Latest news with #RyanPoliakoff
Yahoo
25-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Homeowners association wants to charge rental fee, demand background checks. Is that legal?
Live in a home governed by a condominium, co-op or homeowner's association? Have questions about what they can and cannot do? Ryan Poliakoff, an attorney and author based in Boca Raton, has answers. Question: Recently our HOA board instituted a $250 fee to those owners who rent, $500 if they rent to more than one tenant during the year. Can they institute a charge to only a select segment of the community? I suspect most, if not all, board members do not rent. I have asked if there is any enforcement of this policy, and I was told it is strictly voluntary disclosure. I know my neighbor just lies and says it's his brother staying there. Do I have any recourse or is there an agency that I can turn to? Signed, J.H. Dear J.H., There are several interrelated issues here. First, generally speaking, associations can only institute fees that are authorized by their governing documents. Here, this seems to be something that the board passed as a rule without any express authorization in the declaration. The declaration may say that the board has the right to charge an application fee for the purpose of approving leases, and that kind of fee would be legal. But the way you describe this fee, it sounds like a fee owed simply for the right to lease; and if the declaration otherwise allows owners to lease, a fee to exercise that right would be suspect. Now, I do think that an HOA could implement a mandatory contribution of some kind attached to every rental of a lot, but that would need to be an amendment to the declaration, and not just a board made rule. So, right off the bat, I doubt this fee would be legally enforceable. Further, the HOA Act provides, at Section 720.306, Fla. Stat., that 'any governing document, or amendment to a governing document…that prohibits or regulates rental agreements applies only to a parcel owner who acquires title to the parcel after the effective date…or to a parcel owner who consents, individually or through a representative, to the governing document or amendment.' I have heard it argued (though I tend not to agree) that a fee associated with a lease is a 'regulation' of rental agreements and therefore cannot be applied unless the leasing owner consents to the regulation. As far as I know this issue has never been considered by a court, but the argument exists. With that said, you really have no recourse other than suing the association to ask a judge to declare the rule and fee unenforceable, as there is no state agency that has jurisdiction over these kinds of issues. Question: Our condominium board has instituted a new policy of background checks for new purchasers. Since there is nothing in our governing documents that addresses background checks, are they able to do this? Signed, D.C. Dear D.C., In a lot of ways, this is a very similar question to the one above. Most governing documents give boards broad authority to pass rules and regulations. The question is whether the rule is 'reasonable.' Essentially, is the rule directly related to addressing a legitimate association interest? The first question is what kind of authority do your governing documents give the board of directors concerning sales? If sales are totally unregulated, and if the board has no authority over sales at all, it's difficult to see what they would be getting from a background check. The information they get would be confidential. Even if they found out something objectionable, they couldn't prevent the person from buying a unit in the community. So, in that situation, I can't say what the board's legitimate interest would be. I have heard boards argue that the background check may discourage the wrong type of people (whatever that would mean) from buying a property, but I'm not confident that would convince a judge. But, instead, let's assume that your declaration of covenants allows the board to exercise a right of first refusal, but it doesn't say anything specifically about requiring a background check. It might very well have language stating that the board has the right to collect whatever information it needs to make an informed decision, or it might instead be left vague. In any event, I think the board would have a stronger argument to require background checks in that situation. Of course, the further question that raises is whether the board can charge a fee for such background checks — that's where we get back to the answer to our first question, and it likely depends on whether the board has authority to charge fees associated with the approval of sales. Ryan Poliakoff, a partner at Poliakoff Backer, LLP, is a Board Certified specialist in condominium and planned development law. This column is dedicated to the memory of Gary Poliakoff. Ryan Poliakoff and Gary Poliakoff are co-authors of "New Neighborhoods — The Consumer's Guide to Condominium, Co-Op and HOA Living." Email your questions to condocolumn@ Please be sure to include your location. This article originally appeared on Palm Beach Post: Can HOAs demand rental fees and background checks?
