Managers Report newsletter

Improper Hard Flooring Not Protected by Selective Enforcement or Waiver of Defenses

It is not uncommon for an association to have flooring restrictions to protect downstairs unit owners from excessive noise. Can a unit owner claim selective enforcement if an association only seeks to enforce the rules against the upstairs unit owners? What if the association’s president says it is “ok?” Maybe the flooring will still have to be ripped up!

In a case hot off the presses, a Florida appellate court just concluded that an association did not selectively enforce or waive its flooring restriction. In Laguna Tropical v. Barnave, No. 3D16-1531 (Fla. 3rd DCA, January 25, 2017), a unit owner replaced her carpeting with laminate flooring. The following year, the resident below the owners’ second story unit complained about noise and asked the association to enforce the Declaration, which prohibited an owner from altering, modifying, or replacing the interior of a unit without the consent of the association and to enforce a rule providing that only carpeting shall be installed in the units.

Following an unsuccessful arbitration effort, the association filed suit against the owner to enforce the flooring restrictions. The trial court agreed with the owner’s defense of selective enforcement and granted judgment for the owner.

The Florida appellate court reversed the judgment and returned the case to the trial court for enforcement of the Declaration against the owner. The court noted that of the condominium’s 94 units, 11 were only upstairs units, 11 were downstairs units, and the remaining 72 units included first and second floor space within the same unit. The configuration was important to the selective enforcement defense because owners of two story units who installed hard flooring upstairs would not have complained about their own flooring.

Although the owner argued that the association only enforced the flooring restriction against 11 of the units, the appellate court noted that these 11 units were exclusively upstairs units. There was no evidence that occupants of the 72 upstairs-downstairs units ever complained to the association about the noise. There were only a “handful” of noise complaints by downstairs-only owners that led to successful enforcement by the association, which included either replacing the tile or wood flooring. Additionally, the court commented that there was no evidence that the association refused to enforce a noise complaint regarding a downstairs-only unit.

“In the present case, the prohibition on floor coverings other than padded carpet is plainly intended to avoid noise complaints,” the court stated. The court concluded that no selective enforcement was proven since there were no complaints regarding any units except for units like the owner’s second-floor unit.

In a second issue, the owner alleged that the association’s president e-mailed that it was ok to install the flooring. The court determined that the owner could not reasonably rely on the president’s e-mails. Why? Because the Declaration required alterations to be approved by the board of directors, no one officer could provide the approval.

This decision should help Florida community associations. To begin with, the case reinforces that owners have to prove their defenses. Second, it appears that for restrictions that protect neighboring owners from nuisances such as noise, if there is no complaint, then the association may not have to enforce the rule. Third, at least under these facts, there is a limit to owner reliance on unauthorized e-mails. However, it would appear that the selective enforcement holding is limited to those rules that protect others and may not apply to general restrictions that impact the community at large such as those rules regarding uniform appearance.

Death Liability in Suit Despite Employer’s Workers’ Compensation Coverage

Taking inconsistent positions or even making unclear statements after a claim was filed, may curtail a Florida association’s defense in a lawsuit. The facts in Gil v. Tenet Healthsystem North Shore, Inc., 41 Fla. L. Weekly D 2567 (Fla. 4th DCA, November 2016) arose in a hospital but could just have easily occurred in a Florida community association.

Rafael Gil apparently was exposed to hazardous materials while working as a carpenter for North Shore Medical Center. After Gil died, his wife filed a claim with the hospital for workers’ compensation benefits. The hospital denied her claim on the basis that Mr. Gil’s employment was not the “major contributing cause for his death.”

Mr. Gil’s wife then filed a wrongful death action against his employer, the hospital. The hospital maintained that no lawsuit could be filed because Mr. Gil’s wife’s exclusive remedy was through the workers’ compensation process. The lower court agreed and granted summary judgment for the hospital.

The Florida appellate court disagreed, reversing the decision of the trial court. The appellate court explained that if an employer claims that an employee is not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits because “the injury did not occur in the course and scope of employment, or that there was no employment relationship” the employer cannot claim immunity on the grounds that “the worker’s exclusive remedy was workers’ compensation.” The issue in this case was whether the hospital took inconsistent positions.

The court pointed out that the language used by the hospital in its notice to Mr. Gil’s wife regarding the denial of benefits was ambiguous. Therefore, there was a factual issue of whether the hospital was prevented from claiming immunity from a lawsuit.

