Blogs

The New Jersey Condo Blog

Did the New Jersey Supreme Court Reduce the Time for a Common Interest Community to Assert Construction Defect Claims?

10/12/2017 Martin Cabalar


On September 14, 2017 the New Jersey Supreme Court issued a long anticipated decision in the matter of The Palisades at Fort Lee Condominium Association, Inc., v. 100 Old Palisade, LLC (“Palisades”). The decision may have an immediate impact on recently constructed condominiums, or those to be constructed in the future, that have construction deficiencies. While innately fact-driven and evidence specific,[1] Palisades held that the six-year statute of limitations on a condominium association’s direct claims against a developer’s contractors and design professionals for construction defects begins to run upon the latter of six-years from: (a) substantial completion of the contractor’s work, or (b) when the “owner” knows, or should have known through the exercise of reasonable diligence, of the existence of a claim. 

Remarkably, the Palisades use of the term “owner” was not exclusive to the condominium association, but included the original owner of the property – i.e. the developer. In other words, the Court posited that causes of action accrue when someone in the chain of ownership, including the developer, first knows or reasonably should know of a defect and the party responsible therefore, even if transition to unit owner control had not yet occurred. Thus, although Palisades was decided on its peculiar facts, the decision opens  the possibility that direct claims by a condominium association against a developer’s contractors and design professionals could expire long before transition of control to the unit owners. 

It is not realistic to suggest that a developer would initiate an action against itself, or its contractors and design professionals, prior to transitioning control to the unit owners. Yet, in certain circumstances, this is precisely what Palisades requires to preserve the association’s claims against the developer’s contractors and design professionals. Many reading this may say, “So what, the developer is responsible and will still have to pay for the construction defects.” While it is true that the condominium association would likely still have various viable claims against its developer in such circumstances, the developer is likely a single purpose entity with little to no asserts. It is also likely that the developer failed to reserve significant funds to address warranty and other related construction defect claims. 

In light of Palisades, if your association is currently experiencing problems due to potential construction or design defects it is suggested that you seek the advice of counsel immediately. Though the developer may ultimately still be responsible, to the extent that you may also have direct claims against the developer’s contractors and design professionals, you may need to initiate litigation sooner rather than later. 



[1] The full opinion can be downloaded at: http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/courts/supreme/a-101-15.opn.htmlGenerally, in New Jersey, a condominium association has six years from the date the developer transfers control to the owners to bring a claim against the developer for deficiencies in the design and construction of the common elements. While Palisades does not appear to change this well-settled law, the Supreme Court has called into question years of trial and appellate decisions that held that the same tolling applied to claims by a condominium association against a developer’s contractors and design professionals. 

Does Your Homeowners Association Have Adult Only Swims

10/06/2017 Angela Morisco
Did you know that adult only swims in homeowner associations can be discriminatory?

The Federal Fair Housing Act [the “Act”] prohibits policies that discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services, or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.  “Familial status” under the Act, is defined as one or more individuals under the age of 18 being domiciled with a parent or any another person having legal custody.  Hence, the issue concerns status and not age. As such, any policy that intentionally  discriminates against families with children or a policy although neutral on its face, has a discriminatory impact, is prohibited. Courts have found that rules that limit children's access to common amenities, based solely on the fact that the children are under 18, violate the Act. An adult only swim may be found to be facially discriminatory because it treats  children and families with children differently and less favorably than households composed of adults only.  Hence, a blanket adult only policy, based upon the desire to enjoy the pool with peace and tranquility, may be found to be discriminatory.

#condominium
#FHA
#discriminatory
#familial status
#adultonlyswim
#homeownerassociation
#BeckerandPoliakoff

CondoMundoUSA

Votación Por Linea - Video

10/18/2016 Martica Miguez Platts



Si usted vive en una comunidad residencial que está dirigida u operada por una asociación, o si usted sirve en la junta directiva de la comunidad, quizás desee obtener la comodidad de votación por línea.   Nuestra firma de abogados acaba de lanzar un breve video de instrucción sobre nuestro producto por línea llamado BPBALLOT.   Dedíquele unos minutos a este video.
La votación por línea le permitirá a su comunidad aumentar la participación de su membrecía a la vez que reducirá la posibilidad de fraude electoral.  Estamos seguros que usted disfrutará y obtendrá beneficios del video.  Si tiene cualquier pregunta, por favor envíenos un correo electrónico a condomundousa@bplegal.como llámenos al 561-820-2870. 