Yahoo
12-05-2025
- Automotive
- Yahoo
Condo dwellers push back on concerns about electric vehicle fire hazards
Live in a home governed by a condominium, co-op or homeowner's association? Have questions about what they can and cannot do? Ryan Poliakoff, an attorney and author based in Boca Raton, has answers. First this week, our recent question regarding the requirement to install charging stations for electric vehicles sparked a lot of interest and responses from EV owners (some nicer than others), particularly concerning the relative risk of electric vehicles when compared to traditional gas and diesel-fueled vehicles. Multiple readers pointed out that, statistically, vehicles that operate on internal combustion engines are far more likely to catch fire than electric vehicles. For example, an article published by TopGear, a well-known automotive magazine, cited a study by the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency reporting that fires were statistically 20 times less likely to happen in an EV than with an internal combustion engine. An Australian study found that EV fires were 80 times less likely to occur. The article also pointed out that, if the fire risk from electric vehicles was significantly greater than that found in internal combustion engines, it would be reflected in insurance pricing, yet it generally is not. I did some additional research on my own and found the same general reports confirmed in many other publications: Internal combustion vehicles catch fire far more frequently, though EV fires are more challenging to put out, and are potentially more severe. While I did not research or take a position on this topic in my article (which was about the legislative process, and not EV safety, per se), it's reasonable to point out that the risk of fire from EVs is, statistically speaking, less than that posed by traditional vehicles (though again the fire itself could be somewhat more dangerous); and so, that would also support the reasonableness of the statutory obligations. Again, I'm not an expert in vehicle safety, but I'm certain these general issues were, and will continue to be, considered by our legislators. Question: My condominium complex has three 40-year-old, seven-story buildings with five units per floor; each building has its own water meter for the entire building. Water passes through the meter into the common water pipes suppling water to each unit. Before the water flows into a unit, it passes through a shutoff valve for that specific unit. On occasion these shutoff valves have failed, either by developing a leak, or the valve is unable to completely shut off the water due to age and/or degradation. The question is: who is responsible for the replacement of the shut-off valve? From my prospective, because the value connects directly to the common water feed line, and because of the need to be able to control the flow of water within the building, it appears to me that the shut-off valve would be the association's responsibility. Everything after this shutoff valve would be the responsibility of the unit owner. — Signed, D.C. Dear D.C., As is so often the case, we must often ignore reason or logic when it comes to evaluating the relative maintenance responsibilities between owners and community associations. Declarations are contracts, and they are evaluated as contracts — whatever they say goes, whether it is reasonable or not. Remember, the provisions of a declaration are given a broad presumption of validity and are only rarely found unenforceable. You have described a plumbing element that serves only a single unit but that may lie either within or outside of the boundaries of that unit. So, first you would need to review the declaration to evaluate where the unit boundaries begin and end, so you can determine whether this valve should be defined as part of the unit or part of the common elements. Note that a lot of boundary provisions contain specific language regarding particular elements whether they lie inside or outside of such boundaries — and that might also be relevant to your analysis. So, for example, a boundary provision may say that all plumbing that serves only a single unit, whether inside or outside of the unit boundaries, shall be considered a part of the unit and that unit owner's maintenance responsibility. Separately, you also need to consider the maintenance sections of the declaration that could have specific language regarding plumbing or connections, or even language similar to the above concerning plumbing, electrical and other utility lines that service a single unit. However, this kind of language is not mandatory; I have reviewed plenty of declarations where the association is responsible for plumbing that only serves a single unit, particularly when the location of that plumbing is within a common element or between units (for example, inside a boundary wall, a structural wall, or in between the ceiling and floor of two units). Whatever the declaration says, goes. It doesn't matter that it would make sense for the association to maintain the valve given its function; if the declaration suggests that it's a unit owner's maintenance responsibility, that will be the case, and the same is true if it says it's the association's responsibility. Only if the language is completely ambiguous would you begin to evaluate things like the intent of the drafters (if that could even be determined). Most often, these issues can be resolved by simply doing a detailed review of the declaration. Ryan Poliakoff, a partner at Poliakoff Backer, LLP, is a Board Certified specialist in condominium and planned development law. This column is dedicated to the memory of Gary Poliakoff. Ryan Poliakoff and Gary Poliakoff are co-authors of "New Neighborhoods — The Consumer's Guide to Condominium, Co-Op and HOA Living." Email your questions to condocolumn@ Please be sure to include your location. This article originally appeared on Palm Beach Post: Is fire risk of electric vehicles greater than gas powered ones?
