Florida Condo & HOA Legal Blog : Florida Condo Lawyer & Attorney : Becker & Poliakoff Law Firm : Condominium & HOA Law Blog

It is very likely that your management company charges a fee to delinquent owners if they send collection letters or take other action to collect a delinquent assessment. After all, they are doing extra work that wouldn’t be necessary if the owner paid on time.

There is no mention of these management collection fees in the statutes governing Florida community associations. The association is entitled to collect interest on the delinquency by statute – interest is specifically addressed. It can charge late fees (if allowed by the governing documents) to the owner. Late fees are specifically authorized by the statutes. It can pass along the attorney fees and costs too, as those fees and costs are specifically mentioned in the statutes.

If the associations have to ask their management firms to collect assessments, why doesn’t the statute specifically allow associations to pass through those fees on to owners?

We have tried to do exactly that for many years. If you look at the legislative history for the 2010 legislative session, there were attempts to get these management or collection agency fees added to SB 1196. However, it was only added to the Cooperative Act (Chapter 719). The law for cooperatives said:

"The association has a lien on each cooperative parcel for any unpaid rents and assessments, plus interest, any authorized administrative late fees, and any reasonable costs for collection services for which the association has contracted against the unit owner of the cooperative parcel."

If that highlighted language was included in the Condominium Act (Chapter 718) and the Homeowners’ Associations Act (Chapter 720), then associations would specifically have the right to add management fees to their liens against owners. Isn’t that fair?

Well, since it said ‘reasonable costs’, some organizations claimed management companies and collection agencies would abuse this statute and charge outrageous amounts to unit owners. The term "reasonable costs" is broad. Arguably there is room for abuse. In fact, we see this all the time when it comes to estoppel fees. The statute says the charge for an estoppel certificate must be “reasonable”. Some places have a $100 fee, some have a $200 fee, some have a $400 fee – all of which are claimed to be “reasonable”. I heard of one company charging more than $500 as an estoppel fee. Obviously, there is a lot of room when you use the term “reasonable”.

So in light of those arguments, language limiting the collection fee to $150 was proposed to be added to the shared ownership statutes. CALL supported that effort. A number of management companies supported that effort. But there was still opposition, so Sen. Fasano came up with alternative language in his companion bill, SB 530, to provide as follows:

468.439 Collection services.-Collection services expenses that are reasonably related to the collection of a delinquent account rendered by a community association manager or management firm on behalf of a community association governed by chapter 617, 718, 719, 720, 721, or 723 may be secured by the filing of a claim of lien on behalf of the community association if the collection services expense is specified by amount in a written agreement with that community association manager or management firm and payable to the community association manager or management firm as a liquidated sum.

If you look at the CS 3 version of SB 530, you will see this language in the bill. However, the Legislature passed HB 1195, and not SB 530. CALL advocated for adding this language to HB 1195 (which is now the 2011 statutes). The position of some of the members of the Legislature was that this was an additional "fee" and they were opposed to any new fees. Since the ability to collect these fees wasn’t added to HB 1195, we still don’t have any specific authority in the laws to charge and collect these fees from owners.

So fast forward to 2012, and CALL is still advocating for some language that will allow associations to add collection costs to the lien. We have always supported that, but the opposition remains to any type of new fee. One of the suggestions that has been made to address this issue involves allowing associations to collect an increased late fee in order to recoup the costs that the management companies charge for the collection services. Currently, the law allows associations to collect a late fee of the greater of $25 or 5% of each installment for each delinquent installment, but only if authorized by the declaration or bylaws. If this amount was increased and if all associations were allowed to collect this amount, it would appear to be sufficient to recoup the costs of collection. This is the approach favored by some members of the Legislature, including the sponsor of HB 319, and CALL assisted in drafting the language.

So, long story short, the issue of management collection fees being added to the association's lien is still being debated. We are advocating for something to be done. Otherwise, there will continue to be no authority in the statutes for these fees and unscrupulous management firms and collection agencies will continue to charge unlimited amounts.

So I ask you, community leaders, don’t you want the Legislature to address this issue and allow associations to recoup the cost of collection, as long as the amount is limited to prevent abuse?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act Prohibits Associations From Posting Delinquency Lists and Taking Other Actions to Collect Assessments and Maintenance Fees.