Martica y Marilyn
Sus amigas de CondoMundoUSA






Estudio de Votación y Fraude en las Asociaciones / Community Association Voting and Fraud Survey

06/17/2016 Martica Miguez Platts
CondoMundoUSA les trae el Estudio de Votación y Fraude.  Este estudio tiene el propósito de identificar las preocupaciones relacionadas con el proceso de votación de los miembros de las asociaciones de comunidades.  Los resultados ayudarán a crear materiales educativos y ayudarán a encabezar cambios en las disposiciones legales que gobiernan el método de votación en las comunidades.

Solamente le tomará 5 minutos haga "click" en el idioma que prefiera. 

Español                       Inglés

Gracias, 

Martica y Marilyn


***************


CondoMundoUSA has created a survey intended to help identify concerns of community association members related to voting. The results will help create educational materials and help spearhead changes in statutory provisions governing voting in communities.

It should only take 5 minutes, please click on your preferred language.

Spanish                       English



Thank you, 


Martica & Marilyn

The Community Association Law Blog

Can Your Community Association Stop Bullying and Harassment in Their Tracks?

10/15/2017 Donna DiMaggio Berger
Bullying in any form cannot be condoned either in schools, workplaces or communities.  While a newly filed bill by Rep. Emily Slosberg (HB 123) has the laudable goal of protecting Florida's senior citizens from being bullied, just how feasible is it in a community association context?  From some of the board and membership meetings I've attended over the years, it is not at all easy to spot who is the bully and who is the bullied and the reality is that sometimes the bully becomes the bullied and vice versa.

HB 123, if passed, would create a new law known as the "Stand Up for Seniors Act." The law appears to apply only to "55 and over" communities in Florida.

                             WHAT BEHAVIOR WOULD THIS LAW ADDRESS?

Bullying under the Act would be defined as "intimidation or harassment that causes a reasonable person to fear for his or her physical safety or property" and may consist of physical actions including gestures; cyberbullying; oral, electronic or written communication or any threat of retaliation for reporting of such acts.  Bullying can take place in person or can be done through the use of technology such as email, texts or the internet; this type of bullying is known as cyberbullying.                                                                                                                                                                              
Harassment is defined by the bill as any racist, threatening, insulting or dehumanizing gesture, use of data or computer software or written, verbal, or physical conduct that has the effect of substantially interfering with or disrupting a member's opportunities, peaceful enjoyment of his or her home or the association common areas, or association benefits.  A person who wrongfully reports an act of harassment in bad faith would be committing harassment.


                  WHAT IS REQUIRED OF ASSOCIATIONS UNDER THIS PROPOSAL?

1.    "55 and Over" associations would have to adopt and review at least every 3 years a policy prohibiting bullying and harassment.

2.    The association's policy must ensure that association members do not subject others to fear or intimidation and the policy must apply to all members.

3.    The  association's anti-bullying, anti-harassment policy must contain the following:

 (A)    A statement prohibiting bullying and harassment.
 (B)    Definitions of bullying and harassment that conform to those set forth in the law.
 (C)    A description of the type of behavior expected from each association member.
 (D)    A requirement that the association investigate any reported act of bullying or harassment.
 (E)    A list of penalties for people who bully and harass or who wrongfully accuse others of bullying and harassment.
 (F)    A procedure for receiving reports of an alleged act of bullying or harassment including allowing a person to anonymously report such an act.  A disciplinary action, though, could not be based solely on an anonymous report.
 (G)    A procedure for a prompt investigation of a report of bullying or harassment.

4.     After the association completes its required investigation of a report of bullying or harassment, the association must submit its findings to the Ombudsman who will then either send a written warning to the member upon the first offense; require the member to complete an anger management treatment program upon a finding of a second offense; or impose a $100 upon a finding of a third or subsequent offense.

                                   IS HB 123 HELPFUL OR JUST WINDOW DRESSING?

HB 123 contains a glaring omission inasmuch as it regulates the behavior of "Association members" but does not seek to address the behavior of abusive tenants, guests, visitors and other residents.  Even more troubling is the obligation being placed on volunteer boards to regulate civility inside their communities.  A board's role in a community association is to enforce the covenants.  Absent a clear violation of those documents, most boards are not well suited to exercise almost entirely subjective judgment to determine who is the perpetrator and who is the victim in many disputes.  Lastly, requiring associations to spend limited resources on investigations, some of which may result in inconclusive findings or findings that the complaint was unsubstantiated, creates a quagmire.