Yahoo
04-05-2025
- Automotive
- Yahoo
Resident worries about fire risk posed by car charging stations in condo parking garages
Live in a home governed by a condominium, co-op or homeowner's association? Have questions about what they can and cannot do? Ryan Poliakoff, an attorney and author based in Boca Raton, has answers. Question: We are getting more requests by owners to install electric vehicle chargers in their deeded parking spots in our indoor garage. Our town fire marshall recently explained at our board meeting that the chargers and vehicles present a fire risk and that the fire cannot be extinguished. We now have two charging stations on our outdoor parking deck which are available to owners. Why does Florida Statute 718 mandate that our condo must allow the installation of EV chargers which create a risk of fire in our building? I have recently brought this to the attention of our State representative. Signed, J.P. Dear J.P., With nearly every law, there is a balance between different groups and different interests. There are even professionals called lobbyists whose entire job is to influence public officials on behalf of their clients, particularly when it comes to passing (or rejecting) new legislation. The law requiring condominiums to allow owners to install electric vehicle chargers in their limited common element parking spaces expressly describes that the legislature wanted to promote electric vehicle use. It says that 'the Legislature finds that the use of electric and natural gas fuel vehicles conserves and protects the state's environmental resources, provides significant economic savings to drivers, and serves an important public interest. The participation of condominium associations is essential to the state's efforts to conserve and protect the state's environmental resources and provide economic savings to drivers.' So, that's the official stated reason for the law, though it ignores the question of EV safety or the risk of fire. While I don't know the actual specifics of how this law came to be, I can tell you from experience that there's lots of possibilities, including lobbying by electric vehicle companies, electric utilities and charger installation companies. Or maybe this law was pushed by a legislator who heard a story about a friend who was denied the right to charge their electric vehicle in their condominium, and they decided this was a problem they needed to solve. Or, it could have even been something that happened to a legislator, themselves. Whatever the reason, someone had an idea, they managed to develop support for it, and the competing interests couldn't push hard enough to stop the law from coming into effect. The reality is, if people in condominiums have EVs, they need somewhere to charge them — it's a necessary evil. But what may happen, as so often does, is that a tragedy could occur one day that completely changes the calculation, and perhaps even reverses the law. Let's say for example there is an electric vehicle fire caused by a charger in an owner's parking space, and that the fire causes serious damage to a condominium building. There would then be a push to make changes to the law to protect these buildings and the lives of residents, and that may even end up reversing the law entirely (or perhaps providing that chargers can only be installed outdoors, or only a certain distance from the primary building). This wouldn't reduce the risk from the vehicles themselves, but it would greatly reduce the primary fire risk, which I understand occurs during charging. It's unfortunate that it often takes a newsworthy event to lead to broad legislative changes like this, but in the real world, that's how the sausage gets made. You reasonably brought this issue to the attention of your legislator — but unless the firefighters get involved in an aggressive lobbying effort to change the law, or unless something terrible were to happen that makes the legislature totally rethink the relative value of electric vehicles (and I will clarify that I am not in any way disparaging EVs — I own one myself), I would not expect this law to change. It's simply the way our system operates. Question: Our condominium board has instituted a new policy of background checks for new purchasers. Since there is nothing in our governing documents that addresses background checks, are they able to do this? Signed, D.C. Dear D.C., Your governing documents may provide that the association has the right to require whatever documents it needs to approve or reject rentals or sales; and if it does, it's likely that requiring a background check would be found a reasonable part of that process, even if it is not expressly mentioned. If your governing documents do not allow the board to reject tenants or owners, at all, the question would become whether the background check rule is reasonable. If the board has no power to reject a lease or sale, what exactly are they doing with the background check information? In that situation I question whether an arbitrator or court would find such a requirement reasonable, as there's no obvious purpose to conducting the background check. Ryan Poliakoff, a partner at Poliakoff Backer, LLP, is a Board Certified specialist in condominium and planned development law. This column is dedicated to the memory of Gary Poliakoff. Ryan Poliakoff and Gary Poliakoff are co-authors of "New Neighborhoods — The Consumer's Guide to Condominium, Co-Op and HOA Living." Email your questions to condocolumn@ Please be sure to include your location. This article originally appeared on Palm Beach Post: Fire hazard v. convenience: Can condos ban car charging stations?
