Board Members, Property Managers: Be Aware of New Community Association Guidelines
Board members and property managers of condominium communities need to be aware that the state of Florida's Department of Business and Professional Regulation issued revisions to rules pertaining to violations and penalties, 61B-21, Condominium Resolution Guidelines for Unit Owner Controlled Associations, which went into effect Dec. 5, 2018.
January 10, 2019 at 09:07 AM
3 minute read
Board members and property managers of condominium communities need to be aware that the state of Florida's Department of Business and Professional Regulation issued revisions to rules pertaining to violations and penalties, 61B-21, Condominium Resolution Guidelines for Unit Owner Controlled Associations, which went into effect Dec. 5, 2018.
The disciplinary guidelines detail minor violations and penalty guidelines within Chapter 718, F.S. If a violation is deemed minor, the division will send a notice of noncompliance to the association. A community association's failure to timely comply with the notice of noncompliance may result in sanctions, including civil monetary damages and enforcement. For the violations not deemed minor by the division, there is no longer a notice/warning requirement and, if found guilty of the violation, the association may be fined pursuant to the new standards in the rule, see Rulemaking Authority 120.695, 718.501(1)(d)6., (f) FS. Law Implemented 718.501(1)(d)6. FS. History–New 6-4-98, Amended 10-23-18.
These disciplinary guidelines were enacted to inform affected parties about the range of penalties which may be imposed for violations, pursuant to subsection 61B-21.003 detailing penalty guidelines in the following categories: Accounting records, assessing, board, budgets, commingle, common expenses, conflict of interest, converter reserves, debit card, elections, estoppel certificate, final order, fiduciary duty, investigation, property, records, reporting, reserves, special assessment and website.
It is important for community associations and the governing boards to understand the consequences and potential monetary ramifications they will face if they do not abide by these new guidelines. Ignoring or not fully compiling with the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation's rules, as well as Chapter 718, Florida Statutes, in a timely manner can have a detrimental effect on an association's financial standing.
If an association fails to comply with a notice of noncompliance, a civil penalty will be imposed between $5 and $10, per unit, for each minor violation. The penalty will be assessed beginning with the middle of the specified range and adjusted either up or down based upon any aggravating or accepted mitigating circumstances. The minimum total penalty to be assessed shall be calculated according to these guidelines or $500, whichever amount is greater. In no event shall a penalty for a minor violation exceed $2,500, the statutory maximum for a single minor violation. For all other violations (those not deemed to be minor), the penalty imposed is between $10 to $30 per unit for each violation and the statutory maximum is $5,000. For both types of violations, multiple counts of the violated provision or a combination of the listed violations are added together to determine an overall total penalty.
Alessandra Stivelman, shareholder and partner at Eisinger Brown Lewis Frankel & Chaiet, is AV rated and focuses her practice on community association and real estate law. She can be reached at 954-894-8000 ext. 304 or [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
© 2024 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 AllNavigating Claims Under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and Florida Telemarketing Act
4 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Nelson Mullins, Greenberg Traurig, Jones Day Have Established Themselves As Biggest Outsiders in Atlanta Legal Market
- 2Immunity for Mental Health Care and Coverage for CBD: What's on the Pa. High Court's November Calendar
- 3How to Support Law Firm Profitability: Train Partners Up
- 4Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 5Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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