Bullies are pernicious and we have never been as exposed to them as we are today in various forms around the world.  Progress has to start somewhere but I am not convinced that residential senior communities in the Sunshine State should be required to take the lead in this fight. Perhaps our government officials should be the pioneers in this anti-bullying and anti-harassment crusade by setting an example of civility?
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

A Rude Awakening: Your Board May Not Have the Right to Screen Leases and Sales at All!

10/09/2017 Donna DiMaggio Berger
Even in the frenzy of post-Irma repairs, ordinary life continues and for most volunteer boards and professional managers that means screening applicants who wish to lease or purchase in their communities.

However, purchase and rental screening has become such a part of the fabric of community association life that some boards and managers have forgotten to confirm the source of authority for such activity.  Several boards were recently dismayed when I advised them that they do not have authority either to charge a transfer/application fee or to approve leases or sales at all.  They learned this information while they were in the midst of screening pending applications.

Their responses to that uncomfortable revelation included:

"Of course we can screen, we always have."

"Our manager told us we can screen and charge an application fee."

"We suspected we couldn't do it but it's a calculated risk we're taking."

The fact that your community may have a practice in place for charging a screening fee, requiring applications, running background checks and conducting personal interviews with potential new purchasers and potential new tenants does not make any of the foregoing legal unless your governing documents (and specific documents in some instances) provide your Board with this authority.  In fact, in two of these communities, the Declaration clearly specified that sales and leases were not subject to prior approval by the board only to prior notice.  In today's investor-friendly environment, more and more developers are creating initial documents which allow unfettered leasing and sales activity.  It is neither reasonable nor advisable for a board to assume it has the authority to screen sales and leases because its management company does the screening and collects the associated fees.  A responsible manager will urge the board to obtain the necessary legal opinion any time the question of legality arises.


In a Florida condominium, a transfer fee cannot exceed $100 per applicant (with spouses and a parent/dependent child being treated as one applicant) and a transfer fee cannot be charged at all unless the association has the right to approve a lease or sale and the fee is provided for in the Declaration, Articles or Bylaws.


                                                  Why is it important to be so cautious?


A cottage industry has naturally cropped up where some lawyers and law firms are initiating individual and class action lawsuits against boards and management companies for charging fees in excess of or in violation of the statutory limits.  Granted, there is a reasonable desire on the part of many volunteer boards and a high expectation on the part of many association residents to ensure that new purchasers and tenants are properly screened to avoid any potential threat to the safety, security or financial well-being of the community.  However, the framework to conduct such screenings must be authorized by the governing documents.  As for taking a calculated risk, given the potential to be ordered by a court to return illegal transfer fees taken over the span of several years, there is little doubt that confirming your authority or properly amending your governing documents to provide such authority is crucial.

Biz Law Today

What Is “Product Hopping” and Why Should You Care?

08/04/2015 Becker & Poliakoff

ThinkstockPhotos-97429646This post was authored by Ann Marie Effingham, an intern for Becker & Poliakoff who is based out of the firm’s Red Bank, New Jersey office.

New Jersey is home to 14 of the world’s 20 largest pharmaceutical companies so when our sister circuit—the Second Circuit Court of Appeals—issued a decision of first impression regarding pharmaceutical patents, we should take notice. To summarize, the state of New York brought an antitrust action against Actavis PLC claiming the manufacturer’s introduction of the once-daily capsule that treats Alzheimer’s disease at the end of the manufacturer’s patent exclusivity period for the twice-daily tablets impeded competition in violation of the Sherman Act. The Southern District of New York granted a preliminary injunction barring Actavis PLC from restricting access to the twice-daily version until after generic competition entered the market, and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the injunction.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals explained that neither product withdrawal nor product improvement alone is anticompetitive. However, when product withdrawal is combined with some other conduct—the overall effect of which coerces consumers and impedes competition—a manufacturer’s actions are anticompetitive under the Sherman Act.

