Showing posts with label condominium association. Show all posts
Showing posts with label condominium association. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

I told ya so...

Those "Green Shoots" will probably die in the chill of Round 3 of the Foreclosure debacle:

From November to February, the number of prime mortgages that were delinquent at least 90 days, were in foreclosure or had deteriorated to the point that the lender took possession of the home increased more than 473,000, exceeding 1.5 million, according to a New York Times analysis of data provided by First American CoreLogic, a real estate research group. Those loans totaled more than $224 billion.

During the same period, subprime mortgages in those three categories increased by fewer than 14,000, reaching 1.65 million. The number of similarly troubled Alt-A loans — those given to people with slightly tainted credit — rose 159,000, to 836,000.

Over all, more than four million loans worth $717 billion were in the three distressed categories in February, a jump of more than 60 percent in dollar terms compared with a year earlier.

Thursday, May 14, 2009

Thnking of renting space for cell antennas?

From Community Association Insider; here in Florida, a vote of the members is required, FYI.

Issue Date: April 2009, Posted On: 3/26/2009


Avoid Pitfalls When Leasing Condo Roof Space to Wireless Providers

In these challenging economic times, some condo associations are stretched to think of new ways to offset dwindling assessments. One potentially lucrative option is to lease rooftop space for antenna installation. The proliferation of cell phones, broadband, paging, wireless Web, and related technologies has driven the demand for wireless companies to increase their coverage areas and data transmission capacities.

Wireless providers require towers and other elevated spaces to install the equipment needed to serve their subscribers. Although independent structures have been built to house the necessary transmission equipment, many high-traffic areas simply do not have sufficient unoccupied land to build on. Therefore, installing mini-towers and inconspicuous transmission equipment on top of existing buildings has become an increasingly popular alternative.

Of course, the viability and value to wireless companies largely depends on the location of your buildings. Condominium buildings located near a high-traffic area will usually generate the most revenue. And usually, wireless companies will approach your association about leasing rooftop space after they have conducted surveys to determine where a need exists for additional transmission sites and the most advantageous locations for equipment placement are determined.

Many associations are at a disadvantage against the wireless companies because they may not be familiar with rooftop leases and the typical contractual sticking points involved. Although a cell phone service provider's offer to lease a portion of your building's rooftop may seem like easy money, if an association agrees to the provisions in a standard rooftop lease without carefully analyzing each clause in the agreement, an association will probably regret the decision, says real estate attorney Mark Morfopoulous.

We will review the main clauses in a standard rooftop lease agreement and make suggestions for negotiating lease language that is more association-friendly than the industry's boilerplate.

Location and Installation of Antennas and Equipment

Standard rooftop lease agreements begin by broadly describing the location of the cell phone service provider's equipment, often referred to as Equipment Space, Antenna Space, and Cabling Space. This general language does not go far enough to protect owners. Therefore, when negotiating the Location and Installation clause, you should:

Make all installations subject to your prior approval. First, you should make sure that the location, type, weight, and size of all antennas, equipment, and shelters comprising the wireless company's facilities installed at any time during the lease term must be approved by the association prior to their installation.

Guard against damage. The installation of antennas, no matter where they're located on the roof, could damage the roof or other structural elements of the building. To protect your building, at a minimum, make sure that the cell phone service provider has adequate insurance to cover the risk in the event damage occurs.

Get detailed list of equipment. Today, the size and weight of the antenna(s) may be satisfactory. Tomorrow, however, the wireless company could install new antennas that are twice the size and weight of those originally installed. This may not be what you intended when you signed the lease. A larger antenna could be unsightly and block site line views. If new or additional antennas weigh more, they may cause damage to your building.

Maintaining and Repairing Company's Facilities

Although a wireless company should have the right to maintain and repair its facilities at a site, an association should have the right to approve the replacement or upgrading of any of the company's equipment in the event the equipment is not “substantially equivalent to” the equipment being replaced or upgraded.

