On the cusp of America’s birthday, I get to thinking about our national flag – what it represents, and the emotions it evokes in people throughout the world. We all have our own ideas about these things, and how important it is to demonstrate our allegiance. Some people, while as patriotic as anybody else, prefer to not make outward demonstrations, while others feel strongly about flying the flag. All of which gets me to the role of homeowners associations, and their role in all of this.
While community association managers in Colorado have been working through the state mandated licensure process, the ‘hot button’ topic of discussion in Florida has been the Florida Supreme Court’s May 14, 2015 Advisory Opinion regarding the unlicensed practice of law by non-lawyer community association managers. While the decision is not binding in Colorado, it is likely to spark debate and conversation among community association managers for years to come. Did the Florida Supreme Court go too far? Will a similar decision issue in Colorado in the future? Continue Reading Food for Thought: Unlicensed Practice of Law Opinion
I was recently told a story about a condominium association that is carrying property insurance coverage on their condominium units which includes a $50,000 per unit deductible on water related losses! Evidently, this association has also adopted a policy which passes along the responsibility for the deductible to the owners of the units which were damaged. In addition, if a unit owner is found responsible for causing a water related loss, I was told the at-fault owner is responsible for paying the $50,000 deductible for all of the units damaged by the water event.
Let’s say you live in this association and negligently caused a water related loss which damaged your unit and three others. That would mean you could be held responsible to pay $200,000 in insurance deductibles. Needless to say, most people are not prepared to write a check for $200,000!
Once I thought through this scenario and picked my jaw up off my desk, my initial thought was this association has basically decided not to cover water related losses. However, much more importantly, I thought about how absolutely essential it is for homeowners in this community to carry sufficient insurance coverage on their standard unit owners policy (commonly referred to as the "HO-6 policy") to cover payment of these deductibles.
While the story I recounted is certainly unusual, every owner of a condominium unit should find out what deductibles their association is carrying on their property and liability insurance coverage and to what extent the owners are responsible for paying those deductibles. Once you have that information, you should contact your insurance agent and ask the following questions about your HO-6 policy:Continue Reading Are You Carrying Enough Loss Assessment Coverage?
Oh yes we can.
It is not unusual for us to encounter communities with strict restrictive covenants that have not been enforced in a strict manner. Much of the time, this is due to apathy or ignorance. In other circumstances, Board turnover results in more or less enforcement. Some Boards hate to enforce against their neighbors, and offer so many variances the covenants might as well not even exist. Some Boards will interpret documents in a manner different than other, future Boards, but when the documents remain the same, we have to figure out what to do to follow those documents in light of the community’s history.
A recent case in California provides a bit of guidance for those of us facing the historical enforcement challenge. In The Villas in Whispering Palms v. Tempkin<!–, No. D065232 (Cal. Ct. App. May 18, 2015), No. D065232 (Cal. Ct. App. May 18, 2015) the California Court of Appeals held that an association board that had historically offered numerous variances to a one-dog rule was not required to offer variances. The homeowner claimed the Board was unreasonable because it had provided variances and allowed multiple dogs in the past. The Court ruled that the Association’s prior variances did not impact its ability to deny the requested variance.Continue Reading You Can’t Enforce That!!!
The Colorado Division of Real Estate has hit the ball out of the park! Within an hour after informing them that Section 5 of the Community Association Manager License Application needed to be updated to include a category for managers who are directly employed by a common interest community, the application is finished and here
As I mentioned in a blog posting last week, the Division of Real Estate has determined that common interest communities who directly employ a community association manager are not required to hold an "entity" license as a community association management company, are not required to carry E&O insurance or name an individual as a "designated
For several years now, the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority ("APCHA") has been a leader in providing educational opportunities for affordable housing and free market HOAs in Aspen and Pitkin County. It’s my pleasure to teach another seminar for APCHA on June 11th entitled: CCIOA 101 for HOA Boards, Homeowners and Managers: Everything You Need to Know About HOA Meetings
If you live in, serve on the board of or manage