“In the present case, if the hospital merely intended to allege the medical causation defense, it did not do so clearly,” the court explained. “Here, the notice of denial did not indicate there was a compensable injury, and instead generally provided that the entire claim [was] denied because claimant’s ‘employment’ was not the major contributing cause for his death”

The lesson to be learned is that in trying to avoid responsibility for insurance claims in the short run may not work in the long run. As soon as an association receives a claim, you should contact your association’s attorney and if there is an employee claim of injury then normally also contact your worker’s compensation carrier. This case also serves to remind associations to take care drafting contracts to properly address insurance requirements, not just assuming coverage exists “because it should.”


Get Ready, Get Set, Do Not Go!

The Florida Legislature Readies for 2017

It is time to gird for battle! Legislators and lobbyists are flooding into Tallahassee. The state is in a state!

At this time of year Florida community associations and their members warily watch for new legislative initiatives. It is too early to anticipate what, if any proposals that affect community associations will become law. Nevertheless, in advance of the March call to order for the Florida legislative session, legislative committees are scheduling and holding hearings.

Issues of all types are being pursued—HOA regulation, confirming condominium sprinkler retrofit requirements and providing for some extensions, and setting requirements for estoppel letters.

Bills that could affect Florida community associations if they become law include the following (“HB” means House Bill; “SB” means Senate Bill):

Homeowners Associations. HB135. For communities containing 7,500 or more parcels, election procedures are sought to be changed.

Homeowners Associations. HB137 would require disputes concerning many homeowners’ association issues to be sent to the Division of Condominiums pre-suit binding arbitration program.

Vacation Rentals. SB188, HB425, HB603 seek to prevent counties and municipalities from regulating “vacation rental.”

HOA Regulation. HB295 seeks to extend the Division of Condominiums, Time Shares, and Mobile Homes jurisdiction to include homeowners’ associations for arbitration of administrative issues including records inspections and allowing the levy of damages for delays in production.

MRTA. SB318 seeks to revise the Marketable Record Title Act to except

homeowners’ associations from the law extinguishing covenants.

Estoppel Letters. SB318, SB398, and HB433 seek to address the timing to provide, the effectiveness of, and charges for estoppel letters, including requiring letters being issued within ten days of the receipt of a request, and allowing requests by e-mail.

Claims. HB377 and SB 204 seek to limit the statute of limitations, the time period in which claims can be brought, against architects and professional engineers.

Community and Cooperative Associations [bill number pending] seeks to clarify retention of official records, limiting the requirement to hold bids to one year, expanding election records to be obtained to include electronic records and for condominiums to clarify that records are to be provided within ten working days, rather than five. For condominiums extending the time for sprinkler retrofit opt-out and to reinforce that buildings under 75 feet or less are not required to take an opt-out vote. Bulk buyer exemptions are extended indefinitely.

Construction. It is rumored that two bills are in drafting to clarify and improve the process for notifying contractors of construction information to reduce the potential of contractor liens.

Keep “tuned in” for more information as it arrives.

Michael J. Gelfand, Esq., Senior Partner of Gelfand & Apre, P.A.


Michael GelfandMichael J. Gelfand, the Senior Partner of Gelfand & Arpe, P.A., emphasizes a community association law practice, counseling associations and owners how to set legitimate goals and effectively achieve those goals. Gelfand is a Florida Bar Board-Certified Real Estate Lawyer, Certified Circuit and County Civil Court Mediator, Homeowners Association Mediator, an Arbitrator, and Parliamentarian. He is the Chair of the Real Property Division of the Florida Bar’s Real Property, Probate & Trust Law Section, and a Fellow of the American College of Real Estate Lawyers. Contact him at or (561) 655-6224.

property insurance

Gotta have it…Sooo $$$ expensive but terrified to use it: Property Insurance

Most board of directors know they must have property insurance. Most associations buy property insurance. However, most communities don’t know what their “policy” covers. Even though property insurance is purchased to insure and protect us in the event of damage, most boards (and most people) are terrified of making even a single insurance claim. There is a fear that the insurance company will triple our premiums or even drop us from coverage. These are myths our insurance companies want us all to believe.

This article addresses fact from fiction and makes a complicated process a little easier to understand. It is important to ensure your association receives all the money it is legally entitled to receive when something unexpected happens to your association’s property and your association is left with the bill.


Will Our Rates Increase? Will My Condominium or HOA be Dropped from Coverage if We Make an Insurance Claim?

My clients over the last 28 years have repeatedly told me they are petrified of making an insurance claim for fear of rate increases or being dropped. Condominium and HOA insurance claims are different. First, in the event of a named storm (the 2017 hurricane season starts again next month!) insurance companies cannot discriminate against you, raising premiums or dropping coverage, for making an insurance claim. Rates are determined on geography and other factors, not whether you made a claim to have your roof replaced! Further, if they drop you, they are pulling out of the area whether you made a claim or not.