Make company maintain roof, building integrity. With respect to the installation area, the company should agree to maintain the waterproof integrity of the building and the roof. In addition, a wireless company should not make any improvements or alterations to the site except as specifically authorized and approved by you.

Wireless Company's Entry onto Site

Standard rooftop leases give the company “24/7” access to their equipment. Although the cell phone service provider may have a legitimate interest in having round-the-clock access to its facilities, there are valid security reasons why an association would want to control such access.

Require notice. It is appropriate to require the company to give you 24 hours' advance notice of its need to access the roof, except in the case of emergencies in which instance, the company should call the association manager to give notice of its intent to enter the site.

Permits, Approvals, Authorizations

Standard rooftop leases state that before doing any work relating to the attachment of the antenna or the installation of any equipment, the company will obtain any and all governmental permits or approvals that may be required and provide you with copies of them.

Get expert's safety report, too. While obtaining governmental permits and approvals is a basic requirement for any radio antenna deal, a wireless company should also be able to deliver, at its sole expense, a report from a licensed engineering firm stating that the their plans do not pose any safety concerns to the building and the members. This report should attest that the site can safely accommodate the company's equipment.

A safety and engineering report can be used not only to satisfy you that the equipment is safe, but also to show the members in your building that you have performed the proper due diligence to ensure that the building is safe for all.

Make wireless company comply with report recommendations. In the event such reports call for modifications to the site to safely accommodate the company's equipment, the wireless company should be responsible for making such modifications at its sole expense before equipment is installed.

Get right to hire independent reviewer. In addition, an association should have the right to hire an independent engineering consulting firm specializing in the construction and maintenance of radio antenna equipment and/or radio frequency electromagnetic fields emissions to review: (1) the engineering report and safety report; and (2) the wireless company's work plan, as it may be revised from time to time, all at the wireless company's sole cost and expense.

Relocation of Facility

This provision is one of the most highly negotiated sections in a rooftop agreement. An association should at any time be able to require the company to remove or modify its equipment or relocate it to another area designated by you, if the equipment:

  • Causes physical damage to the structural integrity of the building;

  • Causes any interference; or

  • Creates or results in any noise, odor, or nuisance tending to disturb any member of the building or adjacent areas.

Spell out shut-off/restart terms. You should request that the company agree that it must immediately shut off the equipment upon notification of any damage or interference, and may restart modified or relocated equipment to test for any damage or interference only with your permission, which should not be unreasonably withheld.

Agree to compromise. On the other hand, the company will argue that it intends to invest a substantial amount of money to install its equipment. Relocation of its antennas not only can be a huge expense, but may also render the site far less effective or even useless for its intended purpose. Further, if the wireless company is forced to shut off its equipment or render it inoperative for any period of time, that would affect its ability to provide cell phone service to its customers.

Therefore, a compromise may be to:

  • Allow the wireless company to terminate the lease if it has reasonable grounds to do so;

  • Provide alternate space for the equipment in the building; or

  • Consider sharing the cost of removal and/or relocation of the equipment.

Assignment and Sublet

Standard rooftop agreements usually state that the wireless company “shall not assign this Lease or sublet, mortgage, or hypothecate this Lease or the Premises without the Association's written consent, which may not be unreasonably withheld, delayed, or conditioned.”

Be aware that many cell phone service providers will attempt to co-locate with other cell providers at one site and reap huge profits that the association will not participate in—unless the lease requires the wireless company to pay the association a portion of those profits.

Inserting a profit-sharing formula into this provision could be an answer to this problem, but there are other issues to think of as well: Will the new subleasor install equipment that will interfere with the facilities of others at the building? Are the additional frequencies safe? Will the new equipment damage the building, be an eyesore, or block site lines? These are some of the matters you should consider when negotiating a standard assignment and sublet clause.

Insider Source

Mark Morfopoulos, Esq.: Meislik & Meislik; 66 Park St., Montclair, NJ 07042;http://www. meislik.com.

Friday, April 10, 2009

Are we back to Hoovervilles?

