Need experienced HOA attorney. St Petersburg fl

what area of Florida Law ?

I know many attorneys who focus on Florida HOA & Condo Law in different areas of Florida. If you are seeking advice about FL community associations governance and/or Statutes then you would be better off with a lawyer who is familiar with the pertinent laws that apply to FL community associations, and not as Tim suggests. Regardless, I doubt a link to a specific law firm or law practice is allowed to be posted here.

Islam,

Avoid HOA attorneys at all costs.

Most are not interested in representing individual owners. HOA law firms operate by preying on the ignorance and inexperience of most association board members. They are not very good lawyers. One HOA law firm in my state has taken four cases to the appellate courts and not only lost everytime but were openly jeered in one opinion, accused of pursuing a frivilous action in another, and accused of perpetrating a fraud upon the court in yet another.

Find a real attorney and stay away from the HOA leeches.

By the way---this is NOT an endorsement of them. They just have a huge website that can direct the poster in the direction she/he need needs to go. They are all over the State of Florida and give classes and presentations at Community Associations Institute (CAI) meetings in practically every county in Florida. They have great resourses.

Forgot to add that B & P has recently expanded its ORLANDO offices by "merging" with Taylor & Carls. They also have an office near Naples.

If an attorney represents you against the XYZ HOA, it would be a conflict of interest for him to represent the XYZ HOA at some future time.

Most HOA attorneys think that an HOA is likely to generate more revenue than individual owners. My own experience from serving on a board is that most board members have no experience in hiring or dealing with attorneys. Therefore, they purchase legal services the way they buy consumer goods: they look for a bargain.


That was the reason I started doing my own legal work years ago. Lawyers never want to admit that they are not experts on every facet of the law. Before I consult an attorney I do some research on my own and have found a number of lawyers whose answers to my specific questions appear to be based on what they learned in law school twenty years ago in another state.

When you ask an attorney for advice on a specific matter, there is only one acceptable answer: "I am not an expert and I will need to research the statutes, case law, and other authorities before I can provide an authoritative answer." Any other answer is crap. BTW, the attorney will charge you for his time doing that research.

"....like 617 or 720. I also came to HOATalk to maybe see if I missed some things or get some other perspectives..."

KevinK, be aware that 617 does NOT enter the equation UNLESS you live in a "voluntary", "non-mandatory" Florida HOA.

Tim, register this for once and for all. Florida is an ANOMALY when it comes to Statutes and community associations.

I have told you that I am no lawyer, and as a licensed manager in FL I have to be careful not to give the false impression of UPL (unauthorized practice of Law.)

If you are so fixated in Florida, then buy property in the sunshine state and join the board of your association. Yet another option is to spend a few thousand dollars to pay a seasoned Florida attorney to explain things to you. You won't "squeeze" anything from me.

Susan,

I'm not asking you to practice law without a license. All I was asking for was a little clarification, a little help in helping me understand where I misunderstood what I read. I honestly don't understand why you are so defensive when asked such questions.

You made a bold statement that FL corporate code only applies to voluntary Assocaitions. I asked you to expand on where you learned that information because when I read the statutes it doesn't seem to support your statement.

You are certainly more knowledgeable on applicable FL HOA statutes than I. Perhaps more knowledgeable than anyone else currently posting on this site. Therefore, I expected that what I found is superseded by another statute or the administrative code. Hence, I asked you to simply support your statement. I'm asking so I don't provide incorrect advice in the future.

I don't think that my request would be any different than what one of your clients would ask if you made the same statement to them and they read the same information I did. Would you respond the same way to them?

Personally, I think that making such statements as "617 does NOT enter the equation UNLESS you live in a "voluntary", "non-mandatory" Florida HOA" without providing the basis of that statement (for example: according to xyz, FL 617 does not . . . ) does far more damage than you may believe it does.

If it's simply the issue that you don't recall where you got that understanding than say so. If you need to look it up, than take the time to look it up. If you were mistaken and gave bad advice, admit it, correct it and try not to repeat it (which is what I'm willing to do if you can provide the basis for that statement).

You have plainly stated that you are licensed manager in FL and need to not give the false impression of practicing law without a license. Personally, I think that such a statement provided by any MC or CAM (licensed or not) without revealing supporting documentation for that statement is far closer to the unauthorized practice of law than simply saying it's identified in FL xxx.xx.x

Of course that's my opinion. Others may or may not have the same opinion.