It is purposeful that insurance companies want you to believe they determine your car insurance premiums the same way as your condominium, HOA, townhome, or cooperative. It’s not! Don’t fear repercussions from insurance companies. It’s an urban myth. Florida law protects us from unfair insurance practices.

An insurance company does not determine your rates based upon a single claim. Instead, an insurance company takes into consideration numerous factors in determining rates: age of building, type of construction, cost to rebuild, proximity to the ocean, location within the state, etc. All of these factors come into play, not just whether you made a claim. Further, in the event of a hurricane or when a state of emergency is declared additional community association property insurance protections are mandated.

Keep in mind that a property insurance policy is purchased to provide a sense of security to the insured. In the event of a covered claim, the insurance company must pay for the resulting damages. If a community has property insurance, the members of the association should absolutely not bear the cost to repair property damage which should be covered by insurance. If you are unsure whether the property damage may be covered under a property insurance policy, you should consider contacting an experienced first-party property lawyer.


What is Covered under a Property Insurance Policy?

A community association property insurance policy (“policy” is a friendly way to say insurance contract”) typically covers damages as a result of unexpected events. The coverage available under property insurance policies depends upon the language in your insurance contract. Mostly, association insurance contracts are divided into two categories: (1) named perils and (2) all-risks.

As the name indicates, a “named perils” policy provides coverage only for those perils or causes of loss listed in the policy. Examples of covered perils include fire, lightning, windstorm, hail, and smoke. In contrast to a “named perils” policy, an “all-risks” policy covers all perils or causes of loss not specifically excluded or limited by the policy. Do you know what type of policy your community has?


“First-party” property claims.

You may have heard others use the term “first-party” property claim. This simply refers to a claim by an insured for property damage under its property insurance policy. Common insurance claims include damages caused by hurricanes, tornadoes, rain, high winds, hail, flood, storm surges, fire, water bursts, and many others.


Do I have a “first-party” property claim?

For the most part, your community will know or learn when they have property damage. For instance, in October last year, many condominium associations on the east coast were smashed by Hurricane Matthew. My personal house was significantly damaged. I made an insurance claim. They paid, my premiums were not raised, and my coverage was not dropped.

There may also be damage that was unknown for some period of time; that does not mean insurance will not cover those damages. An experienced first-party property damage lawyer or public adjuster are best suited to conduct an investigation of the damages, determine the covered cause of the damages, and present the claim to the insurance company. Please do not simply rely upon the insurance company’s “Independent Adjuster”, they are almost exclusively hired by the insurance company. “Independent.” No way. Please get a second opinion on the amount and cause of your damages.


Whose insurance applies?

Another issue an association faces when there is property damage is whose property insurance policy applies? This is where association’s declarations come into play. The declarations dictate what coverage the association must buy versus what an owner should have.

For instance, a condominium’s declaration may require the association to buy a property insurance policy which covers only the common elements. Common elements include the drywall inside the unit but not the wall coverings (e.g., paint, wallpaper, etc.). So, if there is a covered loss which causes damage to the interior of a unit, the covered damages under the condominium’s property insurance policy will differ from a unit-owner’s property policy.


Delay, denial, or underpayment – an Insurance company’s “Bad Faith”.

Insurance companies want to be perceived as having your interests as paramount. “You’re in good hands with Allstate.” “Nationwide is on your side.” “Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there.”

Yet, the reality is insurance companies are businesses, and all businesses are concerned about profits. As such, insurance companies may instruct their adjusters to deny claims even though the claim may be covered, pay as little as possible for covered claims, or even deny paying claims all together.

The Florida Legislature has recognized this conflict of interest between insurance companies and insureds and has set forth standards for an insurance company to act in “good faith.” For instance, an insurance company must adequately and timely adjust a claim and must settle claims in “good faith.”

Instead of quickly resolving a “first-party” claim, all too often insurance companies delay their investigation only to later issue a denial or underpay the claim. These “bad faith” tactics are what the Florida Legislature sought to abolish, but insurance companies still act this way in the name of corporate greed and profits. Please consult with your lawyer or obtain a qualified independent second opinion to protecting the interests of your community.