What in the world is going on, what with homes in foreclosure being squatted in? This is just unbelievable. 9 years ago we had a budget surplus as far as the eye could see, more income equality, and we squandered it down a hole....

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

The riskiest 25 markets in the US

This article is from Forbes, where I'm sure that the answer to the problem is the flat tax.  Florida has about as many cities as anybody, including Miami, at #2, with 33% non-prime loans...

Click through the article to see the list....

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

To protect and serve????

The forced privatization of municipal services on associations continues unabated as Bill McCollum, Public servant and "conservative" issued an Attorney General opinion that municipalities can require condominium associations to hire private security guards. So now owners get to pay not only full bore property taxes to help fund police departments, but can rest easy knowing that they have to pay twice for security. This is ridiculous, and part of an ongoing asssult on condo associations by regulation minded elected officials at all levels of government.

Amazing..you buy a condo and lose your rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution....

Number: AGO 2009-08
Date: February 23, 2009
Subject: Municipalities, security services for condominiums

Mr. Hans Ottinot, City Attorney
City of Sunny Isles Beach
18070 Collins Avenue
Sunny Isles Beach, Florida 33160

RE: MUNICIPALITIES – CONDOMINIUMS – POLICE POWERS – HOME RULE POWERS – authority of municipality to require condominiums to provide security services on condominium property. Ch. 718, Fla. Stat.

Dear Mr. Ottinot:

You have requested my opinion on substantially the following question:

Is the City of Sunny Isles Beach authorized to enact an ordinance requiring a condominium association located within the city limits to furnish security guard services upon their premises to curtail the incidence of crime?

In sum:

The City of Sunny Isles Beach appears to have the authority pursuant to section 2(b), Article VIII, Florida Constitution, and section 166.021, Florida Statutes, to adopt an ordinance requiring condominium associations within the jurisdiction of the city to furnish security guard services upon their premises to curtail the incidence of crime.

According to your letter, the city is facing an increase in the number of crimes occurring in certain areas of the city including several high rise apartment complexes and condominiums. The city's police department responds to reported crimes and uses its best efforts to eliminate and curtail crime throughout the city. However, you state that the city's police department cannot maintain a constant presence within a condominium or apartment complex. The city is considering adopting an ordinance that would require condominium associations and apartment complex owners to furnish security guard services upon their premises to curtail the incidence of crime. You are particularly concerned that Chapter 718, Florida Statutes, the "Condominium Act" may preempt or conflict with any proposed local legislation.

Initially, I must advise you that my response is limited to a consideration of municipal home rule powers issues as they relate to your question. Any consideration of whether the particular ordinance enacted may be violative of constitutional guarantees, such as equal protection, or touch on such constitutional issues as impairment of contract would require an examination of the actual terms of any such ordinance and the legislative history related to its enactment. This information has not been provided to us and we cannot speculate on the enactment or content of the proposed ordinance. In addition, the City of Sunny Isles Beach is located within Miami-Dade County, a constitutional charter county.[1] This office has not been advised of any provision of the Dade County Charter that could affect the proposed ordinance and therefore no comment is expressed regarding any possible preemption or conflict issues in that regard.

Section 2(b), Article VIII of the Florida Constitution provides, in part that:

"Municipalities shall have governmental, corporate and proprietary powers to enable them to conduct municipal government, perform municipal functions and render municipal services, and may exercise any power for municipal purposes except as otherwise provided by law."

The Florida Supreme Court has stated that this constitutional provision "expressly grants to every municipality in this state authority to conduct municipal government, perform municipal functions, and render municipal services."[2] The Court stated, in State v. City of Sunrise, that the only limitation on the power of municipalities under this constitutional section is that such power must be exercised for a valid municipal purpose. As determined by the Court, "[l]egislative statutes are relevant only to determine limitations of authority" and municipalities need no further authorization from the Legislature to conduct municipal government.[3]

