2012 Florida Communities of Excellence Awards

The 2012 Florida Communities of Excellence
Conference & Awards Ceremony

Friday, March 30, 2012
9:30 a.m. – 7:30 p.m.
Seminole Hard Rock Hotel & Casino Conference Center
Hollywood, Florida
 
Join board members, managers and residents from hundreds of Florida communities for this annual celebration of community association excellence. Attend stimulating educational sessions and CEU classes, discover the latest solutions from top industry vendors, and network with industry professionals and community leaders from across the state.

Admission is free for Community Association board members, manager and residents.
 
Event Agenda
 9:30 a.m. – Event registration opens
10:00 a.m. – Exhibition area opens
10:00 a.m. – 12:00 noon – CAM classes
12:15 p.m. – 1:15 p.m. – “Managers of Excellence" Awards Luncheon
The "Managers of Excellence" designation is given to those individuals who manage communities that have received Florida Communities of Excellence Awards.
1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. – Seminars and Panels
Hosted by Communities of Excellence Awards 2012 Diamond Level Sponsors: Associa, BB&T Bank, Continental Group and Envera Systems.
4:30 p.m. – Gala Reception
5:30 p.m. – 7:30 p.m. – Florida Communities of Excellence Awards ceremony

Register Now to attend the 2012 Florida Communities Excellence Awards!

Lloyd's Class Action Suit Approved by Florida Court

By Robert I. Rubin

Robert I. RubinOn June 9th, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted preliminary approval of a class action settlement concerning the improper application of separate hurricane deductibles on certain Lloyd's policies.
 
The preliminary settlement provides for a $39,000,000 settlement fund. Eligible recipients will receive no more than 65% of the original miscalculation.
 
Under the proposed settlement, potential class members holding applicable Lloyd's policies should receive written notification of eligibility with a notice of claim form beginning July 15, 2011. There are two categories of potential claimants:
 
Category I claimants are those where Lloyds has sufficient information to calculate the potential refund. They will be given a 9 question proof of claim form.
 
Category II claimants are those where Lloyds currently does not possess sufficient information to process a refund. They will be give a 15 question proof of claim form.
 
Potential class members have until Aug. 29, 2011 to submit a claim or opt out. Final hearing on objections to the settlement is scheduled for September 30, 2011.

We wish to acknowledge Public Adjuster Zevuloni & Associates (954) 742-8248 who brought this unpublished (in the Florida Federal Law Weekly) order to our attention.

The claims administrator is Kurtzman Carson Consultants, Tel: 866-381-9100 E -mail: info@kcclic.com

Roof Leaks and the Statute of Limitations

One of the most important issues for any legal claim is the statute of limitations, and claims for construction defects are no different. The statute of limitations is the time frame within which a lawsuit must be filed in order to have any recovery against the party or parties responsible for the damage. This is especially important where the defect is one resulting in building leaks.

Assume that you hire a roofing contractor who replaces your roof. The day after making final payment you discover water damage on the ceiling. You determine the new roof is leaking. You have 4 years from that date within which to file suit. The reason is that a claim for construction defects must be brought within four years of the time that a defect was discovered, as in our hypothetical, or should have been discovered through the exercise of reasonable diligence. The Statute of Limitations would begin to run from the date of the first leak. This puts the onus on an owner to not ignore the problem, but conduct reasonable investigation and file suit if necessary. The liability of the contractor is not endless, but is limited by the statute of repose, which cuts off any and all claims for construction defects ten years from the completion of the contract. For example if the leak was discovered 7 years after completion of the contract, then you would only have 3 years left to file suit.

An important point is that the limitations period continues to run, even if the contractor attempts to repair the roof. I have seen numerous cases over the years where people had the contractor attempting to repair the building to no avail, and then found themselves outside the limitations period. Unfortunately, there is no tolling of the limitations period. If the contractor spends years trying to fix the roof, and suit was not filed within 4 years, then you have lost your legal rights. Every owner should be vigilant and take necessary steps to protect their rights.

Recent Court Rulings Favor Condo Buyers Over Developers

Is the economy influencing the Courts? 

It seems that the trend has shifted from rulings in favor of condominium developers to rulings in favor of  purchasers and more lawsuits on the behalf of buyers are being filed in Courts throughout Florida.  Attorneys have come up with creative arguments against developers in an attempt to cancel contracts and obtain return of initial deposits, or at least portions of those deposits. 

