Community Associations Legally Permitted to Obtain Keys to Private Residences
When one lives in a condominium association, residents and owners must be aware that an association has the legal right to obtain an emergency key for every unit so it may access a residence under specific circumstances.
July 09, 2019 at 10:26 AM
5 minute read
When one lives in a condominium association, residents and owners must be aware that an association has the legal right to obtain an emergency key for every unit so it may access a residence under specific circumstances.
Emergency Keys
Pursuant to Fla. Stat. 718.111(5), the association has the irrevocable right of access to each unit during reasonable hours, when necessary for the maintenance, repair or replacement of any common elements or of any portion of a unit to be maintained by the association pursuant to the declaration or as necessary to prevent damage to the common elements or to a unit. Additionally, and regardless of whether authority is provided under the declaration or other recorded condominium documents, an association, at the sole discretion of the board, may enter an abandoned unit, as defined by the statute, to inspect the unit and adjoining common elements or make repairs to the unit or to the common elements serving the unit, as needed, provided that proper notification has been issued.
This Florida statutory provision gives condominium associations the legal right to mandate each unit owner provide an emergency key, which allows management to access a unit.
Procedurally speaking, emergency keys should be properly labeled and stored in a secure storage cabinet with limited accessibility. It is recommended that key access be limited to the director of security or managing security personnel and the property manager. Additionally, it is recommended that access to a unit via emergency key always be achieved in the presence of security and depending on specific circumstances, that the access be video recorded. The association should make every effort to coordinate access to a unit with prior notification to the owners and/or residents, even in the case of an emergency. If the association is unable to coordinate notifications prior to accessing a unit for whatever reason, notification to the unit owner/resident should be made immediately thereafter. Emergency keys should not be provided to anyone and should not be utilized for any other purpose than for the right of access granted in the statute and governing documents.
To the extent that an association's governing documents require that unit owners provide an emergency key to the association, it should consider enforcement mechanisms requiring compliance, including, but not limited to, the imposition of fines and suspension of use rights. It is important to know that there are specific procedural mechanisms that must followed to impose such fines and/or suspension of use rights.
Additionally, to the extent that a unit owner fails and/or refuses to provide an emergency key, and access is required by force, the unit owner may be held liable for any and all damages, including damages to the unit's door if the association is required to force entry in the event of an emergency.
Spare Keys
As a preliminary matter, the Florida Condominium Act does not necessarily contemplate the maintenance of a spare key for the purposes of granting access to guests, visitors, housekeepers or workers. Our firm generally advises against a spare key policy, which allows unit owners to provide management and security personnel with keys to be utilized by third persons. It is our opinion that such a policy could present issues of liability for the association, as well as management or security vendors who handle spare keys.
The concept of a spare key policy is much different than an emergency key held by the association for purposes of emergency access and maintenance.
The chance for error in connection with the use of a spare key is great, particularly if a unit owner does not update their authorization in a timely manner or there is a chance that protocols are not fully observed. We would recommend against a spare key policy and advise that the association not be responsible for maintaining spare keys for guests, housekeepers or vendors.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent that an association wishes to have a spare key policy, same should only be for authorized guests, visitors, housekeepers or workers. The policy should prohibit spare keys from being provided to anyone without prior written authorization and otherwise providing persons with access to a unit unless specifically authorized by the unit owner.
As with the emergency keys, we suggest that spare keys be maintained in a secured storage cabinet, with limited accessibility. It is recommended that key access should be limited to the director of security or managing security personnel and property manager. Likewise, should the board wish to maintain a spare key policy, we would recommend that the association have a standard form for written authorizations that must be filled out by owners, specifically setting forth the parameters of the spare key policy and requiring each unit owner to sign a release of liability.
Carolina Sznajderman Sheir is an associate at Eisinger, Brown, Lewis, Frankel & Chaiet. She focuses her practice on real estate law, community association law, commercial litigation and developer representation. She can be reached at [email protected] or 954-894-8000 ext. 238.
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 AllTurning the Shock of a January Marital Split Into Effective Strategies for Your Well-Being
5 minute readTrending Issues in Florida Construction Law That Attorneys Need to Be Aware Of
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
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