October 15, 2010

Misperception #8 “We Can Write the Rules any Way We Like. It’s Easy.”


This post is one of a series about 10 Most Common Misperceptions About Condominium Laws And Operations, which I presented at the Maine Condo Forum and Expo in Portland, Maine, on September 25, 2010.

Boards frequently write their own rules and regulations.  I see many rules which are poorly drafted or which violate the declaration, bylaws or the condominium act, or both.

Generally, rules are trumped by contrary provisions hidden in the condominium acts, the declaration and the bylaws.  Rules cannot violate other ordinances or state or federal law either.

It is not easy to draft rules.  Poorly drafted rules may not achieve the ends which the drafter intended; it is the words themselves, not what you may have intended but did not express, which usually prevails if they are challenged.

Trying to enforce poorly drafted rules presents risks to the association.  Owners may not understand the rule.   It may be difficult to prove that someone has violated a rule that is not clear.  If the association ever finds itself in court, the exact language of the rule will receive a higher standard of scrutiny than one would imagine.  And if the Board fails in court, it could be assessed the attorney’s fees of the unit owners.

Recommendation.  When in doubt about the legality or clarity of a rule, ask that it be reviewed by an attorney.

October 8, 2010

Misperception #9 “Tenants are Not a Problem”


This post is one of a series about 10 Most Common Misperceptions About Condominium Laws And Operations, which I presented at the Maine Condo Forum and Expo in Portland, Maine, on September 25, 2010.

There is a perception, often but not always justified, that investor owned units occupied by renters lead to a reduction in the quality of life of other residents.  New rules of the secondary mortgage market, and more aggressive enforcement of existing rules, may mean that condominiums having a high percentage of renter occupied units may be shut out of the secondary mortgage market, reducing unit values.

In addition, absentee owners might not care about the quality of the tenants they rent to.  Tenants may not know the standards expected of the condominium and numberswiki.com

may not care.

tenants should be made liable for violations of the documents and for fines.

Recommendation:  If the percentage of non-owner occupied units is rising, take action to amend your documents to limit the number of such units. Once the number of such units reaches a certain threshold, it may be impossible to get the votes to make this change, because the investor owners will vote against it.  Consider rules requiring owners to give copies of the property documents, including rules, to new tenants.  Consider revising your documents to make it clear that the tenant is subject to fines for violation of the documents and that the owner is also responsible.   Consider a mandatory lease addendum to be signed by the owner and the tenant.

October 6, 2010

Misperception #10 “Our Builder’s Standard Contract is OK”

This post is one of a series about 10 Most Common Misperceptions About Condominium Laws And Operations, which I presented at the Maine Condo Forum and Expo in Portland, Maine, on September 25, 2010.

My survey indicates that condominium associations get burned frequently by contractors hired to do repair or maintenance work because of badly written agreements with the people they hire to do work.  Much of the blame goes to the associations themselves for failing to properly investigate their needs, evaluate the reputation of the bidders, and especially enter into a contract which assures completion of what they want done, when they want it done, to the standards they specify, and with adequate financial and other guarantees that the work will be done properly.  Contracts provided by the contractor are almost always inadequate in this respect.

The general contracting business is in some respects still the wild west.    While there are minimum standards for some types of work, such as plumbing and electrical work, anyone can hang out more info

their shingle and call themselves a contractor.

When asked to bid a contract, many contractors will provide an incomplete description of the materials they will use and the work they will do, making it difficult to evaluate one bid against another.

As one Maine property manager put it:

“There isn’t an association in Maine that knows how to adequately prepare an RFP so that bids are apples to apples.  That is why there are so many construction problems.  Associations do not always check the insurance of the contractors prior to starting the project.”

Court remedies are almost always impractical because of the cost involved, which is why most contracts have an arbitration clause, which reduces, but does not eliminate costs.

Recommendation:  For construction or repair contracts of significant size, get the help of professionals that can help you prepare proper specs and requests for proposals, evaluate the reputations of the bidders, and prepare a contract which protects the association.  Have an independent person oversee or check the work for larger projects.

10 Most Common Misperceptions About Condominium Laws And Condominium Operations


Introduction.

This series of posts contains my list of the 10 most common misperceptions about condominium laws and operations.  It is a slightly modified version of a presentation I gave at the Community Associations Institute Condo Expo and Forum held in Portland, Maine on September 25, 2010.  I will post one of the ten each Friday at 6:00 a.m.

This list is necessarily subjective and some would undoubtedly disagree with it.   In compiling this material, I have conducted a survey of a number of attorneys and managers, and reviewed my experience with associations I have represented the past 25 years.  Many thanks to Pete Garret of Maine Properties, Inc. Bob Keegan of R&E Property Management and attorney Sanford Roberts for their review  and their suggestions.

Many legal misperceptions have no consequences.  The contractor does a good job notwithstanding a bad contract.  The owner pays the fine you assess without challenging it.  The decision you make by email instead of at a legally called meeting, goes unnoticed.