L O L, L O L, L O L

Here is my lawyer rant: Lawyers are PAID licensed practitioners of the law. Just like hiring an Electrician or a plumber. You want install a ceiling fan or move the location of your toilet, you call the "Expert licensed practitioner". Lawyers do what they are told but don't always discuss "options". Most people just blindly trust because they are a lawyer, then you do what they advise. They are the "experts" after all right? W R O N G !

You have to be a bit more educated than just consulting a lawyer. You have to know what type of lawyer best fits your needs. No a "Real Estate" lawyer is NOT the best fit for a HOA. Most people's first reaction is to go get one of them when it involves their HOA. This is NOT the best option. HOA's are CORPORATIONS and don't really own real estate. The problems you are having are contractual, deed restrictive, financial, and corporate structure. It isn't Real Estate related. Real Estate attorney's typically just do closing researches and involved in purchases of real estate. So do your research on what TYPE of lawyer you need to best address your issue with the HOA.

What are lawyers used for? If a law is broken, violation of rights, or fighting financial issues. If there isn't a law about your HOA board walking down a public road in front of your house taking a picture, paying a lawyer to fight this is just waste for all. There has to be a law first in existence before a judge can rule on it.

A HOA's best use for an attorney? It is simply to use them as a "tool" because they don't practice the law. Since a HOA is incorporated it must have a lawyer represent them in court. (Except if you designate someone but who in their right mind does that?) Liens and foreclosures process may require lawyers to file the paperwork. I know in the foreclosure process the attorney is the one that announces the foreclosure on the county steps. So a HOA does have to have one when it comes to certain court/law procedures. After that, it's just because they want advice which can add up and be a hindrance.

Finally, wanted to state this. I always advice that "suing your HOA is suing yourself and your neighbors". To clarify and understand this has not a thing to do with emotions or if you should not pursue a lawsuit. In no uncertain terms am I saying one should not pursue a lawsuit if they feel the need to do so to rectify their situation. However, realize the consequences of your actions. This is the consequence and fact. Decide what your comfortable with in this fact to decide to act further.

Hiring lawyers really is like hiring any other contractor if you know what your doing and pursuing. My best advice is to educate yourself. Don't let the lawyer educate you. They are not all created equal nor always have your best interest. You get what you pay for...

I believe 617 applies to both mandatory and voluntary associations. The difference being if an association is voluntary they must solely abide by 617. Otherwise, the HOA is incorporated under 617 and under certain statutes in the chapter they must refer to 720.

For example, 617.011 or 617.0701 states that certain subsections (not all) apply to an association under 720. (I would quote them more fully but I am on my phone)

Here is a better clarification then my last:

720.302 Purposes, scope, and application.—
(1) The purposes of this chapter are to give statutory recognition to corporations not for profit that operate residential communities in this state, to provide procedures for operating homeowners’ associations, and to protect the rights of association members without unduly impairing the ability of such associations to perform their functions.

(5) Unless expressly stated to the contrary, corporations that operate residential homeowners’ associations in this state shall be governed by and subject to chapter 607, if the association was incorporated under that chapter, or to chapter 617, if the association was incorporated under that chapter, and this chapter. This subsection is intended to clarify existing law.

Right and wrong. Yes, associations must incorporate but this mandate only came into effect in 1995. HOAs are "subject" to 617, I say incorrect. ONLY a couple of items apply. FS 720 RULES in mandatory HOAs. There was no FS 720 years ago. And, the only time 617 is ever mentioned is in contentious lawsuits mostly in Appellate Courts. No competent Condo & HOA Law attorney in Florida would ever mention it unless he is working in a very complicated case. Don't believe me? Consult with a FL seasoned attorney in your area.

Susan,

My understanding of the Hierarchy of documents is that, when there is a conflict, State Statues control unless they defer control to the governing documents.

apples and oranges. Think what you want and move on.

This is my understanding of the 2 statutes: Before 720 existed, HOA's were governed under 617. 720 came along and now both 617 and 720 govern all HOA's and 720 trumps 617 if there is a conflict (there is a lot of duplication among the 2 statutes). Also 617 (not 720) governs voluntary associations.

Here is an interesting current article on UPL and CAM's http://www.floridacondohoalawblog.com/2013/04/articles/operations/proposed-opinion-defining-actions-considered-upl-for-cams-leaves-unanswered-questions/

Here is an interesting article on UPL and Directors http://www.advancedproperty.org/ArticleUPLforDirectors.pdf

Happy Sunday!

I believe my quoted passage says it all. Both rule for mandatory while 617 just for voluntary (since 720 defines membership as mandatory).

Thanks for the links. I am strange enough to enjoy reading stuff like this in my free time!