Pursuant to section 166.021(1), Florida Statutes, municipalities are granted "the governmental, corporate, and proprietary powers to enable them to conduct municipal
government, perform municipal functions, and render municipal services, and may exercise any power for municipal purposes, except when expressly prohibited by law." Subsection (3) of the statute prescribes limitations on the subjects that municipal legislation may address:

"The Legislature recognizes that pursuant to the grant of power set forth in s. 2(b), Art. VIII of the State Constitution, the legislative body of each municipality has the power to enact legislation concerning any subject matter upon which the state Legislature may act, except:
(a) The subjects of annexation, merger, and exercise of extraterritorial power, which require general or special law pursuant to s. 2(c), Art. VIII of the State Constitution;
(b) Any subject expressly prohibited by the constitution;
(c) Any subject expressly preempted to state or county government by the constitution or by general law; and
(d) Any subject preempted to a county pursuant to a county charter adopted under the authority of ss. 1(g), 3, and 6(e), Art. VIII of the State Constitution."

The relationship between local and state legislation was specifically discussed by the
Florida Supreme Court in City of Miami Beach v. Rocio Corporation:

"The principle that a municipal ordinance is inferior to state law remains undisturbed. Although legislation may be concurrent, enacted by both state and local governments in areas not preempted by the state, concurrent legislation enacted by municipalities may not conflict with state law. If conflict arises, state law prevails. An ordinance which supplements a statute's restriction of rights may coexist with that statute, whereas an ordinance which countermands rights provided by statute must fail."[4]

The City of Sunny Isles Beach, therefore, may legislate on any matter upon which the Legislature may act, so long as its ordinance does not forbid what the Legislature has expressly licensed or authorized, or permit what the Legislature has expressly forbidden.[5]

The issue of conflict between local ordinances and state law was addressed in Jordan Chapel Freewill Baptist Church v. Dade County.[6] The court in Jordan Chapel stated that:

"Legislative provisions are inconsistent if, in order to comply with one provision, a violation of the other is required. . . .[T]he sole test of conflict for purposes of preemption is the impossibility of co-existence of the two laws. Courts are therefore concerned with whether compliance with a County ordinance requires a violation of a state statute or renders compliance with a state statute impossible."[7] (emphasis supplied in original)

Chapter 718 of the Florida Statutes, is the "Condominium Act."[8] The purpose of the act, as provided by the Legislature and recognized by the courts, is to recognize the condominium form of property ownership and establish a detailed scheme for the creation, sale, and operation of condominiums.[9] As specifically set forth in section 718.102, Florida Statutes, the purpose of the act is:

"(1) To give statutory recognition to the condominium form of ownership of real property.
(2) To establish procedures for the creation, sale, and operation of condominiums.

Every condominium created and existing in this state shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter."

The operation of a condominium is accomplished by the condominium association, a Florida corporation which can be either a for profit or not for profit.[10] The owners of the units are shareholders or members of the association and the officers and directors of the association are charged with a fiduciary relationship to the unit owners.[11] The powers and duties of the condominium association include those described in section 718.111, Florida Statutes, and "except as expressly limited or restricted in this chapter, those set forth in the declaration and bylaws and chapters 607 and 617, as applicable."[12] The association's powers include, but are not limited to, the maintenance, management, and operation of the condominium property.[13]

The only provision of the Condominium Act which specifically mentions security services is section 718.115, Florida Statutes, relating to common expenses. Pursuant to section 718.115(1)(a), Florida Statutes:

"Common expenses include the expenses of the operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, or protection of the common elements and association property, costs of carrying out the powers and duties of the association, and any other expense, whether or not included in the foregoing, designated as common expense by this chapter, the declaration, the documents creating the association, or the bylaws. Common expenses also include reasonable transportation services, insurance for directors and officers, road maintenance and operation expenses, in-house communications, and security services, which are reasonably related to the general benefit of the unit owners even if such expenses do not attach to the common elements or property of the condominium. However, such common expenses must either have been services or items provided on or after the date control of the association is transferred from the developer to the unit owners or must be services or items provided for in the condominium documents or bylaws. Unless the manner of payment or allocation of expenses is otherwise addressed in the declaration of condominium, the expenses of any items or services required by any federal, state, or local governmental entity to be installed, maintained, or supplied to the condominium property by the association, including, but not limited to, firesafety equipment or water and sewer service where a master meter serves the condominium, shall be common expenses whether or not such items or services are specifically identified as common expenses in the declaration of condominium, articles of incorporation, or bylaws of the association." (e.s.)

