Board: Be Mindful of FCCPA When Collecting Past Due Condo Assessments
An association must proceed with caution when implementing these valuable tools or risk running afoul of the protections provided to consumers under the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA), and its federal counterpart the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
January 29, 2020 at 09:19 AM
4 minute read
The ability to collect assessments from unit owners on a timely basis is a key component to the financial health and stability of a community association. An association's governing documents, as well as the applicable community association statutes (i.e., Chapter 718 for condominiums, Chapter 720 for HOAs and Chapter 719 for co-ops) provide several enforcement mechanisms to assist associations with their collection efforts, including lien and foreclosure rights, late fees, interest, fines, suspension of use and voting rights and the ability to demand rental payments from units occupied by tenants. However, an association must proceed with caution when implementing these valuable tools or risk running afoul of the protections provided to consumers under the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA), and its federal counterpart the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
Facing the challenges of increased delinquencies, board members often take an aggressive stance against a delinquent unit owner, and try to creatively encourage owners to bring their accounts current. An association's governing documents and the Florida Statutes provide specific procedures that must be followed in connection with attempts to enforce the collection of assessments. However, we often see associations employing alternative methods. Some of these creative methods are subtle, involving the disconnect of utilities and cable, shutting off FOBs or other access cards to the property, denying services such as valet or denying access to amenities. Other methods involve public discussion of a particular unit owner's delinquencies, calls to owners, employers and relatives of owners regarding delinquencies, and other instances of public shaming. Such alternative or creative methods may run afoul of the FCCPA and the FDCPA, subjecting the association, board members or property management companies to potential liability.
Both the FCCPA and the FDCPA regulate consumer protection in Florida. However, the Florida and federal statutes are not identical and a violation one statute does not necessarily constitute a violation of the other. Regarding the collection of association assessments, both the FCCPA an FDCPA consider assessments a "debt" or "consumer debt."
The FCCPA prohibits persons from engaging in certain prohibited practices while attempting to collect a consumer debt. Under the FCCPA, a debt or consumer debt is defined as "any obligation or alleged obligation of a consumer to pay money arising out of a transaction in which the money, property, insurance, or services which are the subject of the transaction are primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, whether or not such obligation has been reduced to judgment."
Recently, the First District Court of Appeal confirmed that condominium assessments are consumer debts that fall within the purview of the FCCPA. Specifically, in Kelly v. Duggan, a condominium unit owner sued an association's president for violations of the FCCPA. A separate suit was filed in federal court against the association.The unit owner in Kelly alleged that the president of the association locked him out of his storage units, made public derogatory statements and disclosed information about the unit owner's reputation to a vendor.
The recent decision in Kelly v. Duggan is a reminder to all associations, board members and management companies to proceed with caution when attempting to collect past due assessments. It's recommended that associations work with their management team and legal counsel to develop collections policies and procedures to ensure that efforts undertaken to combat delinquencies do not place the association at risk of violation of the consumer protection statutes.
Carolina Sznajderman Sheir is a partner at Eisinger, Brown, Lewis, Frankel & Chaiet. She focuses her practice on real estate law, community association law, commercial litigation and developer representation and can be reached at 954-894-8000 ext. 238 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 AllData Breaches, Increased Regulatory Risk and Florida’s New Digital Bill of Rights
7 minute readNavigating Florida's Products Liability Law: Defective Products, Warnings and the Pursuit of Justice
6 minute readNavigating Florida Property Insurance Claims in a Post-Fee-Shifting World
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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