Last year's condominium legislation (HB 1237) combatted corruption through transparency, accountability, and conflict of interest protections. Among these changes, HB 1237 required all non-timeshare condominium associations with 150 or more units to create a website by July 1, 2018. HB 841 pushes the deadline back to Jan. 1, 2019, updates the website requirements, and mitigates the potential consequences of certain noncompliance (violations of the website requirements do not void related board action, and additional protections from liability are added for inadvertent disclosure of private information). Additionally, HB 841 allows associations to adopt rules for noticing board and owner meetings on a website in addition to other notice. Any rule adopted for website notice must require the association to send an electronic notice by providing a hyperlink by email to all owners consenting to receive email notice. Any owner who consents to receiving notice by email assumes responsibility for removing any filters blocking receipt of notice.
Other Updates (or Fixes) to Last Year's Changes
- Last year, the Legislature added robust new conflict of interest requirements (Section 718.3027) that ignored existing “interested director transaction” requirements in another section of the Condominium Act (Section 718.3026 (3)). HB 841 reconciles these conflict of interest laws by eliminating Section 718.3026 (3) and synthesizing it with 718.3027. Not addressed is the puzzling interplay between 718.3027 and 718.112(p), which outright prohibits association contracts with service providers if at least one percent of the provider's equity is owned by a director, officer or their relative.
- Term limits preventing directors from serving more than four consecutive two-year terms (omitting term limits on one-year terms) are replaced by term limits of eight consecutive years (regardless of term duration), absent an affirmative vote of two-thirds of all votes cast for a candidate to continue serving. The bylaws can provide a term of any length (subject to term limits).
- Board recall procedure and grounds for recall arbitration are clarified. A board member who successfully challenges a recall is entitled to reasonable costs and fees. An arbitrator may award reasonable costs and fees to the respondents if the arbitrator determines a board member's arbitration is frivolous. The Legislature ambiguously omitted owner representatives petitioning for recalls from the new fee provisions.
- If an association fails to timely respond to a Florida Division of Condominiums, Timeshares, and Mobile Homes request to provide a financial report, it cannot waive reporting requirements for two years.
Other Updates
- Associations must maintain specified official records permanently and other records for seven years. Associations must provide access to records within 10 business days of a written request, removing the inconsistency between deadlines for access and damage accrual.
- Notice for meetings involving assessments require estimated costs and a description of those assessments.
- Material alteration approval must occur prior to work commencement.
- Associations of five or fewer units shall have a board of not less than three members.
- Notices must be posted on condominium (not association) property.
- A fine or suspension must be approved by a committee of at least three members, and a fine is due five days after the date of the committee's meeting.
If nothing else, HB 841 illustrates that the fluidity of the Condominium Act is its only constant; like dunes in a desert, year to year it will shift with the winds of modernization, revision, outrage, and the whims of interest groups.
Jonathan Goldstein is a partner with Haber Slade in Miami. His practice includes community association law, real estate, construction and commercial litigation. Contact him at [email protected].
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDon’t Forget the Owner’s Manual: A Guide to Proving Liability Through Manufacturers’ Warnings and Instructions
5 minute readLeveraging the Power of Local Chambers of Commerce: A Second-Career Lawyer’s Guide to Building a Thriving Practice
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Dismisses Defamation Suit by New York Philharmonic Oboist Accused of Sexual Misconduct
- 2California Court Denies Apple's Motion to Strike Allegations in Gender Bias Class Action
- 3US DOJ Threatens to Prosecute Local Officials Who Don't Aid Immigration Enforcement
- 4Kirkland Is Entering a New Market. Will Its Rates Get a Warm Welcome?
- 5African Law Firm Investigated Over ‘AI-Generated’ Case References
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250