|
The Law
Dec 4, 2013 13:51:31 GMT -5
Post by Admin on Dec 4, 2013 13:51:31 GMT -5
This is the current Florida Statute 720.309(2) Agreements entered into by the Association. This law was amended by the 2012 Legislature. My comments are in italics.
720.309 Agreements entered into by the association.
(1) Any Grnt or reservation made by any document, and any contract that has a term greater than 10 years, that is made by an association before control of the association is turned over to the members other than the developer, and that provides for the operation, maintenance, or management of the association or common areas, must be fair and reasonable.
(Number (1) does not apply here)
(2) If the governing documents provide for the cost of communications services as defined in s. 202.11, information services or Internet services obtained pursuant to a bulk contract sH all be deemed an operating expense of the association. If the governing documents do not provide for such services, the board may contract for the services, and the cost sH all be deemed an operating expense of the association but must be allocated on a per-parcel basis rather than a percentage basis, notwithstanding that the governing documents provide for other than an equal sharing of operating expenses. Any contract entered into before July 1, 2011, in which the cost of the service is not equally divided among all parcel owners may be changed by a majority of the voting interests present at a regular or special meeting of the association in order to allocate the cost equally among all parcels.
(Our governing documents DO NOT provide for communications services; therefore, this amended provision authorizes the board to contract for information/internet services and deem the cost an operating expense. This means it is part of your assessment and you must pay it. Before the amendment, the authority to do this rested with the governing documents--not the board. )
(a) Any contract entered into by the board may be canceled by a majority of the voting interests present at the next regular or special meeting of the association, whichever occurs first. Any member may make a motion to cancel such contract, but if no motion is made or if such motion fails to obtain the required vote, the contract sH all be deemed ratified for the term expressed therein.
Yup just like it says--no doublespeak. If you want to cancel the contract at the next meeting, make a motion. The majority vote allows the contract to either stand or go away.
And, of course, my obligatory disclaimer: The above information is provided for informational and educational purposes and you should not rely on the content to guide any action taken. You should consult an attorney for legal advice.
|
|
|
The Law
Dec 4, 2013 14:19:21 GMT -5
Post by Admin on Dec 4, 2013 14:19:21 GMT -5
Don't go on overload, Peeps! Your Admin has been slogging through the FL Statutes and found another law requiring disclosures and approval of contracts. This one involves potential conflict of interest of Association directors which have financial interest in the contract under consideration
720.3033(2)
If the association enters into a contract or other transaction with any of its directors or a corporation, firm, association that is not an affiliated homeowners’ association, or other entity in which an association director is also a director or officer or is financially interested, the board must:
(1) comply with the requirements of s. 617.0832. (This is the Non-profit Corporation Law) (2) enter the disclosures required by s. 617.0832 into the written minutes of the meeting. (This is the Non-Profit Corporation Law) (3) Approve the contract or other transaction by the affirmative vote of 2/3rds of the directors present. (4) At the next regular or special meeting of the members, disclose the existence of the contract or other transaction to the members. Upon motion of any member, the contract or transaction sH all be brought up for a vote and may be canceled by a majority vote of the members present. If the members cancel the contract, the association is only liable for the reasonable value of goods and services provided up to the time of cancellation and is not liable for any termination fee, liquidated damages or other penalty for such cancellation.
Also, the Association should make the disclosure at the time the contract is first discussed. If the Association fails to disclose, a member should bring it up.
And, of course, my obligatory disclaimer: The above information is provided for informational and educational purposes and you should not rely on the content to guide any action taken. You should consult an attorney for legal advice.
|
|
|
The Law
Dec 4, 2013 21:26:14 GMT -5
Post by Dick Tracy on Dec 4, 2013 21:26:14 GMT -5
Whew !!! I am trying to let this Info flow into my head... What is one to do? Fish or Cut-Bait? O-Me.... 8-(
|
|
Anonymous Environmentalist
Guest
|
The Law
Dec 4, 2013 22:35:31 GMT -5
Post by Anonymous Environmentalist on Dec 4, 2013 22:35:31 GMT -5
I say cut the stinking bait in here called the board of directors and management--they are the ones that need to go...
|
|
Anonymous Environmentalist
Guest
|
The Law
Dec 4, 2013 22:39:41 GMT -5
Post by Anonymous Environmentalist on Dec 4, 2013 22:39:41 GMT -5
Anyone know that there is a law against forcing communications services on homeowners who don't want or need it?
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Dec 5, 2013 0:44:49 GMT -5
From all I have read, there is only a law against preventing homeowners in condos/hoa's from receiving competitive services if they desire. (Remember all the uproar about satellite dishes? Anyone think that was about cosmetics?) But, this would mean in addition to the bulk service contracted by their condo/hoa. There are many condo/hoa homeowners who are subject to long term contracts by bulk providers who do not use the service, enter into their own independent arrangements with providers and are paying for both.
There are some laws on the books that address situations where bulk telecom contracts are entered into by developers prior to the turnover. I read one advisory opinion by a lawyer that advised the complaining homeowner "it is cheaper to just pay the fee than fight the condo/hoa". Sad but true.
There is also an "opt out" provision for condo/hoa owners who have qualifying disabilities and financial circumstances.