This list is not about the most common legal misperceptions.  It is a list of the most common mistakes that have, or could have, serious consequences, and I hope it will help you avoid some traps.  The list is in approximate order of importance, with number 1 being the most important.  The topics covered here can be categorized in different ways, so in that respect it is arbitrary

Boards want to do the right thing; the complex nature of condominium law and the fact that they are volunteers makes that job difficult.  Further, they wish to avoid disputes if they can, and if they can’t, to be on good legal ground if someone wants to take them to court.  Many of the recommendations here are designed to avoid litigation and all its attendant costs in money, stress and loss of community.

July 2, 2010

Fidelity insurance

Filed under: Insurance — Joe @ 3:43 pm

In the news recently are two articles about misappropriation of condominium association funds.   The first one was a Portsmouth, NH bookeeper who allegedly stole funds from two condominium associations in that town.   The second concerned a person who allegedly stole money from a condominium association in Biddeford, and also from a festival which celebrates the French heritage of that town.  Several other recent articles detailed misappropriation of funds from businesses, from municipalities and even from attorneys trust accounts by employees.

As numerous as the newspaper articles are, they report only the tip of the iceberg.  Many organizations do not report embezzlement out of embarassment or the fear of bad press.  For small associations especially, financial controls are loose and it is relatively easy to steal funds and to get away with it for a significant time.  Fidelity insurance, purchased as part of the association’s insurance package, can cover these risks.  It is relatively inexpensive and can help you recover from those occasions when a treasurer or someone else has made off with association funds.

October 27, 2009

Well, the elections are here, what about political signs?

Filed under: Questions from Bloggers — Joe @ 12:58 pm

A reader of this blog asks:

“Joe – We are currently doing a rules revision at [our condominium]. The question came up: Can the board restrict the usage of political signs posted in windows in such a way that they are visible from the common areas? Can you tell me what Maine and/or Federal law has to say about this?

The fall elections come in two weeks, and until then we see campaign signs blooming like mushrooms along our highways.  Can they be placed on the common elements?  In windows?  Isn’t this a matter of free speech?

The answer is no.  Although the first amendment to the Constitution prohibits interference with free speech, it applies only to government entities, not private condominium associations.  The common elements of the condominium are controlled directly by the condominium association, acting through its Board of Directors, and they can prohibit political signs from being posted there.

In addition, Section 1602-111 of the Maine Condominium Act says that a unit owner may not change the exterior appearance of a unit or any other portion of the condominium, without permission of the association.  This gives the association the authority to prohibit political (or any other) signs in windows or other areas of the unit which can be seen from the common elements.

It should be noted that federal law prohibits condominium associations from limiting the right to fly the American flag.


October 26, 2009

Smoke free policies – a misleading claim from Smokefreeforme.org

Filed under: Uncategorized — Joe @ 7:11 am

This morning I received a large number of identical letters from the Smoke-Free Housing Coalition of Maine, each sent to me as the registered agent of a condominium association I represent.  Apparently the Coalition obtained a list of condominium association clerks from the Secretary of State’s office.   Each letter contained a flyer about making Maine condominiums smoke free.  Unfortunately, this flyer is misleading.

However desirable it may be to make Maine condominiums smoke free, it is stretching things to say, as the Coalition states in its flyer, that “Condo owners and associations have a legal right to make their units and buildings smoke-free” .   The likelihood that an individual unit owner would succeed in getting a court order prohibiting another unit owner from smoking in their unit is slim, and the ability of a condominium association to amend its documents to prohibit smoking in units has not been established by case law or statute in Maine.

The Board of Directors of a Maine condominium does have control over the common elements of a condominium, and they have plenty of authority to ban smoking in the common elements if they want to do so.  However, the Board does not have similar authority over uses within the unit.     Any attempt to ban smoking within a unit by an amendment to the declaration or bylaws must be based on the effects of that smoke outside the unit – in common areas or other units.

The most commented on case involving this issue comes from Golden Colorado, where the Heritage Hills #1 Condominium Association approved an amendment to its governing documents prohibiting smoking on the property, including within the units themselves.  Rodger and Colleen Sauve, unit owners, sued the association seeking to overturn the amendment.  A local court upheld the restriction, saying that secondhand smoke or its odor, which wafted into other units and the common areas, was a nuisance under the condominium documents.  That case was a lower court case, not necessarily binding on other courts in Colorado, much less Maine.

Whether or not smoke meets the legal definition of nuisance under either the condominium documents or under state law depends on the circumstances of the particular case.  And unless an aggrieved unit owner can get other owners to pass an amendment to the condominium declaration or bylaws prohibiting smoking within the units, they will have a difficult time getting relief.   And if the amendment is not adopted unanimously by all unit owners, it is not a sure bet that such an amendment would be legal, since the condominium act says that restrictions on uses within a unit cannot be adopted by a two thirds or three quarters vote: it must be unanimous.  For those who are interested in the exact language, see Section 1602-117 (d) of the Maine Condominium Act.

Maybe the Legislature or the courts will give condominium associations the right to prohibit unit owners from smoking within their unit, based on the theory that second hand smoke is dangerous and will inevitably affect neighbors.   But there is no precedent yet in Maine for this proposition.

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress