Emergency Order Creates More Confusion for Community Associations During Pandemic
Order attempts to end select emergency powers outlined in prior DBPR Emergency Order 2020-04.
June 01, 2020 at 01:12 PM
6 minute read
On May 20, the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR) issued Emergency Order 2020-06, which appears to cancel a majority of the provisions previously adopted in Emergency Order 2020-04, issued March 27 in response to the COVID-19 crisis. The DBPR has taken the position that its prior emergency order, which among other things, partially recognized statutory emergency powers in response to the COVID-19 crisis, is no longer necessary.
The DBPR's second attempt to address the global pandemic and at the same time clarify ambiguities for the thousands of community associations throughout the state, has generated heated debate among association attorneys and has left community associations with even more unanswered questions.
Order 2020-06 provides that Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of DBPR Emergency Order 2020-04 shall cease to be operational as of June 1. Simply put, this new order appears to indicate that the provisions of Fla. Stat. Section 718.1265(1)(a)-(j) for Condominiums, Fla. Stat. Section 719.128(1)(a)-(j) for Cooperatives and Fla. Stat. Section 720.316(1)(a)-(h) for Homeowners Associations are no longer applicable to the COVID-19 crisis. The above provisions permitted community associations to, among other things, conduct board meetings and membership meetings with notice given as practicable; cancel and reschedule any association meeting; relocate the association's principal office or designate alternative principal offices; implement a disaster plan; determine any portion of the property unavailable for entry or occupancy by unit owners, family members, tenants, guests, agents, or invitees to protect the health, safety or welfare of such persons; and based upon advice of emergency management officials or upon the advice of licensed processionals retained by the board, determine whether the property can be safely inhabited or occupied.
Additionally, Order 2020-06 appears to reinstate the requirement that emergency powers be triggered in "response to damage caused by an event," raising the question whether the COVID-19 crisis "caused damage" and can be considered such an "event" under the statutes.
Further, the division has reinstated the requirements and deadlines for financial reporting. As a result, for those associations that placed their annual financial reporting process on hold, now is the time to take action.
|So, What Does This Mean for Florida Community Associations?
While DBPR Emergency Order 2020-06 seemingly attempts to restore community association operations to pre-COVID normal, most communities continue to operate far from that norm, having to adhere to CDC guidelines, and in some cases s more stringent local orders and ordinances that affect operations.
Moreover, the DBPR has once again ignored the financial impact of the COVID-19 crisis, while many associations are beginning to feel the financial impacts of COVID-19, with their members among millions of people who are now out of work.
Even more concerning, however, is the fundamental question of whether the DBPR overstepped its authority in issuing Order 2020-06, as the emergency powers are clearly contained in the applicable statutes and specifically triggered by the governor's issuance of an executive order declaring a state of emergency.
From a practical standpoint and with nearly eight weeks of COVID-19 crisis management under our belts, many community associations throughout the state have adapted operations. While the authority for associations to rely upon the statutory emergency powers is once again up for debate, most associations should be able to ensure compliance with all statutory requirements and obligations, while taking reasonable and necessary precautions to protect the health, safety and welfare of its residents.
The text of the state of Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation Emergency Order 2020-06 is below:
WHEREAS, novel coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a severe acute respiratory illness that can spread among humans through respiratory transmission and presents with symptoms similar to those of influenza; and
WHEREAS, all counties in Florida have positive cases for COVID-19, and COVID-19 poses a risk to the entire state of Florida; and
WHEREAS, the governor issued Executive Order 20-52 on March 9 pursuant to the authority vested in him by Article IV, Section 1(a) of the Florida Constitution, the State Emergency Management Act, s. 252.31, Florida Statutes, et al., as amended, and all other applicable laws, and declared a state of emergency for the State of Florida; and
WHEREAS, the governor, in Executive Order Number 20-52, authorized each state agency to suspend the provisions of any regulatory statute of that agency, if strict compliance with that statute would in any way prevent, hinder, or delay necessary action in coping with this emergency; and
WHEREAS, DBPR Emergency Order 2020-04 was issued on March 27, suspending certain statutory provisions relating to condominium associations, cooperative associations, homeowners' associations, timeshare plans, harbor pilots, and veterinarians; and
WHEREAS, with the passage of time, it is apparent that DBPR Emergency Order 2020-04 is no longer necessary in its entirety;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, HALSEY BESHEARS, Secretary of Florida's Department of Business and Professional Regulation, pursuant to the authority granted by Executive Order No. 20-52, find the timely execution of the mitigation, response, and recovery aspects of the State's emergency management plan, as it relates to COVID-19, is no longer dependent on the provisions of DBPR Emergency Order 2020-04 in their entirety. Therefore, I order the following:
- Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of DBPR Emergency Order 2020-04 shall cease to be operational as of June 1.
- Section 10 of DBPR Emergency Order 2020-04 is extended, and the assessments of harbor pilots made pursuant to rule 61G14-19.001, Florida Administrative Code, are waived for May, June and July.
- This emergency order shall take effect on the date of its filing.
Carolina Sznajderman Sheir is a partner at Eisinger Law and her practice focuses on real estate law, community association law, commercial litigation and developer representation. She can be reached at [email protected]m 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
© 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
- 1How to Support Law Firm Profitability: Train Partners Up
- 2Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 3Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 4Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 5X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
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