As reported in the Wall Street Journal and other news sources, just over six  (6) months ago the U.S. District Court in Miami dismissed several lawsuits brought against the developer of the Opera Tower Condominium, ruling that the buyers could not rely upon the marketing materials associated with the project.  However in the last two (2) months rulings have agreed with claims made by purchasers.  Just recently the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling against the developer of the Lake Buena Vista Resort as a result of completing the project a mere five (5) days after the deadline promised in contracts with purchasers.  The buyers  were entitled to receive their deposits back, in spite of the developer's claim the delay was beyond its control.  Attorneys for buyers predict similar rulings in the future. 

In December,  2008, the Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld a ruling requiring the developer to return deposits on contracts concerning the 200 East Palmetto Park  building.  The Court found that the project did not qualify for exemptions to the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (often referred to as "ILSA"), regardless of an advisory opinion from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that was relied upon by the developer.

Unoccupied and unfinished condominium projects are likely to remain prevalent in Florida for the time being, creating opportunities for new investors and home buyers.  However, filing claims against the entire property and including lenders in these types of lawsuits complicates financing for potential purchasers and may impact continued operation and maintenance of the properties.  Please return to this site for periodic updates regarding these issues.

Attorney-Client Privilege When Board Members Sue the Association

Many Associations have just completed their election season and find that a person or persons newly elected to the Board are involved in a case being defended or prosecuted by the Association. Now what? Clearly, a conflict of interest exists but participation in a lawsuit against the Association is not one of the factors that makes you ineligible to sit on the Board. Therefore, the person(s) can take their seat on the Board so long as every other aspect of the election process was valid.

The Board however still needs to take measures to ensure that the strategy and legal opinions obtained from counsel on behalf of the Association continue to be privileged. This can be accomplished in a few ways. One option is for the person(s) with the conflict to recuse themselves from participating in any meeting/vote regarding the lawsuit. Their fiduciary duty to the Association would be fulfilled but what if that means there is no quorum of the Board to make a decision? Also, they would have to know of the meeting in order to recuse themselves and this would tip them off that something was up?

The better alternative is to have an open Board meeting for the sole purpose of creating a committee of members of the Board who do not have the conflict of interest. This meeting would be open to all members of the Board and the Association. The persons with the conflict should be allowed to vote on the issue and their fiduciary duty should dictate that they vote in favor of such a committee. During this meeting the Board should also vest all powers necessary to allow settlement or resolution through appeal in the committee. Otherwise, if the committee continually had to return to the Board for more authority, the person(s) with the conflict would be able to deduce what was going on and the creation of the committee would be for naught.

 

If the Association is one in which the majority of the Board makes up the person(s) with the conflict, there will not be enough disinterested Board members to create a committee which could handle the litigation. The option then is to have non-board members partake in the committee. In this instance, the Board should decide how many additional persons are needed. My recommendation would be if you have a 5 person Board with 3 persons having a conflict, that you add 3 additional non-board members to the committee. The most diplomatic way to do this would be to have an open Board meeting for the purpose of the creating the committee but advising on the notice that the Board will seek 3 volunteers to sit on the committee from the non-Board members. During the meeting, the Board would explain the purpose of the committee, the fiduciary duty to the Association and the requirement that the privileges afforded a litigation be preserved despite any friendship with the person(s) having the conflict. For obvious reasons, relatives of the persons with the conflict should not be allowed to sit on the committee. Should only 3 volunteers seek to be part of the committee, nothing else is necessary. Should however more than 3 volunteers seek to be part of the committee, the Board should vote on each one until the 3 spots have been filled. Another option would be to have the members vote on the volunteers. Please note, if your governing documents provide another procedure for setting up a committee (such as landscaping, architectural, etc.) you may want to follow that procedure all together. Similarly, if the governing documents require that you have a litigation committee, then you need follow that procedure, always ensuring that the person(s) with the conflict do not sit on the committee.

Regardless of how this committee is seated, the first thing to do is set a closed meeting with counsel. This will permit the attorney to meet the persons she will be dealing with during the litigation. Additionally, the attorney will be able to explain the duties of the committee as they pertain to the Association in terms of the suit and bring the committee up to speed on what is going on in the case. The attorney will also be able to get an understanding of what the committee wants in terms of resolution (i.e., settlement or trial).

One last thing, when creating the committee, it should be clear that the committee is created solely for the purpose of the case at hand and all that goes with it (counterclaims, third party claims, etc.) and that it dissolves immediately once the case is resolved. Again, if your governing documents create a method for dissolving a committee, the Association should follow those procedures.