The Actavis PLC case is an example of “product hopping”—whereby a manufacturer introduces a “second-generation” formulation of a drug and removes the previous formula that is nearing the end of its patent lifecycle which then restarts the regulatory approval process for the generic manufacturer. In theory, a manufacturer could keep reformulating its patented product if it can show that continuous improvement in the drug is being made. However, under some circumstances this type of behavior is anti-competitive. Generic manufacturers enter the market at the end of the brand name’s patent lifecycle so when a brand name manufacturer engages in “product hopping” it keeps generic manufacturers from entering the market—which could ultimately lead to a monopolization.

So what does this mean for the biopharmaceutical and medical device industry? The timing and rationale behind product reformulation is key. When product redesign is done simply to coerce consumers and impede competition, it is anticompetitive under the Sherman Act. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals noted that Actavis PLC’s own CEO admitted that the Defendants were “trying to . . . put up barriers or obstacles” to generic competition. Conversely, a large market share that is gleaned from natural growth, development of a superior product while simultaneously giving consumers the option of choice between products, or exceptional business acumen are all justifiable explanations for why a manufacturer may control a significant portion of the market.

A second product hopping case has arisen in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. There, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has filed an amicus brief strongly supporting antitrust causes of action against companies that product hop. Hopefully the Third Circuit can provide more insight as to how to evaluate product hopping cases.

Employers Beware: You May Be Liable to Whistleblowers Without the SEC Ever Getting Involved

07/28/2015 Becker & Poliakoff

ThinkstockPhotos-184747120 (1)This post was authored by Peter Wojcik, an intern for Becker & Poliakoff who is based out of the firm’s New York office.

On June 17, the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Berman v. Neo@Ogilvy, LLC, making it the latest court to venture into the arena of interpreting Dodd-Frank’s whistleblower provision. In Berman, U.S. District Judge Gregory H. Woods of the Southern District of New York held that, before a whistleblower may be protected under Dodd-Frank’s whistleblower anti-retaliation provision, he or she must report securities violations to the SEC. This stands in stark contrast to other district court decisions that have allowed individuals to sue if they only disclosed the violations to their employers.

In Berman, the plaintiff alleged that he was fired after complaining to his employer about seeing transactions that he believed to violate U.S. securities laws, including Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank. Never having reported these violations to the SEC, the plaintiff sued his former employer, alleging violations of Dodd-Frank’s whistleblower provision. The provision essentially prohibits an employer from retaliating against a “whistleblower” who:

  • Provides information to the SEC concerning violations of securities laws;
  • Initiates, testifies in, or assists in any investigation or judicial or administrative action of the SEC; or
  • Makes disclosures that are required or protected under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and any other law, rule, or regulation subject to the SEC’s jurisdiction.

However, the provision also defines a “whistleblower” as “any individual who provides . . . information relating to a violation of the securities laws to the Commission . . . .” The plaintiff in Berman argued that he was entitled to protection because, although subsections (i) and (ii) protect disclosures to the SEC, subsection (iii) includes disclosures to supervisors. Judge Woods remained unpersuaded. In dismissing the plaintiff’s claim, Judge Woods noted that the provision’s language was clear: In order to be a “whistleblower” under the Act, the individual must provide the information “to the Commission,” i.e., the SEC.

District courts that have allowed Dodd-Frank whistleblower protection for individuals who report violations to their employers have essentially followed the plaintiff’s reasoning. Despite the plain language definition of a “whistleblower” under the statue, they have held that subsection (iii) is a narrow exception to the definition and encompasses protection for individuals who report to supervisors.

The Second Circuit is expected to hand down its decision later this year. Although the Fifth Circuit is the only circuit to already decide the issue (holding that whistleblowers must report violations to the SEC in order to sue), district courts across the U.S. are in disagreement. Regardless of how the court in one’s jurisdiction rules, however, the law is still subject to change. If courts continue to disagree, it is likely that the Supreme Court will take up the issue in the future. Until the High Court decides the issue, employers must be aware of the fact that they may be subject to liability under Dodd-Frank’s whistleblower provision once their employees report violations internally.

Construction Law Authority

Review of Legislation continues – Part 5

08/02/2017 Joseph Adams

2017 Legislation Changes Financial Reporting Requirements

Today’s column is the final installment of our annual review of legislation affecting Florida community associations.

