The committee debate During the closed committee meeting, the chair and another committee member declare that they are voting against the applicant because they did not meet the financial criteria for acceptance. The third committee member accuses the other two of being elitists. The chair declares, “We do not want flower children in our community.” Then in an attempt at humor adds, “I might feel differently if I had been offered a cocktail rather than a flower.” There ensues an argument that the financial criteria are only guidelines. The chair reminds the committee that the amended documents require a liquid net worth of $5,000,000 to purchase Next month the committee is faced with another application, a well- known advocate for legalization of the recreational use of marijuana. Many believe that the applicant does not restrict themselves to simply advocating and suggests that they may, on occasion or more often, actually inhale the substance they are promoting. The screening committee meeting The applicant arrives at the committee meeting looking quite respectable, except for the waterpipe in hand. The committee chair calls the meeting to order and introduces the applicant. The applicant greets the committee warmly and offers them a toke on the waterpipe, which they decline. The committee debate During the closed meeting following the interview, a committee member immediately makes a motion to reject the application, citing the flaunting of the Clean Air Act by offering to share the waterpipe. A second committee member seconds the motion stating, “We do not want this pothead as a neighbor.” Another committee member argues that offering a toke was just a joke and that F.S. 386, the Clean Air Act, requires public places and public areas to be reasonably free from tobacco smoke and vapor. The statute specifically regulates indoor “common areas.” One of the committee members immediately reacts saying that “The Florida law only applies to tobacco smoke and vapor and this guy is not smoking tobacco.” Exasperated, they go on to declare “there is no prohibition against smoking marijuana in the governing documents” and goes on to accuse the committee of discriminating against the applicant because they don’t like their politics. Furthermore, that they have no knowledge if the pipe actually contained cannabis and therefore there is no basis for denial. The committee recommendation This application is rejected by a two to one vote. Committee concerns ● Has this committee followed the rule of law, or have they let their personal opinions and preferences govern their decisions? Application #3 New owner applicant
a unit and that the applicant documented a net worth of only $4,000,000. The committee recommendation The new owner applicant is rejected by a vote of two to one. Requested legal intervention The next day a committee member contacted the association’s attorney with a complaint about the committee’s action. The attorney advises the member that the denial appears to be legal since the applicant did not meet the net worth conditions described in the amendments. However, it’s always possible that, if challenged in court, a judge or jury could find in favor of the plaintiff. ● What about people with a problematic residential history? ○ Some people who have been branded with that label are people who don’t like rules and should probably not reside in a community association. ○ But others may have earned the wrath of their previous association because they were rightfully complaining that the board was selectively enforcing against them because they’re foreigners, dissidents, or for some other unjust reason. ● One committee member read about associations that do not welcome celebrities because they can attract unwanted visitors, are controversial, and they sometimes believe they should be afforded special privileges because of celebrity status. ○ Can celebrities be legally denied? ○ What about people with a pet in a no-pets permitted or pet breed restrictions association? ○ This can be especially problematic because one person’s dangerous animal is another’s best friend. ○ Some people may have allergies to certain types of animals or have an innate fear of animals. ○ Can an association legally prohibit pets or types of pets? ● What about bikers? ○ One committee member said that they are frightened by the loud sounds that motorcycles make. But is this a valid reason to prohibit them from purchase, lease, or residency? ● Should the decisions of the committee be based on individual committee member’s personal preferences and perceptions of application or on the governing documents and local, state, and federal laws? Requested legal intervention One of the committee members suggests to the others that the association attorney should be asked to conduct an orientation for the committee members. They agree.
COMMITTEE SCREENING SEMINAR
At the seminar, the attorney reiterated that their legal firm was only recently hired and that had no role in amending the documents, and they expressed some concern about the legality of some of the amendments regarding screening of new owners and tenants. The first question of the resident screening committee was, “How can the screening committee and board legally deny an application for purchase, lease, or residency in this association?” The attorney refers to Article IX of their declaration: Section 1. - Provisions Relating to the Sale or Lease of Lots: In order to assure a community of congenial residents and thus protect the value of the residences and to further the continuous development of the properties, the sale and
The AACA attorney conducted a screening seminar for the screening committee. Some of the issues given consideration are listed below: ● Prior to the recent amendments to the documents, the association did not have the right to screen applicants for purchase, lease, or residency. Nor did it have the right of first refusal. ● The amended documents corrected those deficiencies, and the association now has the right of first refusal as well as the authority to screen and reject applicants. ● Additionally, the amended documents now have criteria to deny applicants for purchase on financial as well as other grounds.
Page 65
Book Code: CAMFL1524
EliteLearning.com/CAM/Florida
Powered by FlippingBook