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

Investing the Association's Funds?  If so you should be familiar with the Prudent Investor Rule.

Does your association have a written policy with regard to investment of association funds? If so, does the board of directors monitor the investment to ensure compliance with the policy, and, is the policy reviewed and updated from time to time? If not, is the board of directors exposing itself to needless liability under both common law and statutory obligations of prudent management?

Whether your association is a condominium association governed primarily by Chapter 718, Florida Statutes, or a Homeowners association governed primarily by Chapter 720, Florida Statutes, it is imperative that the governing body of the association invest association funds in a reasonably prudent manner. In serving as directors and/or officers of these corporations, individuals expose themselves to liability for mismanagement and, in many cases non-management, of association funds. Officers and directors sit in a position of trust and confidence, requiring that their actions be exercised in good faith and in the best interests of all unit owners. For example, since all budgets must include reserves for capital expenditures and deferred maintenance, unless waived in accordance with Section 718.112(2)(f), Florida Statutes, a primary responsibility of the board is the protection of, and hopefully the enhancement of, the association's reserve funds.

Boards of directors are faced with the delicate task of balancing their financial goals, needs, and obligations. On the one hand, the association wants a strong return or yield on its investment, sufficient to meet the ever-increasing costs of repair or replacement of common areas. On the other hand, it is necessary to maintain sufficient liquidity in the event of an emergency. The security or safety of the investment is equally important. Therefore, boards of directors are faced with legitimate and substantial questions, such as: whether or not to hire a professional money manager, what type of investment policy should be adopted, and how best to monitor the portfolio, once a policy is implemented.

Community Associations Institute (CAI) recommends associations invest only in savings accounts, FDIC-insured certificates of deposit, U.S. Treasuries and government agency bonds. Board members need to consider the goals and objectives of the association as well as regular income and its existing capital. Risky investments are not appropriate.  However, in this day and age when interest in savings accounts is practically zero, what other types of investments will suffice?

Keep these maxims in mind:

• While a director can delegate investment authority to fellow directors or third parties, they must continue to supervise and monitor these activities.  You can delegate authority, but cannot delegate responsibility.
• Appointing an investment committee is not a bad idea, but that doesn't mean the other directors can ignore the association's financial position. If there are committees, make sure they meet and conduct the business they are charged with in compliance with the statutes. Final decisions should be made or ratified at a meeting of the board and there should be minutes of committee meetings or recommendations.
• Some governing documents contain language hindering a well-thought out investment plan. You may need to amend to implement a suitable investment policy.

Take the advice from Sergeant Phil Esterhaus from Hill Street Blues and be careful out there. ...

 

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

A case recently issued by the 3rd District Court of Appeal confirms unit owner obligations to pay validly adopted assessments. The Court in Coral Way Condominium Investments, Inc. v. 21/22 Condominium Association, Inc., recited two important statements, one of which was made by the Florida Supreme Court in 1994 in the Ocean Trail Unit Association, Inc. v. Mead, case. Unit owners must understand the following pronouncements:

Avoidance of the payment of a valid assessment, however, is not a remedy available to unit owners to cure unauthorized acts by officers or directors of an association.

A unit owner’s duty to pay assessments is conditional solely on whether the unit owner holds title to the condominium unit and whether the assessment conforms to the Declaration of Condominium and By-Laws of the Association, which are authorized by Chapter 718, Florida Statutes.

Coral Way owned several condominium units in the 21/22 Condominium. It challenged both the need and the validity of a special assessment levied by the Board of Directors. Coral Way claimed that it had evidence that the association paid for items that were not common expenses. It alleged that the association paid legal fees that were not incurred by the association. It also contended that the financial records did not reflect a lump sum payment made to the association in connection with a roof top lease. This unit owner took the position that a special assessment would not have been necessary and the association would have had the funds to accomplish the repairs identified if it accounted for the income associated with the rooftop lease or spent money for non-association expenses.

This issue comes up quite often. I mentioned in the Can Complaints about Association Operations Become a Defense Against Foreclosure post that owners often refuse to pay assessments when they feel the association neglects the property, manages ineffectively or wastes association funds. The case mentioned in that post concerned a set-off. While the facts that support a claim for set-off may be exactly the same as those in a claim for a Breach of Fiduciary Duty, the legal issues are quite different. The 4th District of Appeal made it perfectly clear that even if the Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties, Coral Way still had to pay legally adopted assessments. Since the association followed the proper procedures and the assessment was to pay for a legitimate repair, Coral Way could not avoid its obligation to pay, even if it was later entitled to reimbursement as a result of wrongful use of association funds or accounting irregularities.

The bottom line result here is very important for unit owners to understand. The association’s obligation to maintain the property and otherwise fulfill its fiduciary duties is completely separate and independent of your obligation to pay validly adopted assessments (pursuant to a budget or a special assessment, as the case may be).
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I talked about the distinction between a carrier's duty to defend and the duty to indemnify early in the year in connection with the U.S. District Court's ruling that a D&O policy did not provide coverage for claims of breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract and negligence. In Eastpointe Condominium I Asn. Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Company an owner sued the association claiming the board of directors failed to adequately maintain the roof and other portions of the property.  The carrier took the position that the "property damage" exclusion in the policy controlled.  The Court agreed.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeal recently affirmed that decision in an unpublished opinion issued on May 20, 2010.

These types of claims are pretty typical.  A unit owner (or several unit owners) feels that the board is not "doing its job" and files suit seeking various remedies often including:

• injunctive relief (demanding that work, repairs, maintenance or improvements, be performed);
• reimbursement for costs sustained as a result of damages to property that would not otherwise exist if the board appropriately attended to the needs of the property;
• damages for the loss in property value, loss of enjoyment of the property, loss of use and the like; and
• reimbursement of attorney's fees and costs for bringing the claim.

Many of these cases involve differences in opinion as to whether maintenance/repairs were or are necessary, what products and methods to use for the repairs or maintenance, which contractor is better, etc.  In many cases the amount of money sought by the unit owner or owners is less than what it costs to defend the claims.   Defense costs can easily eat into the association's cash flow.

Isn't the association's board of directors protected against claims of negligence or breach of fiduciary duty?  If the D&O policy has a similar property damage exclusion, maybe not.

The Traveler's D&O policy excluded coverage for loss in connection with any claim "for or arising out of any damage, destruction, loss of use or deterioration of any tangible property including ... mold, toxic mold, mildew, fungus, or wet or dry rot."

The Eleventh Circuit departs from an earlier ruling that required a carrier to cover claims brought by homeowners against the association.  In Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Dadeland Cove Section One Homeowners Asn. Inc., the District Court found that the D&O policy covered property damage losses based upon claims of breach of fiduciary duty, regardless of the tangible property exclusion.

What does your policy cover?  What does it exclude?  If you're not sure, please speak to your agent and/or have your attorney review and compare the policies before you renew because it seems coverage denials (and disputes) are becoming more prevalent.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link