Blogs & Resources

As discussed in Part I of this Blog series, two scenarios lead to most of the termination of condominiums: 1) the condominium is in a nearly uninhabitable condition and the cost of construction or repairs exceeds the projected fair market value of the condominium property (often due to natural disasters); or 2) the condominium is located on prime real estate and a developer has made an offer to purchase the property for alternative development. Part I focused on the former reason and discussed condominium terminations due to economic waste or impossibility of continuing. This Blog post concerns the “optional termination process” established by the Florida legislature in the 2007 revision of the Florida Condominium Act’s termination provisions. See Fla. Stat. §718.117(3).

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, on January 3, 2014, issued an opinion explaining what Florida associations can demand from first mortgagees who are protected by the Safe Harbor provisions of the Condominium and Homeowners’ Association Acts. In United States of America v. Forest Hill Gardens East Condominium Association, the court clarified what charges are included under the terms “common expenses” and “regular assessments” as found within the Florida Statutes. U.S. v. Forest Hill Gardens East Condo Ass’n, 2014 WL 28723 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 3, 2014). In short, the court determined that interest, late fees, collection costs and attorneys’ fees were not “common expenses” or “regular periodic assessments” for which first mortgagees were liable under Florida’s Safe Harbor provision. Id. at 1.

Have you ever heard the term “right of first refusal” in connection with real estate, commonly referred to as a “ROFR,” and wondered what it meant? Even if you are familiar with the term, have you ever wondered what may or may not trigger a ROFR? This Blog addresses exactly these issues.

While the termination of a condominium may not be an everyday occurrence, it does happen from time to time. The situation occurs frequently enough that the Florida legislature dedicated an entire section of the Florida Condominium Act to it for ensuring that a formal process is in place to protect the interests of all those involved and affected. Specifically, Section 718.117, Florida Statutes, governs this termination of condominium process and provides various procedures to follow depending upon the circumstances causing the condominium’s termination. This Blog post is Part I in a series of posts on this topic and focuses on the termination of condominiums due to economic waste or impossibility of continuing. See Fla. Stat. §718.117(2).

When properties within a condominium association are purchased, the purchaser is bound by the association’s governing documents, which can include the declaration, bylaws, articles of incorporation, and rules and regulations. When unit owners violate those governing documents, associations have certain remedies available to it under the Florida Condominium Act. Specifically, Section 718.303, Florida Statutes, provides those remedies and also the procedures that associations must follow to enforce them. This Blog post provides an overview of the statutory remedies available to condominium associations, along with the required procedures that associations must follow to ensure they do not violate the Florida Statues while attempting to enforce their own rules and regulations.

Are you a commercial property owner or a contractor that builds commercial projects in Florida? Or maybe you are an architect or engineer that designs commercial projects in Florida? If so, have you ever wondered who is liable for personal injuries caused by defective construction on commercial property? Generally, the answer lies within the Slavin Doctrine and its application to the facts at hand.

Section 718.111(12) of the Florida Condominium Act and Rules 61B-22.002, 61B-22.003(3), 61B-23.002(7) and 61B-23.0021(13) of the Florida Administrative Code provide guidelines for the maintenance and inspection of the association’s official records. Part 1 of this 3 part blog identified what records constitute official condominium association documents. This posting will identify what documents are specifically exempt from association official records.

Section 718.111(12) of the Florida Condominium Act and Rules 61B-22.002, 61B-22.003(3), 61B-23.002(7) and 61B-23.0021(13) of the Florida Administrative Code provide guidelines for the maintenance and inspection of the association’s official records. This blog post will identify what constitutes association official records, what records are exempt and procedures for requesting and responding to official records requests.

On September 20, 2013, Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal issued an opinion in the case of Cricket Properties, LLC v. Nassau Pointe at Heritage Isles Homeowners Association, Inc. This opinion is of great importance to all community associations across the state of Florida as it concerns an association’s ability to enforce liens for unpaid assessments when there has been an issuance of a tax deed on the subject property. According to Florida’s Second DCA, an association lien for unpaid assessments does not survive the issuance of a tax deed. Cricket Properties, LLC v. Nassau Pointe at Heritage Isles Homeowners’ Ass’n Inc., No. 2D12-6194 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).

A concern regarding the cleanliness of our water supply is not a new issue. Litigation revolving around the cleanliness of our water supply is increasing daily thanks in part to hydraulic fracturing. Hydraulic fracturing—often referred to as “fracking” or “hydrofracking”—and horizontal drilling are not new ways to produce oil and gas; the use of hydrofracking has simply increased recently. Hydrofracking was first tested in 1903, and first used commercially in 1948. By 1988 hydrofracking had been applied to one million wells, and currently about 35,000 wells per year experience some measure of hydrofracking. As the use of hydrofracking has increased so have the concerns, resulting in an increase in related litigation. Part of the explanation for the increased hydrofracking litigation is because fracking is now being used in jurisdictions that are not familiar with oil and gas drilling. A majority of the litigation revolves around concerns of the potential effects on groundwater and chemical composition of the liquids used in hydrofracking, but property, tort, and contract claims have grown exponentially in relation to hydrofracking. This Blog post seeks to explore the top 5 hottest legal issues in hydraulic fracturing litigation.