Fearing your insurance rates will be tripled or dropped is simply not true. Buckle up, batten down the hatches, and have your community association lawyer on speed dial.


alan garfinkel Alan Garfinkel has counseled homeowners, townhomes, condominium associations, and individuals throughout Florida from his same Central Florida office for 25 years. He continues to passionately work for those living in and working for community associations. Garfinkel received the highest ethics rating (AV) for more than a dozen consecutive years. Attorney peer review ratings provide objective grades based on confidential evaluations by attorneys and judges measuring a lawyer’s ethical standards and legal ability. Garfinkel Whynot only represents community associations, not big corporations like developers, banks, and insurance companies that can develop conflicts with communities. For more information, visit



Q Our HOA board has solicited a vote of the membership to amend our covenants to add the following provision: “Meetings or gatherings of six or more people may not occur in a house more than one time in a 30-day period.” Additional ‘meetings’ would require board approval. The board said we need to pass this amendment to prevent a house in the community from being used as a sober home, but, it sounds like they want to dissuade lawful assembly. Would the above be legal?

A I can think of a number of problems with the proposed amendment. First, it is unlikely to be effective for its intended purpose. Courts have ruled that the rights of persons to live in group homes may be protected by the Fair Housing Act’s prohibition against discriminating against disabled persons. The fact that the rule or covenant is not expressly directed against group homes is not going to save it from the Fair Housing Act. Disabled persons are entitled to accommodations of housing provider covenants, and your “meeting” rule would be no different. So called “sober” homes have become a significant concern in HOA communities throughout Florida, and I have seen a number of creative attempts to protect communities from them, but all of the options are currently speculative at best.

Second, I wonder if the covenant, as broadly as it is worded, would survive judicial review in the first place. It’s true that amendments to covenants are afforded a broad presumption of validity, and are rarely invalidated—but in this case, I agree with you that the covenant bumps up against not only your basic right to freely associate, but also conflicts with other easements that likely already exist in your covenants (such as the rights of owners to have guests, and to have their guests cross the common area roads). Further, your board has already strongly suggested that it intends to arbitrarily enforce the rule by offering owners an exception to the limitation with board approval. Obviously, this is intended to allow them to prohibit sober homes while offering owners exceptions so that they can maintain normal guest access. If the covenant isn’t invalidated outright as being arbitrary in its application, the actual arbitrary exceptions are going to create a selective enforcement defense that will prevent the HOA from enforcing the rule against sober homes.

Also, what about homes where six or more people are permanent residents? Why would that not be considered a meeting that would violate the rule? I suspect that you are paraphrasing the rule a bit, but if it’s as simple as you’ve made it out to be, I don’t see it having very much effect. Your owners should also consider whether the fear of sober homes is worth approving a very significant restriction on the rights of all owners to have guests visit their home.


Q We were planning on remodeling our kitchen in our condominium unit in March. However, we were told by the condominium president that this work can’t be done in season. Unfortunately, all my condominium documents, including the bylaws, are in my house up north. I have borrowed someone in the building’s documents, and I can’t find anything in them regarding when you can do improvements to your unit. The only thing I found is the hours work can be done.

I have addressed this with the president of the association, and he said his bylaws are in his home up north, but he insisted that you can’t do work in season. He suggested that I do the work in the summer or fall. But, I only spend about four months here, and I do not come back in the summer or fall. I want to be respectful of condominium rules, and if this is indeed a rule I just want to see a copy. I’ve asked a few of the condominium owners and no one seems to have a copy of this rule.


A The president and others have referred to this rule as being part of the bylaws, but that is unlikely. Bylaws usually deal with corporate governance, whereas a rule restricting the use of your unit is more likely to be found in the declaration of covenants, or in the rules and regulations passed by the board of directors. Either way, though, I do think a covenant or rule restricting when you can remodel your unit is likely to be enforceable (covenants are afforded a broad presumption of validity, whereas board-made rules must pass a reasonableness test). These rules are fairly common in condominiums populated by snowbirds, particularly because people only spend a few months in their units, and they want to be free of construction noise during their vacations.

As for seeing a copy of the rule, every condominium in Florida, even smaller ones, are required to maintain certain official records, including a copy of the governing documents. If you make a written request to see these documents, the board is obligated to allow you to inspect them within ten business days. If they do not, you can file a complaint with the Division of Condominiums, which has the authority to order the association to provide the records, and to award you up to $500 in damages.


Ryan D. Poliakoff is a Partner of Backer Aboud Poliakoff & Foelster and serves as general counsel to condominiums, homeowners associations, and country clubs throughout South Florida. He is the co-author of New Neighborhoods—The Consumer’s Guide to Condominium, Co-Op, and HOA Living. In addition to representing associations, he is a frequent contributor at seminars and workshops for attorneys and board members, and he has written hundreds of articles for magazines and newspapers throughout the United States. He can be reached at For more information about his firm, visit