In prior columns, we reviewed Senate Bill 398 dealing with “estoppel certificates,” and House Bill 1237 which only applies to condominiums and contains changes to the statute including board member term limits, the use of debit cards, recalls, mandatory websites for certain associations, suspension of voting rights, year-end financial reporting, the imposition of criminal penalties pertaining to certain conduct involving condominium elections and finances, and changes to the “conflict of interest” provisions of the statutes. Both SB 398 and HB 1237 became effective July 1, 2017.

The final piece of legislation we will review is House Bill 6027, which applies to condominium, cooperative, and homeowners’ associations. This law also became effective July 1, 2017.

HB 6027 deletes the year-end financial reporting exemption for associations that operate fewer than 50 units or parcels. Under previous law, these associations were not required to prepare a year-end annual financial report based on revenues, but rather, could prepare a report of cash receipts and expenditures.

Now, all associations must prepare a financial report based on annual revenues, regardless of the number of units or parcels. As a reminder, the following thresholds are contained in the law:

  • An association with total annual revenues of $150,000 or more, but less than $300,000, must prepare compiled financial statements.
  • An association with total annual revenues of at least $300,000, but less than $500,000, must prepare reviewed financial statements.
  • An association with total annual revenues of $500,000 or more shall prepare audited financial statements.
  • An association with total annual revenues of less than $150,000 is only required to prepare a report of case receipts and expenditures.

Further, for condominium and cooperative associations, HB 6027 also deleted the limitation on the number of times an association can waive its financial reporting requirements. Previously, condominium and cooperative associations could not waive the statutorily required financial reports for more than three consecutive years. This provision has now been deleted, although there is a bit of a glitch in the statutes since HB 6027 removed the provision, while HB 1237, which also amended these sections, left them intact. It remains to be seen how the official version of the Florida Statutes, which is due to be released in the next couple of months, will address this conflict.

This concludes our review of legislation that was enacted this year. It is also worthwhile to note that one Bill affecting condominiums that the Legislature approved was vetoed by Governor Scott.  House Bill 653 contained a number of provisions that affected community associations, many of them similar to the provisions of HB 1237 concerning condominium associations, which we have previously discussed.

HB 653 also addressed the obligation of certain high-rise buildings to retrofit fire sprinklers and/or an “engineered life safety system.” HB 653 allowed high-rise condominium buildings to opt out of the obligation to retrofit an engineered life safety system (usually required when the building has opted out of a full sprinkler retrofit) upon approval of two-thirds of all voting interests. In vetoing HB 653, Governor Scott noted the recent deadly apartment building fire in London, England, and stated his view that life safety concerns outweigh the cost burden placed on some condominium associations.

The post Review of Legislation continues – Part 5 appeared first on Florida Condo & HOA Law Blog.

Community Association Legislative Guide, 2017

07/31/2017 Yeline Goin

CALL’s Florida Community Association Legislative Guide 2017 (“Guide”) is now available online.

The 2017 Legislative Session ended with several bills passing that will have a significant effect on community associations: HB 1237, Relating to Condominiums; SB 398, Relating to Estoppel Certificates, and HB 6027, Relating to Financial Reporting. In addition to these three bills, there were over 25 other bills filed which sought to amend the Condominium Act, the Cooperative Act, and/or the Homeowners’ Association Act. Most of the bills did not pass, but the many bills that were filed show that legislators are interested in community association legislation and how it impacts their constituents. There was, of course, one bill that did pass the House and Senate but was vetoed by Governor Scott – HB 653, which would have allowed older high rises to opt out of an engineered life safety system (ELSS). We address that issue in-depth in the Guide.

The 2017 Guide features the following:

  • An overview letter from me
  • A special report from Ellyn Setnor Bogdanoff, Esq., former State Senator who led our targeting lobbying effort to pass the ELSS legislation, addressing the Governor’s veto and outlining our thoughts about how to approach the 2018 Session
  • A summary of the community association bills that were signed into law
  • A summary of the community association bills that did not pass
  • A list of actions we recommend that you, as a community association board member, should take to comply with all of the new laws
  • A letter from Donna DiMaggio Berger, a shareholder with the firm and CALL’s Founding Executive Director
  • A list of upcoming CALL events and community association classes

The post Community Association Legislative Guide, 2017 appeared first on Florida Condo & HOA Law Blog.

Florida Condo & HOA Law Blog

Review of Legislation continues – Part 5

08/02/2017 Joseph Adams

2017 Legislation Changes Financial Reporting Requirements

Today’s column is the final installment of our annual review of legislation affecting Florida community associations.

In prior columns, we reviewed Senate Bill 398 dealing with “estoppel certificates,” and House Bill 1237 which only applies to condominiums and contains changes to the statute including board member term limits, the use of debit cards, recalls, mandatory websites for certain associations, suspension of voting rights, year-end financial reporting, the imposition of criminal penalties pertaining to certain conduct involving condominium elections and finances, and changes to the “conflict of interest” provisions of the statutes. Both SB 398 and HB 1237 became effective July 1, 2017.

The final piece of legislation we will review is House Bill 6027, which applies to condominium, cooperative, and homeowners’ associations. This law also became effective July 1, 2017.

HB 6027 deletes the year-end financial reporting exemption for associations that operate fewer than 50 units or parcels. Under previous law, these associations were not required to prepare a year-end annual financial report based on revenues, but rather, could prepare a report of cash receipts and expenditures.

Now, all associations must prepare a financial report based on annual revenues, regardless of the number of units or parcels. As a reminder, the following thresholds are contained in the law:

  • An association with total annual revenues of $150,000 or more, but less than $300,000, must prepare compiled financial statements.
  • An association with total annual revenues of at least $300,000, but less than $500,000, must prepare reviewed financial statements.
  • An association with total annual revenues of $500,000 or more shall prepare audited financial statements.
  • An association with total annual revenues of less than $150,000 is only required to prepare a report of case receipts and expenditures.

Further, for condominium and cooperative associations, HB 6027 also deleted the limitation on the number of times an association can waive its financial reporting requirements. Previously, condominium and cooperative associations could not waive the statutorily required financial reports for more than three consecutive years. This provision has now been deleted, although there is a bit of a glitch in the statutes since HB 6027 removed the provision, while HB 1237, which also amended these sections, left them intact. It remains to be seen how the official version of the Florida Statutes, which is due to be released in the next couple of months, will address this conflict.

This concludes our review of legislation that was enacted this year. It is also worthwhile to note that one Bill affecting condominiums that the Legislature approved was vetoed by Governor Scott.  House Bill 653 contained a number of provisions that affected community associations, many of them similar to the provisions of HB 1237 concerning condominium associations, which we have previously discussed.

HB 653 also addressed the obligation of certain high-rise buildings to retrofit fire sprinklers and/or an “engineered life safety system.” HB 653 allowed high-rise condominium buildings to opt out of the obligation to retrofit an engineered life safety system (usually required when the building has opted out of a full sprinkler retrofit) upon approval of two-thirds of all voting interests. In vetoing HB 653, Governor Scott noted the recent deadly apartment building fire in London, England, and stated his view that life safety concerns outweigh the cost burden placed on some condominium associations.

The post Review of Legislation continues – Part 5 appeared first on Florida Condo & HOA Law Blog.

Community Association Legislative Guide, 2017

07/31/2017 Yeline Goin

CALL’s Florida Community Association Legislative Guide 2017 (“Guide”) is now available online.

The 2017 Legislative Session ended with several bills passing that will have a significant effect on community associations: HB 1237, Relating to Condominiums; SB 398, Relating to Estoppel Certificates, and HB 6027, Relating to Financial Reporting. In addition to these three bills, there were over 25 other bills filed which sought to amend the Condominium Act, the Cooperative Act, and/or the Homeowners’ Association Act. Most of the bills did not pass, but the many bills that were filed show that legislators are interested in community association legislation and how it impacts their constituents. There was, of course, one bill that did pass the House and Senate but was vetoed by Governor Scott – HB 653, which would have allowed older high rises to opt out of an engineered life safety system (ELSS). We address that issue in-depth in the Guide.

The 2017 Guide features the following:

  • An overview letter from me
  • A special report from Ellyn Setnor Bogdanoff, Esq., former State Senator who led our targeting lobbying effort to pass the ELSS legislation, addressing the Governor’s veto and outlining our thoughts about how to approach the 2018 Session
  • A summary of the community association bills that were signed into law
  • A summary of the community association bills that did not pass
  • A list of actions we recommend that you, as a community association board member, should take to comply with all of the new laws
  • A letter from Donna DiMaggio Berger, a shareholder with the firm and CALL’s Founding Executive Director
  • A list of upcoming CALL events and community association classes

The post Community Association Legislative Guide, 2017 appeared first on Florida Condo & HOA Law Blog.