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
© 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