Thus, security services generally are considered common expenses which are reasonably related to the general benefit of the unit owners and must be provided on or after the date control of the association is transferred from the developer to the unit owners or must be provided for in the condominium documents or bylaws. However, as the statute makes clear, expenses for services required by a governmental entity shall be considered common expenses whether or not those services are specifically identified in the condominium documents.

With the exception of the statute discussed above, no provision of Chapter 718, Florida Statutes, speaks to a requirement for providing security services on condominium property. Thus, I cannot say that the subject is preempted to the state or would conflict with any current statutory provision in the Condominium Act. In light of the home rule powers of the municipality, it would appear that the City of Sunny Isles Beach has the authority to enact such an ordinance.

I would also note that the courts of this state have recognized the broad scope of municipal police powers and it appears that the legislation you propose has been advocated in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare. It is generally the case in Florida and elsewhere that "assuming a regulation is necessary for the welfare of the public, and is not physically invasive or confiscatory of some existing property right, it is probably within the government's 'police power' to enact it."[14]

However, while Florida municipalities enjoy broad powers to adopt police power legislation, those powers must be exercised within the limits of the Florida Constitution. Thus, a police power ordinance is subject to the constitutional limitations provided by Article I, section 2, Florida Constitution, that any such legislation not be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious, and that the means employed by the legislative body have a real and substantial relation to the object sought to be attained.[15] Thus, without comment on the policy of enacting such an ordinance, in considering the proposed ordinance, the City of Sunny Isles Beach should be mindful of whether such an ordinance imposing a security requirement on a particular form of multi-family residential ownership, that is, a condominium association, would pass constitutional muster as applying equally and uniformly to all persons similarly conditioned.[16]

While this office has identified no Florida case law considering the issues surrounding adoption of a local security requirement for condominium property, several cases from New Jersey discuss a number of issues presented by such legislation. In 1993, the Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed an ordinance passed by the City of Newark requiring certain private property owners to provide armed security guards on their premises for certain periods during the day.[17] The Newark ordinance was challenged by apartment owners who argued, among other things, that the ordinance was an improper attempt by the city to delegate its governmental duty to provide police protection. The New Jersey courts recognized that local governments bear the burden of providing police protection and that this duty may not be transferred to private citizens. However, as the Court had noted in a line of cases,[18] local governments may call on private citizens to provide assistance in the performance of that duty. Thus, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that "[t]he requirement of an armed security guard for plaintiffs' buildings in no way constitutes an abdication of the City's own duties; rather, it manifests a rational legislative determination that a certain class of buildings poses special risks of crime and that the municipal police alone cannot possibly deal with all the crime in the City in a timely manner."[19]

Accordingly, it is my opinion that the City of Sunny Isles Beach appears to have the authority pursuant to section 2(b), Article VIII, Florida Constitution, and section 166.021, Florida Statutes, to adopt an ordinance requiring condominium associations within the jurisdiction of the city to furnish security guard services upon their premises to curtail the incidence of crime.

Sincerely,

Bill McCollum
Attorney General

BM/tgh

--------------------------------------------------

[1] See Art. VIII, s. 6(e) and (f) and s. 11, Fla. Const.

[2] State v. City of Sunrise, 354 So. 2d 1206, 1209 (Fla. 1978).

[3] Supra at 1209. See also City of Miami Beach v. Forte Towers, Inc., 305 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 1974).

[4] City of Miami Beach v. Rocio Corporation, 404 So. 2d 1066, 1070 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), petition for review denied, 408 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 1981).