OOhps ! I spoke too fast. Had not seen AllisonD's links, specially the one about CAMs and UPL. That is a B & P blog, and I know Lisa. As far as I am concerned, I really have nothing to worry. I do not use my real name on this forum. Actually, not too many people do. It is not mandatory. However, I think I recently commented that I am a CAM. That is the reason why I'd prefer to avoid the appearance of wearing a lawyer "hat."

No it's not apple and oranges. You made a very specific statement that is incorrect.

If there is a conflict between governing documents and State statutes then the statutes control unless the statute defers control to the governing documents. If there is no conflict then the Association must comply with both the governing documents and the applicable State statutes. To imply that you must comply with the Declaration over State statutes is, in my opinion, reckless.

Here are my resources for the basis of my statement:

CAI PROFESSIONAL MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM M-204 (scroll down to page 8) which states:

"a specific state statute takes precedence over a community association’s governing documents unless it is written to allow for flexibility. For example, the statute might say, “…unless the documents provide otherwise.”"

CAM Continuing Education - Rules Were Meant to Be? (scroll to page 8)

Susan,

I now understand why you are so worried about the unlicensed practice of law. Per an advisory opinion by the FL bar, it appears that simply determining what date the notice of a meeting should go out is considered a practice of law.

Honestly, based on that paper, I'm surprised you are even willing to share what you share. I know that I would be hesitant in doing so.

Now that I understand the issue better, I apologize for making such an issue out of it as it does appear that your hands are really really tied as to what you can and can not do.

Tim

I know this is off topic but I have to respond.

Thank you AllisonD for your kind words. It see that it did not take you long to understand my comments. That is the difference between people who are knowleageable about Florida and those who are not.

I accept Tim's apology.

The only time I have felt hesitant about "debating" issues thus far is when you, Tim and others have egged me to elaborate about FL laws simply because the issue of UPL is a nasty "beast" for Florida CAMs. Some FL attorneys love to accuse experienced, highly educated CAMs of UPL. They feel threaten by the vast knowledge and grasp that these managers show.

I am not used to argue or debate with people who are not involved with national or state organizations. In that respect, I am used to speak the same "language" with other professionals without being constantly challenged to provide proof, evidence, links, etc. I am not the least interested in "debate" nor do I wish to take up the "passtime" of arguing online.

As far as other states and matters of association governance nationwide, I have no problem posting and even correcting someone based on my many years of work experience, specially in the real estate and association management industries. In addition to FL, I have also served in association boards in Atlanta, and Cincinnati.

I only recently joined this forum out of curiosity. I do not post comments to every single thread as Tim does, as if it was a paid job but I do read the threads. It is interesting to "hear" what homeowners in different states are wrestling with in their communities and associations. Matters are getting more and more complicated nationwide.

I am so happy that CAI's National Conference and Expo will be held this year in Orlando in the month of May. As a long time CAI member, I will be there.

Susan,

Please understand that when I, and I believe others, ask for the basis of your opinions or statements is because we have read the same material and had a different understanding. I'm not setting a trap, I'm trying to understand.


Please understand that the majority of the individuals on this site are not members of CAI or other Association related professions. They are simply homeowners with varied backgrounds who were willing to step forward and serve on their Associations Boards or Committees. We spent our own time doing research and have gotten fairly good at it.

Many have overcome barriers within their own Associations to make the changes they saw were needed. Some of those barriers included dealing with individuals on their own Board who didn't understand the governing documents or the applicable State laws. Some of those barriers included dealing with individuals who refused to specify why they had the authority they claimed to have (sometimes because they didn't know and sometimes because they didn't actually have the authority). Some of those barriers included just plain arrogant Board members who simply said "it's that way because I say it is" and were unwilling to discuss or explain anything.

Therefore, many of us have adopted a trust but verify attitude.


Same here.


Well we are all human and the typical instinct when challenged is to be defensive. It's only when those who can quickly get over being defensive and return to actual discussion of the issues that issues can get resolved.


Actually, in that thread (near the top of page 4) I specified that that "there are some good points in FL law" and mentioned one of them.

My main point in that post was that most statutes, irregardless of what State, are created because of special interest groups. The lobbyists representing those groups are paid to do a job - influence the lawmakers so any law that affects their client is written in favor of the client. I believe that those lobbyists have gone overboard for laws pertaining to HOAs/COAs in FL and CA. If I recall correctly, Susan even referred to FL as an anomaly.

I believe that most, not all but most, issues can be resolved if the parties involved are willing to discuss the merits of the issue and use some common sense. I do not believe that government needs to be in every aspect of our lives. In Associations, great changes could occur if the membership would just become involved. Unfortunately, membership apathy does exist. In my opinion, government intervention encourages membership apathy. Why become involved if big brother will get involved for you?