Yahoo
27-04-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Owner balks at days without water as condo demands to replace aging, but unbroken pipes
Live in a home governed by a condominium, co-op or homeowner's association? Have questions about what they can and cannot do? Ryan Poliakoff, an attorney and author based in Boca Raton, has answers. Question: I am a condo owner. Our board of directors is adamant about doing some work in my unit, even though it is not necessary. They want to replace my copper piping that they say, "has the potential to leak — it could be six months from now or three to five years, who knows, from now but we need to replace them.' The pipes are not currently leaking, and they do not show damage of any kind. The work they claim is needed could render my apartment useless for at least a week, and my wife and I will not be able to use the toilet, the vanity and the shower. My question is: can I refuse to let them enter my apartment unit to make "repairs" that are not needed? Signed, A.Y. Dear A.Y., I am going to assume that, as would by typical, your association has the primary responsibility to maintain, repair and replace the common plumbing in the building. It is not particularly uncommon for plumbing to deteriorate over time, sometimes more quickly, sometimes less. But water leaks can be extraordinarily expensive casualty events. Probably the biggest issue I see in my client condominiums is leaking or failing pipes causing tremendous losses. So, your board is being proactive. I suspect they have solicited the opinion of an engineer or plumbing professional that your pipes are either defective or nearing the end of their useful life, and that it would be best to replace them. The Condominium Act grants the association the irrevocable right to enter your unit when necessary to maintain the common elements or other property that is the association's responsibility, or to protect other units. They would be doing both here. So, legally, you do not have the right to prevent them from accessing your unit simply because you don't think the repairs are necessary, and because they would be an inconvenience. There are lots of inconveniences in a condominium — that's part of living with dozens of others in the same property. If you refuse, the association can either enter forcibly (though I never recommend that for safety reasons), or instead get a court order requiring you to allow access — in which case you'll end up paying the association's attorney fees and costs. Don't let it get to that point. One thing that you should investigate, however, is whether your declaration of condominium requires the association to be responsible for 'incidental damage' caused by their repairs. If so, and if your unit is unusable while the work is being performed, they may be obligated to pay for a hotel during that time. Question: I live in a gated community governed by an HOA. After spending over $12,000 to have new, board-approved landscape renovations installed, the sprinklers on my property and three other adjacent homes have stopped working. This has been going on for seven weeks. The system is monitored by a software irrigation company and the homeowners pay for this in our HOA dues. The HOA claims there is no one available at this company to come and fix the problem. I have been hand watering since the problem started. Do I need to hire an attorney? Signed, B.A. Dear B.A., I am going to assume from your question that the association has a specific responsibility in the declaration of covenants to maintain the irrigation system throughout the community, including within the lots, and not just a monitoring responsibility. If that's the case, I don't think it's enough for the association to simply say 'no one is available to repair it, sorry.' Obviously, the Association can't be responsible for the simple fact that something breaks, but it does have an obligation to make a reasonable effort to get it repaired. The question will be, has the board acted in the manner that a reasonably prudent board in the same position would have acted? If your board is just throwing its hands up and refusing to call in another vendor to make the repair, I would strongly question why that's the case. Now, perhaps they have a contract where they pay a flat rate for repairs, and so they want to wait for the vendor to respond — that would at least provide some excuse for their inaction. But overall and given both the amount of money that you've spent, as well as the fact that your board seems so disinterested in repairing the irrigation issue, I do think you would be best off hiring an attorney. Ultimately, if the board completely abrogates its responsibilities, it could find itself responsible for replacing your landscaping — they're lucky you're making the effort to keep it alive! Ryan Poliakoff, a partner at Poliakoff Backer, LLP, is a Board Certified specialist in condominium and planned development law. This column is dedicated to the memory of Gary Poliakoff. Ryan Poliakoff and Gary Poliakoff are co-authors of "New Neighborhoods — The Consumer's Guide to Condominium, Co-Op and HOA Living." Email your questions to condocolumn@ Please be sure to include your location. This article originally appeared on Palm Beach Post: Condo wants to replace my pipes before they break - can I refuse?