[5] See generally 12 Fla. Jur. 2d Counties and Municipal Corporations, s. 187.

[6] 334 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). And see City of Kissimmee v. Florida Retail Federation, Inc., 915 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (generally the fact that local legislation imposes additional requirements on a person or business is not evidence of conflict); F.Y.I. Adventures v. City of Ocala, 698 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (if no issue of preemption, conflict with state statute is given a very strict and limited meaning; they must contradict each other in the sense that both legislative provisions cannot co-exist, i.e., in order to comply with one, a violation of the other is required).

[7] Id. at 664.

[8] See s. 718.101, Fla. Stat.

[9] See, e.g., Neuman v. Grandview At Emerald Hills, Inc., 861 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Raines v. Palm Beach Leisureville Community Association, Inc., 413 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 1982) (purposes of Ch. 718, Fla. Stat., are to give statutory recognition to condominium form of ownership and to establish procedures for creation, sale, and operation of condominiums).

[10] Section 718.111(1)(a), Fla. Stat.

[11] Id.

[12] Section 718.111(2), Fla. Stat.

[13] Section 718.111(3), Fla. Stat.

[14] See, e.g., Lee County v. Sunbelt Equities, II, Ltd. Partnership, 619 So. 2d 996 at 1006 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Dragomirecky v. Town of Ponce Inlet, 882 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (regulations duly enacted pursuant to lawful authority that relate to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare are presumptively valid).

[15] See State v. Leicht, 402 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 1981), cert. denied,102 S.Ct. 1611, 455 U.S. 989, 71 L.Ed 2d 848 (1982); Rainey v. Nelson, 257 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 1972); Iacovone v. State, 639 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), affirmed, 660 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 1995); City of Panama City v. Head, 797 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

[16] See Haber v. State, 396 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 1981); City of Panama City v. Head, supra; 515 Associates v. City of Newark, 623 A.2d 1366 (N.J. 1993).

[17] 515 Associates v. City of Newark, 623 A.2d 1366 (N.J. 1993).

[18] See e.g., Sunrise Village Associates v. Borough of Roselle Park, 438 A.2d 945 (Law Div. 1980), affirmed, 438 A.2d 944 (App. Div. 1981), cert. denied, 446 A.2d 144 (N.J. 1982); and Hudson Circle Servicenter, Inc. v. Kearny, 359 A.2d 862 (N.J. 1976).

[19] 515 Associates v. City of Newark, 623 A.2d 1366, at 1372-1373 (N.J. 1993).

Friday, January 30, 2009

Comply with the FDCPA when you collect!!!

Several years ago, the collection of unpaid condominium association assessments was relatively simple. The procedure to collect remained the same, but with values rising by 2% per month or more, condominium associations who had to go through the foreclosure process, which occurred about 40 times (!) less often than they do now, were paid in full even at the sale, due to the rising price environment.

It has come to my attention that in this declining price environment, some management companies are adding certain fees to offset their internal costs of bookkeeping. I understand the problem that Community Association Managers face. In these unprecedented times, the cost of additional bookkeeping puts a strain on their budget, and the company has somewhat of a “no-win” choice: either find a way to isolate the costs of the extra bookkeeping, such as adding an “actual cost” into the 45-day initial demand letter in the homeowner association setting, (as allowed by law, at least for the time being) or force a rise in the basic management fee, thereby punishing the people who pay for the costs incurred by the people who don’t pay.

The problem arises when those management companies, or the attorneys who represent the associations, attempt to collect an additional fee or cost from the delinquent owner through the demand process. In my opinion, that is a violation of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (the “Act”). The Act provides that a debtor is only obligated to pay for debts that he/she legally contracts to pay. In the case of a Condominium Association, the legal contract and agreement thereto is the Declaration of Condominium and the Condominium Documents. Additionally, state law may allow imposition of other costs (the “actual costs” for HOAs, as referred to above).

