|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 29, 2013 10:30:04 GMT -5
As I noted, there are times when Management will get it right! And, in all fairness, that should be acknowledged. Here is the New HOA law passed in 2013. S-bag is registered and lists 790 parcels. This registration requirement was Part I of HOA Reform Bill H7119. According to the DBPR 12708 Homeowners' Associations with a total of 2,385,334 lots registered until November 23, 2013. FS720.303(13): (13) REPORTING REQUIREMENT. -- The community association manager or management firm, or the association when there is no community association manager or management firm, sH all report to the division by November 22, 2013, in a manner and form prescribed by the division. (a) The report sH all include the association’s: 1. Legal name. 2. Federal employer identification number. 3. Mailing and physical addresses. 4. Total number of parcels. 5. Total amount of revenues and expenses from the association’s annual budget. This is important because it is the first step in identifying FL HOA's which will be coming into compliance with laws currently governing condos. This will be a step forward in much-needed oversight and regulation that is actually helpful to consumers. Part II of the HOA Reform bill is here>> Part II HOA Reform Bill It will be considered next legislative session and hopefully, passed next year. |
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Nov 29, 2013 15:09:48 GMT -5
I Just took a Nap, I was trying to read; Part II HOA Reform Bill.... Just read it and you will fall asleep....  |
|
|
|
Post by Father Time on Nov 29, 2013 15:24:28 GMT -5
I wouldn't give them too much credit , even a broken Clock is right twice a day .
|
|
Anonymous Environmentalist
Guest
|
Post by Anonymous Environmentalist on Nov 29, 2013 15:40:53 GMT -5
I wouldn't give them too much credit , even a broken Clock is right twice a day . So, Father Time, you're saying they are right as much as twice a day? I still wouldn't give 'em that... |
|
Anonymous Environmentalist
Guest
|
Post by Anonymous Environmentalist on Nov 29, 2013 15:43:29 GMT -5
I Just took a Nap, I was trying to read; Part II HOA Reform Bill.... Just read it and you will fall asleep.... have a cup of coffee or an energy drink before hand, you'll enjoy more if you're awake; it's some good reading if you're not drowsy and from what I've read, it appears to give homeowners in HOA's more protections. |
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Nov 29, 2013 17:53:20 GMT -5
I Just took a Nap, I was trying to read; Part II HOA Reform Bill.... Just read it and you will fall asleep.... I gotta admit I eat this kinda stuff for breakfast, but I went comatose and did a faceplant into my Cheerios after about 2 pages... I'm gonna have to pace myself. On the other hand, maybe it would just be better to wait to see how the bill is mauled and manhandled by the special interest groups ie lawyers, trade association, property management firms etc and read the final short form... Gee, I am depressing even to myself. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 9, 2014 10:03:56 GMT -5
Somebody asked me about registering SLohA as having 790 parcels. The way I see this breakdown is: 3 of the parcels are SLohA-owned for various purposes (the two parcels that are drainage lots on S-bag Trail and the one lot adjacent to the office used for CAPS shed (why SLohA uses common property for County activities is another unknown question for another day). That leaves 787 voting/dues-paying parcels--potentially.
Interestingly, the 787 parcel number is used to calculate the assessment to support the proposed budget, but it is known that TWO of those lots are in "the foreclosure process" and presumably not paying assessments but are contributing to legal fee expenses that may or may not be returned to SLohA, contrary to what KL says. That would be 785 dues-paying lots--not 787. So, one can say that there will be a certain budget shortfall of $4,000 because of the two lots that will not contribute to the budget. Additionally, two of those lots are not eligible to vote because of the excessive delinquency.
So, we are actually talking about an effective parcel number of 785 in terms of money contribution and determining a voting quorum.
As a side note, KL should look at the financial outcome of foreclosures in the past. The resale prices of foreclosures are shockingly low and under-market for various reasons, but disrepair usually accompanies a foreclosure, thus depressing the resale price. This inevitable deficits in the collection is exacerbated by sitting on foreclosures--such as the Pitts lot--for years on end without pursuing the foreclosure and putting the lot back on the market to start paying dues again. When money is finally inhouse, the legal fees are paid FIRST from the usually-pitiful proceeds of the foreclosure, the ancillary costs are then recaptured and, if there is anything left over, it goes to SLohA income for the benefit or owners. One needs only to check the public record to see the amount of costs that will be paid to the attorney BEFORE SLohA sees a penny.
Changes in the FL law will make it even harder to sell a foreclosure lot in the future--especially the Pitts lot--whose unpaid assessment total far exceeds the value of the real estate. By statute, buyers are now required to pay the back assessments even if the Association has title. The Association does not assume the liability for the unpaid assessments but is able to pass it on to the next buyer. So, a Buyer will have to come up with not only the unpaid cumulative assessments, add to that the attorney's fees and ancillary costs! My guess is that we are already looking at $20K on the Pitts lot. Who would pay that kind of money for that yukky lot? I do not think this situation is addressed in any of our documents ie that boards are permitted to waive cumulative, unpaid assessments on a lot it owns and acquires through foreclosure. It will probably have to go to an attorney for an $opinion$. Or maybe Florida will change the law again...
|
|