I'm also a realist. If this is what the law says then that is what must be complied with until the law is changed. Susan, if I disagree with a statement I will counter with my own understanding and provide the basis for my understanding. I will also ask, if not already provided, the basis for the other posters understanding. This way, the facts and the merits of the issue can be discussed. Perhaps one side will change their opinion. Perhaps an incorrect opinion will be corrected. Perhaps the individuals will simply agree to disagree. HOWEVER, at least they actually engaged in conversation about the actual issue.

If this is actually done, which I believe is what everyone tries to do on this site, each person will likely leave the conversation with more knowledge than they had when the conversation started.

Let us separate fact from fiction.

You wrote "617 has NO relevance in the normal life and governance of MANDATORY FL HOAs that were built say 20 or 10 years ago."

Let's look at 720.

Ignoring Chapter 720.302 (5), which stated that mandatory HOAs are run by both 617 and 720, and that 720 is "intended to clarify existing law," there are several references to 617 specifying just when 720 takes precedence over 617 (which would be rather unnecessary if 720 was the prevalent law in the first place), and the fact - FACT - that 720 lacks almost all of the legal mechanisms to operate a corporation, such as those dealing with the articles of incorporation or dissolution, or the possibility of receiverships or custodianships. Without these statutes HOAs would be like the wild, wild west.

And then of course there are legal opinions from professionals in the field (lawyers).

Here are a couple

Jean Winters, Esq. wrote the following:

So what about the provision in Chapter 720 that says both Chapter 617 and 720 govern “residential homeowner associations”? Both chapters apply to mandatory homeowner associations. If Chapter 720 does not address a particular issue, then we must look to Chapter 617 for guidance. If, on the other hand, Chapter 720 does address the matter, then it governs.

(http://blogs.sun-sentinel.com/condoblog/2013/02/what-florida-statutes-govern-voluntary-associations.html)

Joe Adams (of Becker and Poliakoff) wrote the following:

Almost all homeowners' associations are organized as not-for-profit corporations. Chapter 720.302 (5) of the statute provides that, "Unless expressly stated to the contrary, corporations not for profit that operate residential homeowners' associations in this state shall be governed by and subject to chapters 617 and this chapter." Therefore, both Chapter 617 and Chapter 720 apply to your association. Chapter 617 provides the general framework for the formation and operation of the association, and Chapter 720 adds additional requirements designed to meet the special needs of homeowners' associations.

(http://sectionxxii.blogspot.com/2005/06/chapter-617-or-720-qualified-legal.html)

Not only was Joe Adams a Managing Shareholder of the firm that Susan's friend Lisa Magill works at, he was also on the HOA taskforce under Jeb Bush and helped write the laws governing HOAs.

There is no debating over something like this. Facts are facts. The laws are clearly stated and there is no way to read the statutes differently. Doing so would be reckless and any attorney that would insist these statutes don't apply either have a poor understanding of the law or are have a complete disregard for the law so that they can make a quick buck and keep their client satisfied. And any HOA insisting the laws don't apply to them are just looking to do whatever they want without any repercussions. That is what one of my HOAs did.

My HOA insisted lifetime membership was determined voluntarily so they could avoid 720 only to insist they could then force "mandatory maintenance assessments" on every homeowner and deny non-members the rights normally given in 720 to protect their revenue stream and intimidate homeowners. This was before the MRTA issues began (the neighborhood has been in legal turmoil for over 5 years).

The idea that an attorney giving their opinion on a legal blog is not a legal opinion is silly. So they are looking at the law and being more detailed just to cover bases? Precision is a bad thing? I highly doubt in private these attorneys refute their bloggings and claim the law is only sometimes applicable.

You state that "most smart attorneys would definitely review, cite, and/or argue 617 regardless of which side they were representing." That is because all smart and knowledgeable attorneys would agree that 617 applies to mandatory associations. Again, it is silly to dismiss a law for "normal life and governance" only to then use that law in defense (or opposition) in court later. How about using such law before a situation progresses to the legal stage?

The reason why I am taking an uncompromising position is because the law states that a mandatory association "shall" be held to 617. It would be a different story if the language declared 617 optional. I would not want the OP to take such poor advice and have their rights trampled because of such a cavalier attitude in regards to what may or may not apply.

As I recommended in my previous posts, the OP should find an attorney well versed in HOA law. I also think he should avoid any attorney that will pick and choose what parts of a law they wish to follow, for they will surely lose their case.