In the condominium setting, however, there is no authority either under state law, the Act, or the documents to segregate a separate cost and impose that cost against debtors. Make no mistake; the issue is not whether the associations and their managers have the legal right to agree, by contract, for the association to pay the management company additional fees to pay for the costs of keeping track of delinquent owners. That is a matter of contract between the association and the management company. It is perfectly legal to charge an association, say $25 per delinquent owner. That is is a cost of the contract shared by all owners. The problem arises because neither the association, nor the management company, nor counsel for the association, can legally require that a unit owner debtor pay those fees.

I have always counseled my clients and their management companies not to ask for those fees when collecting, either in the initial demand sent by the management company or through legal counsel. While this may not create liability for the Associations, I believe it creates extensive potential liability for the lawyers and management companies who do so.

What’s the bottom line? Management companies and lawyers who demand that condominium unit owners pay additional fees and costs other than those allowed by law are exposing themselves to liability, with the result of possibly hundreds or thousands of individual lawsuits being brought against them for an alleged violation of the Act. While there have been some notable class action lawsuits involving the law firm of Katzman and Korr and my former law firm, Becker & Poliakoff, if I was a plaintiff’s lawyer, I would run an ad seeking out people who may have been charged those extra fees and proceed to bring a thousand actions, each on behalf of an individual owner, against entities who violate the law. While I don’t advocate this, and I certainly don’t wish it on any management company or any lawyer, I feel strongly that my clients and their managers should strictly follow legal guidelines for collections. Being aggressive and taking prompt action is one thing; violating federal and state laws is another.

Thursday, January 22, 2009

On the other hand, we may be only 1/3 through....

“Credit losses could peak at a level of $3.6 trillion for U.S. institutions,” famous forecaster of doom and gloom Nouriel Roubini said this week, “half of them by banks and broker dealers. If that’s true, it means the U.S. banking system is effectively insolvent, because it starts with a capital of $1.4 trillion. This is a systemic banking crisis.”

Total financial write-downs and losses have now surpassed $1 trillion since the start of this crisis in mid-2007. That’s puts us barely a third of the way though this mess, if you follow Roubini’s logic.

Sunday, November 23, 2008

Community Association Collections for Dummies

Here is a shortened version of what I prepared for a client, FYI---

When we are asked to file a lien we send it to the debtor Certified mail and regular mail. We send the original to be filed with the clerk of the court the same day. Law requires that we provide 30 days notice to debtor before filing suit.

Usually we get the return receipt back; sometimes there are issues with the debtors address; there is no one answer fits all. We move as fast as we can. We NEVER give less than the 30 day notice.

After we clear up the issue of notice we ask for approval to foreclose. I recommend that he board authorize management to do so as these are critical times in the industry and delay is bad.
After we get authority to foreclose, we filed the complaint with the court, lis pendens and serve the suit on the debtor. We wait until 30 days after service of the suit on the debtor (time for service varies, maybe out of state, avoiding the process server, whatever) before seeking a default from the clerk of the court if they do not answer.

Usually 3/4 of people who have not paid arrange to make payment at this point including all fees and costs, interest, etc.

If they continue to ignore us, we seek summary judgment; that usually takes 10 more days to get filed and a hearing date is set about 30 days later.

Usually 3/4 of the remaining people pay by this time or make arrangements to do so.
At the summary judgment hearing, we ask for sale of the unit on the courthouse steps to satisfy the amounts due. Usually the court sets it 30 days later.

If we go to sale, we bid up to the amount of the judgment; if someone goes higher, the association is paid in full as well as all interest, costs, etc...if not (about 1 in 200) the association takes title to the unit.

If there is a first mortgage it is subject to that mortgage, what most people do not understand is that no payments are required...no taxes, no insurance, only make sure liability insurance in place.

Usually at this point we try to rent it month to month just to recover lost assessments. I hardly ever ask for fees, and rarely ask for costs to be repaid, as by the time of sale I have about $800 in hard money paid out for the benefit of the association. Given the current environment, I am considering to ask to be reimbursed for my out of pocket costs if nothing is realized at the sale...that is done on a case by case basis.