Because the bulk contract is now deemed a "common expense" under the law, it is treated as any other common expense of the HOA. If you do not pay, HOA can demand, lien and foreclose. (Thank your legislature which continues to enact consumer-hostile laws contrary to governing documents ie "fines" in 2010 and "contracts for fee" in 2011. MANBOD is apparently monitoring these legislative changes.
Do you think that it is "MAN" or ''BOD" that is watching for newly-legislated opportunities to control owners and profit from new fee schemes?)
MANBOD has not yet declared its intention with regard to the parkwide Internet Fee. We should keep in mind that balloting the issue does not require the MANBOD to act in one way or another; it is an opinion sampling. If the issue passes the ballot, it simply gives an indication of the general acceptability of the fee to membership and the MANBOD proceeds to exercise the will of the owners by entering into a contract...or not. This is their fiduciary duty.
Owners have a one shot remedy if MANBOD signs a contract. This last chance must be done at the next meeting with a motion by an owner and the vote forced. Simple majority prevails. If this is not done, the contract stands and owners are stuck with the fee.
The above information is provided for informational and educational purposes and you should not rely on the content to guide any action taken. You should consult an attorney for legal advice.
|
|
|
The Law
Dec 8, 2013 13:58:55 GMT -5
Post by BagLady on Dec 8, 2013 13:58:55 GMT -5
Cross-posted from Internet Round 2
POOR Person
It is a shame that your own representatives are causing this problem for you and others. If you fall into a certain subgroup of owners, you could be exempt from paying the assessment:
This is written badly so in real language it says if there is another person in your household who has the physical ability to use the internet, you cannot avoid the fee. (Not having a computer is not an exemption). If you are the only one in the household and do not have the physical ability to use a computer to access the internet, you are exempt. This provision also provides that if your household qualifies under the income limitations described, you are also exempt from having to pay for an internet fee.
This exemption might apply to quite a few people in here who have hearing and/or sight impairments. The provision does not specify the threshold degree of the impairment for either sight or hearing. If it can be documented to preclude use of a computer, the hearing and/or sight impairment would likely qualify.
I would urge you to attend the meeting and appeal to your elected leaders to allow the marketplace to function without their further interference. State your hardship situation and ask your representatives to stop forcing owners to buy unwanted and unneeded discretionary services and encumbering other peoples' incomes with additional unnecessary fees.
Disclaimer: This is provided for informational and educational purposes and should not be used to guide action. Consult an attorney for legal advice.
|
|
Anonymous Environmentalist
Guest
|
The Law
Dec 8, 2013 14:43:31 GMT -5
Post by Anonymous Environmentalist on Dec 8, 2013 14:43:31 GMT -5
the problem with that is getting them to listen and look at this from the standpoint of other people's extremely limited finances, and to realize that this would be a hardship on a lot of individuals in here and that they simply cannot turn a blind eye to these people's needs and totally ignore them by not considering harmful impending financial hardship.
|
|
|
The Law
Dec 8, 2013 15:48:02 GMT -5
Post by BagLady on Dec 8, 2013 15:48:02 GMT -5
Well, if these questions were asked and answered truthfully, there might be some light shed on that question.
Q#1: How much of the $15/mo assessment fee goes to the management company for administrative/handling fee?
Q#2: How much of the $15/mo assessment fee goes to the director(s) sponsoring the proposal? (This will be denied, of course, as there is a law against kickbacks, but it would be a giggle to see the squirm.)
Q#3: Are there any directors who will disclose a financial interest in the contract vendor (K C) under consideration per FS720?
Q#4: What is the source of the first year's funding? (Has BOD already put it in the proposed budget which we still do not have 3 days before the Town H all Meeting?)
Q#5: When will the FULL PROPOSAL be posted to be read on the Official website of SLohA?
(This is important because owners cannot rely on anyone's "word"--we have been lied to too many times. Owners should require complete disclosure of the proposal and contract which is an official record and the proposal can be requested immediately following the meeting. There is no evidence yet of a contract until the assessment is actually levied.)
You cannot have an assessment like this from an outside business vendor unless the Board sponsors the plan. And you cannot take out the portion of the assessment fee for "internet" and credit it to the various sponsors/handlers without some kind of administrative expense by accounting.
This internet fee assessment requires the authority of law, the sponsorship of the Board and the participation of the Management Company. Does anyone think that K C will get ALL the money?
Remember that the original defeated proposal two years ago was $10/mo--it has increased by 50% in two years for a reason.
Let's play with some numbers. The total take from owners will be $141,660 per year.
The $10/mo/lot might go to K C and adds annual revenue of $94,440. (787 lots x $10/mo x 12 months) The $5/mo/lot might be divided between K C owners and Management Company--a nice tidy sum of $47,220/year.
Is that enough reason to turn a blind eye to another person's financial standpoint?
|
|
|
The Law
Dec 8, 2013 19:00:37 GMT -5
Post by justme on Dec 8, 2013 19:00:37 GMT -5
I have been watching this board and management in here over the last 3 years and steadily I see the signs of a collapsing association
I feel there are 3 options left for me 1 Take whats coming and its not good financially
2 Sell up,and get out as about 30 others have done
3 Join st lawsuit.this gives me the opportunity to withdraw from the assoc.
All these options arnt good ones, but I am left with few choices as this board and manager is now I consider a runaway board
|
|