Statute interpretation - Record Access timeframe

I have suddenly become a resource for law questions from my neighbors for some reason, and I do my best to answer them while making clear that I am not a lawyer. So this has come up:

A homeowner has presented a written request for access to our financial records, which the board is willing to comply with. The sticking point is the amount of time being they are willing to make them available at one time. The statute says:

.

The homeowner interprets this to mean that he must be allowed to spend 8 hours in a single day to peruse the records.
I told him I disagreed because that would seem to contradict the first clause in that sentence.

The Treasurer has offered to make the records available in her home to him in 4 2-hour sessions, due to her interpretation that the sentence is intended solely to establish the minimum number of hours that access needs to be granted. The homeowner has rejected this offer because it would require him to travel more than he is willing to do, and is insisting that she allows him to do what he needs to do in a single session. He has a meeting with an attorney this week in hopes that his interpretation will be confirmed, at which point he will consider further legal action.

The biggest problem is that written rules were never created, so the treasurer cannot simply point him at the rules.

The trick is finding a good middle ground. I wouldn't want someone in my personal home to inspect records for 8 hours but I guess that is the reality of self management.

IMHO, have the board member gather all the information and then meet your friend at the closest local library next to the board members house. He can spend all day there while she goes back home. Heck he could even offer to drop off the materials when he is finished. Just my .02.

1. Self-managed HOA, 48 units, so even if this is extended to HOAs, ours would still not be required to have a website.
2. We are allowed to post online in FL, but we don't have a website (yes, I know free ones are available). Additionally, there has been no attempt to even start digitizing our records. Yeah, we're still in the 20th century.
3. Financial records. Thus the involvement of the treasurer. This homeowner was treasurer last year and seems to be interested in determining if the new treasurer's accounting practices are up to snuff.

Good points, but as the former treasurer he made records available in his unit (he has a second home offsite) for up to 8 hours because that was how he interpreted the statute.

I would not give unsupervised access to association records. This opens the possibility that documents could be removed or altered. There is also the case that records may be electronic (such as in an accounting program) and the access would be viewing a computer screen.

If this Owners was treasurer last year, why would it take much time at all to review current financial records given the size of your HOA??

Kerry is right. The old treasurer can inspect and make copies (with a smartphone camera) of all the records in less than two hours.

It sounds like the old treasurer wants everything to be exactly the way he did it: the treasurer's job, the 8 hour inspection, the presence of the officer at the inspection.

Further legal action? What is judge going to think of wasting the court's time because the old treasurer wouldn't take the time to drive there?

To answer your question: The access to records is reasonable. Let him start with two hours.

Prior treasurer obviously knows what he's looking for. Doesn't have to give you a reason. Has every right to examine all non-privileged records.

Taking that one step further, if I'm a delinquent owner, and old treasurer wants to know if I caught up on my payments, don't think he has the right as a mere homeowner to look at info about me.

What I'm getting at is this:
- You can't just copy and send him everything;
- It's going to take some time to go through all your records and decide what's private information that shouldn't be disclosed to just anyone.

My suggestion is this:
1. Verify that you remain within the limits under state law for you to charge for the cost for someone to review, copy, and redact the records prior to making them available for inspection.
2. Decide who you want to do the inspection, copy, and redact activities - your HOA attorney or one of your members.
3. Decide on a reasonable hourly fee to charge. If you use the lawyer, you can get costs from the lawyer. If you use one of your board members, that's not a free service just because you are self-managed. (It's not an ordinary function of your board to do anything beyond providing income statements and balance sheets.)
4. Notify ex-treasurer what the preparation costs are, and ask for a 50% down-payment payment in advance (if allowed under state law).
5. See if ex-treasurer revises his request.

Just because you don't have rules now does not IMO that you can't develop some. It never came up before. Stuff happens and you have to deal with it. Just make sure that everything you do is "reasonable" under the circumstances.

There is a sentence in the OP regarding the person requesting access to the records not being willing to travel twice to conduct the review. If the distance is 10 or 20 miles, sheesh, let's not be silly. If it is 300-400 miles, understandable.

In Florida, he does. As does every other owner in the association.

That's a good question. In "FS 720.303(5) INSPECTION AND COPYING OF RECORDS" it says,

"The association or its authorized agent is not required to provide a prospective purchaser or lienholder with information about the residential subdivision or the association other than information or documents required by this chapter to be made available or disclosed."

Since that section is all about official records and how homeowners have the right to inspect them, I think that means a prospective purchaser does have a right to inspect them. There's also a sentence regarding how the HOA can charge a reasonable fee to a prospective purchaser for providing "good faith responses to requests for information by or on behalf of a prospective purchaser."

I'm not aware of any past disputes or legal actions regarding this.

It should. I think the board would spend a few hundred on a legal opinion and do whatever the lawyer recommended. The new board goes to the attorney for even the dumbest questions these days.

Great answer. Thanks Geno.