Posted on April 20, 2009 by Lisa Magill

Florida's Proposed "Distressed Condominium Relief Act"

Lisa A. Magill, Florida Lawyer, Real Estate AttorneyAmendment to SB 880  approved by Community Affairs Committee intends to encourage purchase of remaining inventory by limiting liability.

Last week the Community Affairs Committee advanced SB 880 with a significant amendment entitled the “Distressed Condominium Relief Act”.

If the bill becomes law, new Section 718.702, Florida Statutes sets forth the legislative intent for the protections afforded to “bulk assignees” and “bulk buyers” of condominium units.

“Bulk assignees” are defined as purchasers of more than 7 units who receive an assignment of some or all of the rights of the developer of the project. “Bulk buyers” are also defined as purchasers of more than 7 units, but have not obtained an assignment (other than rights to conduct sales, leasing and marketing activities within the condominium).

Bulk assignees are not responsible for implied warranties, the obligation to fund converter reserves for units owned by others or honor conversion warranties. Bulk assignees will not have to provide the Association with a full transition audit and will not have to fund developer guarantees or assessment obligations, unless they receive an assignment of the right to guarantee assessment levels and therefore take on the obligation to fund budget deficits.

This section of the proposed bill provides for three distinct methods of assignment of development rights, to wit:

  • By the Developer;
  • By a previous Bulk Assignee; or
  • By a Court.

While bulk assignees are required to deliver any of the documents identified in Section 718.301(4), Florida Statutes in their possession or control to the association upon transition, they are not liable for production or delivery of documents and other materials normally required as part of the transition process, if they cannot obtain them after a “good faith” effort.

Both bulk buyers and bulk assignees need to update the prospectus, the Frequently Asked Questions and Answers Sheet, the required form of escrow agreement (if applicable) and financial information pertaining to the Association.  Disclosure statements, identifying the rights assigned and warranty limitations, are also required.

The legislative history suggests these provisions are necessary to encourage the purchase of remaining inventory in failed projects. 

 

 

 

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted on April 10, 2009 by Lisa Magill

Construction Defect Case Ruling in Favor of HOA

Developer's Challenge to Notice of Meeting not Proper Defense to Construction Defect Claim

Lake Forest Master Community Association, Inc. v. Orlando Lake Forest Joint Venture, et al., Case No. 5D08-2096

Lake Forest Master Community Association, Inc. ("Lake Forest") filed a lawsuit for construction defects against the Developer, after the membership voted in favor of doing so as required by Section 720.303(1), Florida Statutes. 

The Developer claimed that Lake Forest shouldn't be permitted to continue its lawsuit since it failed to properly notice the meeting.  The trial court agreed and entered Summary Judgment against Lake Forest.

Section 720.303(1), Florida Statutes, provides, in relevant part:

After control of the association is obtained by members other than the developer, the association may institute, maintain, settle, or appeal actions or hearings in its name on behalf of all members concerning matters of common interest to the members, including, but not limited to, the common areas; roof or structural components of a building, or other improvements for which the association is responsible; mechanical, electrical, or plumbing elements serving an improvement or building for which the association is responsible; representations of the developer pertaining to any existing or proposed commonly used facility; and protesting ad valorem taxes on commonly used facilities. The association may defend actions in eminent domain or bring inverse condemnation actions. Before commencing litigation against any party in the name of the association involving amounts in controversy in excess of $100,000, the association must obtain the affirmative approval of a majority of the voting interests at a meeting of the membership at which a quorum has been attained.

Lake Forest appealed the ruling.  While it could have re-filed, re-filing would have impacted its case tremendously due to a change in Section 95.11(c)(3), Florida Statutes, which is the statute of repose.  The statute of respose changed from 15 to 10 years.  Re-filing the lawsuit would have eliminated any claims associated with latent construction defects that existed in excess of ten (10) years.

The appellate court evaluated the procedures utilized by Lake Forest to call the annual meeting, as well as the procedures utilized to recess and reconvene the meeting. The court noted:

  • Notice of the annual meeting was furnished by mail to all owners and posted as required by law.  The mailing included a general proxy;
  • Minutes of the annual meeting indicated that the members agreed to recess the meeting and reconvene it for specific date. There was testimony indicating that the President likewise announced the time and place for reconvening the meeting;
  • At the reconvened meeting, the President announced the annual meeting would be reconvened again at a specific date, place and time.  That information is reflected in the minutes;
  • A Motion was made, seconded and the majority of members participating voted in favor of filing legal action against the developer when Lake Forest reconvened the meeting the second time.

The Court relied on both Section 720.306(7), Florida Statutes and the Association's bylaws when concluding it was not necesary for Lake Forest to send written notice of reconvening the meeting to the entire membership, since the date, time and place were announced before it went into recess.  

Moreover, the Court also concluded that dismissal of the case by Summary Judgment was not appropriate even if the Association failed to comply with technical procedural rules.  Rather, it said the case should have been abated for a period of time to enable the Association to correct procedural deficiencies.

This case clarifies several important points of law for community associations.

Tags: , , ,