Yahoo
30-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Blame law, not lawyer for protections that keep HOA from banning 'thin blue line' flag
Live in a home governed by a condominium, co-op or homeowner's association? Have questions about what they can and cannot do? Ryan Poliakoff, an attorney and author based in Boca Raton, has answers. Question: I am a Board Member of an HOA community. That was very poor advice that you gave to the retired police officer. If you had done your due diligence, when it comes to the "thin blue line" flag, there is much controversy regarding it. Many, including myself, see this flag as a "us' vs. 'them' mentality. It is used to oppose racial justice movements, and it is also associated with white supremacy (you can also Google the fact that many white supremacists join police forces all over the country). Some police departments have banned officers from using "thin blue line" imagery while on duty, since the flag has been co-opted by extremists. I hope that you will write a retraction to your response. Thank you. Signed N.M. More on flags: Can homeowners association stop former NYPD officer from flying 'thin blue line' flag? Dear N.M., Respectfully, there is nothing to retract — my answer was legally accurate, though I will say that you were not the only person to message me about your concerns regarding the meaning of the 'thin blue line' flag that was described in the question. I was neither condoning nor condemning the 'thin blue line' flag, as that's not my place. The letter writer asked me a question about whether the HOA could limit their flag, and the new law is very clear that it's protected. In fact, it's obvious to me that the exact intent of the new statutory language was to protect flags like the 'thin blue line' flag. So, regardless of whether you support or are offended by either its message or the use of its message by various political groups, my answer was legally correct, and your legitimate complaint would be with your legislature. Even if every person in your community was offended by such a flag, it would not mean that you have a right to restrict it — the statute now prohibits it. Incidentally, another letter writer questioned why the flag code doesn't supersede Florida law, making the modified flag illegal — and while it technically does supersede Florida law, the flag code is only advisory. You can't be prosecuted for violating the flag code, because you're allowed to bastardize and even destroy an American flag if you want to — it's protected free speech. So, since there's no possible penalty for violating the flag code, I don't think you could argue that the flag code supersedes Florida law and allows HOAs to ban flags that might be protected under the HOA Act, but might arguably violate the Federal law. Question: I have been receiving email notifications asking me to enroll our HOA under the Corporate Transparency Act. I register our HOA as a not-for-profit corporation with the State of Florida and we file taxes every year Is this request legit, and do we have to register? If so, why? Signed, C.S. Dear C.S., The Corporate Transparency Act is an on-again, off-again law that requires most smaller corporations to file information regarding the 'beneficial owners' of the corporation to help prevent fraud. The original deadline for filing was January 31, 2024, but the law was halted by a federal court for likely being unconstitutional, and then it was restored by the court of appeals. But, effective March 21, 2025, President Trump has put the law indefinitely on hold for domestic corporations. Currently, no entity created in the United States is required to register their beneficial ownership information under the CTA. The email you received was a spam advertisement. There are many dozens of companies that solicit corporations to register under the CTA for a fee. This was not necessary in the first place, as it's not complicated to register, but while the law was in effect it was at least a legitimate convenience. The indefinite freeze in the law has not stopped the solicitations, and my clients get them on a regular basis. Personally, I would never give personal information to a company like this — even if the requirement was still active it would have been better to at least allow your association's attorney or your management company to do the filing. With that said, you can ignore the law until the President says otherwise (which I frankly do not expect to ever happen). Ryan Poliakoff, a partner at Poliakoff Backer, LLP, is a Board Certified specialist in condominium and planned development law. This column is dedicated to the memory of Gary Poliakoff. Ryan Poliakoff and Gary Poliakoff are co-authors of "New Neighborhoods — The Consumer's Guide to Condominium, Co-Op and HOA Living." Email your questions to condocolumn@ Please be sure to include your location. This article originally appeared on Palm Beach Post: Lawyer: Like it or loathe it, 'thin blue line' flag legally protected
