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

Community association leaders and managers should become aware of changes to record inspection obligations now that SB 1196 has been signed into law.

Roster List (Condo):

The roster list is an important document.  Telephone numbers have traditionally been included in the roster list, despite objections over the years.  The roster list also includes email addresses of the members if they have consented (or requested) to receive notices and other association information by email.  SB 1196 says that the email addresses and telephone numbers of the members must be removed from the association's records if the owner revokes consent to receive notice by electronic transmission.  Please discuss modifications to the roster or creating a procedure for owner consent to include this information with association counsel, as many owners have come to rely upon the roster or directory to remain in contact with friends and neighbors.

Civil Penalties (Condo):

Last year the act was amended to authorize civil penalties against anyone (individuals - i.e. board members, manager, etc.) that knowingly or intentionally defaced or destroyed accounting records.  It also authorized civil penalties for knowingly or intentionally failing to create or maintain the accounting records.  SB 1196 now limits the civil penalties to the time period the records are required to be maintained.  Penalties are likewise not appropriate for failing to create or maintain these records unless there is a finding of intent to harm the association or one or more of its members.

Misuse of Information (Condo):

We know the association cannot publish debtor lists or use the delinquency records to embarrass or harass its members, but the board (or management) has little to no control over what happens to records once they are in the possession of a unit owner.  SB 1196 says the association is not responsible for misuse of records properly obtained in connection with an owner's rights to inspect and copy.

Personnel Records (Condo & HOA):

Personnel records for association employees such as payroll, disciplinary actions, health and insurance records are no longer accessible to members.  I know a few managers that are happy with this change.

Owner Information (Condo & HOA):

Private information such as email addresses, telephone numbers, emergency contact information, social security numbers, driver's license and credit card numbers of the owners are not accessible to members.

Condo and HOA owners are not entitled to obtain the association's passwords, electronic security records, software or operating systems that manipulate data.

Presumption (HOA):

In HOAs the presumption that the association willfully failed to make records available if the records were not available within 10 business days only arises if the request was sent via certified mail, return receipt requested.

Inspection Costs (HOA):

If the association does not have a copy machine at the record site, or the owner requests more than 25 pages of records, copies may be made by an outside vendor or management company personnel - in that case the association may charge for the actual costs of the copies and hourly charges for vendor or employee time to cover the administrative costs to the vendor or the association.

You may need to change your association's record retention and/or inspection policies in light of these changes.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (21)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In my last post, I touched on an actual decision Humphrey v. Carriage Park CAI by the Division on this matter. I am now going to address a Legal Opinion regarding “Access to Association E-Mails” put forth by the Division on March 6, 2002. The Legal Opinion provides that if e-mails are used as a form of communication between the Board and manager to handle the operation of the Association then they are subject to inspection by owners in the condominium setting. Although this Legal Opinion does not address Associations under Chapter 720 specifically, the same reasoning should apply.

The key to this Legal Opinion is that the e-mails being addressed are not amongst the Board [as in Humphrey] but rather from members of the Board to its employee, the manager. There is no requirement that a Board interact with a manager solely during a Board meeting. If that were the case, the Association would never get anything done and this would be in contravention of the statute which vests the power to manage with the Board.
 

Reading this Legal Opinion in conjunction with Humphrey one might get confused as to why e-mails exchanged by directors on their personal computers or PDAs even if they address the operation of the Association are not “official records” while those to the manager are. The answer would appear to be in the reasoning put forth in Humphrey that e-mails amongst the Board are not written communication to the Association because there is no obligation on the recipient-director’s part to read the e-mails. There is however a duty on the part of a manager to read a communication from an agent (i.e., director) of his employer (i.e., the Association). It is a subtle difference but a difference nonetheless.

The Legal Opinion goes on to note that the Division has “no regulations expressly requiring archiving e-mails, but… if the e-mail correspondence relates to the operation of the Association property, it is required to be maintained by the Association, whether on paper or electronically….“ In other words once the Board communicates with its employees via e-mail regarding the operation of the Association those records are subject to the same inspection (and thus retention) requirements as all other “official records” of the Association.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On March 30, 2009 the Division issued a Final Order in Humphrey v. Carriage Park CAI a case involving among other things a request for records where the owner sought “all correspondence, e-mails to or from the Department of Business and Professional Regulation.”

In its ruling the Division stated that there was no violation for failing to produce e-mails which never became the official records of the Association.  The Division explained:

• The property of an individual director does not become the property of the Association because of his office on the Board.
• Even if directors communicate among themselves by e-mail strings or chains, about the operation of the Association, the status of the electronic communication on their personal computer would not change.
• An e-mail to an individual or all directors as a group, addressed to their personal computers, is not written communication to the Association because there is no obligation for a director to turn on a personal computer with any regularity, or to open and read e-mails before deleting them.

The Division in a footnote to its opinion stated a different decision could be reached “if the Association owns a computer on which management conducts business including e-mails…; or if e-mails are printed up and passed around for discussion at a board meeting.”

Given the ever changing trends in technology and the manner in which Associations conduct business, a Board needs to be wary that the status of e-mails as official records despite the Humphrey decision is still in flux. In other words, tomorrow, these very same e-mails which today are not official records could be. Also while a link has never been made equating IM or Twitter transcripts to e-mails this too could change as these forms of e-communication become more and more popular amongst Board members.

For more information on the role of e-communications and Association look at my May 12, 2009 post or the recent article by the Sun-Sentinel titled Boards a-Twitter about laws.

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