 There have been a number of newspaper articles explaining actions taken by community association boards and managers to collect delinquent assessments.  The Miami Herald reported that some associations post lists of the names of the owners behind on their fees and others deny security access devices to tenants of delinquent owners.  

The Wall Street Journal reported that some associations were taking control of the unoccupied units and renting them on a short term basis until the bank foreclosed.  

While we are all familiar with the idiom "drastic times call for drastic measures",  community leaders and property managers should understand that Florida law prohibits unfair or abusive tactics with regard to debt collection, including the collection of assessments.   Although the prohibitions in the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act do not apply to the person or entity owed the debt (the 'creditor', which in this case is the Association), both community associations and their managing agents are responsible for compliance with the Florida Laws.

Among other practices, Section 559.72, Florida Statutes, prohibits the following:

• Use of profane, obscene, vulgar, or willfully abusive language in communicating with a debtor or any member of his or her family;
   
• Communication with a debtor under the guise of an attorney by using the stationary of an attorney or forms or instruments which only attorneys are authorized to prepare;
   
• Orally communicating with a debtor in such a manner as to give the false impression or appearance that such person is associated with an attorney;
   
• Publishing or posting, threatening to publish or post, or causing to be published or posted before the general public individual names or any list of names of debtors, commonly know as a deadbeat list, for the purpose of enforcing or attempting to enforce collection of consumer debts;
   
• Mailing any communication to a debtor in an envelope or postcard with words typed, written, or printed n the outside of the envelope or postcard calculated to embarrass the debtor. An example of this would be an envelope addressed to “Deadbeat, Jane Doe” or “Deadbeat, John Doe”;
   
• Communicating with the debtor between the hours of 9 p.m. and 8 a.m. without the prior written consent of the debtor.

While every association must be diligent with its collection efforts, those efforts must be in compliance with legal and ethical standards.

On the other hand, the Florida Courts are cognizant of the problem and have allowed Associations to have receivers appointed for the purposes of collecting rent from tenants when the owners of those units are facing foreclosure as a result of non-payment of assessments.  Remember to check this site in the future for more information about proactive methods to collect assessments.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (26)
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

Yesterday Senator Fasano moved to amend SB 1012 to eliminate submerged land lease fees for single-family and multi-family residential docking facilities.  

If approved, not only would the existing exemption for single-family homes continue (and provide additional benefits to owners of larger single-family properties), but multi-family residential properties will not have to pay submerged land lease fees in the future.  Community Associations Institute ("CAI") a national non-profit organization dedicated to enhancing community association operations, primarily through outreach, education and advocacy efforts, led the charge against fee increases for community associations.

The amendment is scheduled to be considered on Thursday, April 16, 2009.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Proposed SB 1012 would require rules to impose increased fees for submerged land leases.

SB 1012, filed by Senator Constantine along with the Committee on General Government Appropriations and the Committee on Environmental Preservation and Conservation seeks the imposition of new rules governing submerged sovereign land leases.  If passed by the legislature, the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund would adopt rules that, among other things:

• Create a "standard" lease term of at least 10 years;
• Create extended lease terms of up to 25 years under certain circumstances;
• Create fees for new leases, expansions of existing leases and modification of uses permitted pursuant to existing leases;
• Change existing rates for leases allowing for designated slip (where boat slips are assigned) use to $.30 per square foot, if the property is not located within an aquatic preserve;
• Change existing rates for leases allowing designated slip use (assigned slips) to $.60 per square foot if the property is located within an aquatic preserve;
• Provide for automatic adjustments of up to ten (10%) percent in fees paid to the State every five (5) years based upon the Consumer Price Index (CPI); and
• Provide for late fees.

Some community associations are justifiably concerned about the possible increased rates, especially considering the current economic climate.  The President of a condominium in Tierra Verde indicated fees payable to the State would increase by more than 400% for her community.

We encourage community leaders to evaluate the impact of passage of this bill upon their communities.  In this day and age of budget shortfalls, every increase in expenses impacts Association operations.  It is also important to determine whether fee increases may be passed on to dock users or must be absorbed as a common expense.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link