Finally...Automatic Class Action Standing for Florida Homeowner Associations

Until 2008, Florida condominium associations had a distinct advantage over Florida homeowner associations as far as pursuing construction defect and financial claims on a class action basis. Basically, Florida condominium associations by court rule since 1977 had automatic standing to represent their owners as a class on matters of common interest. Florida homeowner associations, on the other hand, had no standing to represent their members as a class. Members of homeowner associations were relegated to bringing a traditional class action with individual members acting as class representatives on behalf of the members. The procedure for attaining class action status in a homeowner association context was cumbersome and time consuming.

The newly adopted Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.221 reads:

HOMEOWNERS AND CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATIONS

A homeowners' or condominium association, after control of such association is obtained by homeowners or unit owners other than the developer, may institute, maintain, settle, or appeal actions or hearings in its name on behalf of all association members concerning matters of common interest to the members, including, but not limited to: (1) the common property, area, or elements; (2) the roof or structural components of a building, or other improvements (in the case of homeowners. associations, being specifically limited to those improvements for which the association is responsible); (3) mechanical, electrical, or plumbing elements serving a property or an improvement or building (in the case of homeowners. associations, being specifically limited to those elements for which the association is responsible); (4) representations of the developer pertaining to any existing or proposed commonly used facility; (5) protests of ad valorem taxes on commonly used facilities; and, in the case of homeowners' associations, (6) defense of actions in eminent domain or prosecution of inverse condemnation actions. If an association has the authority to maintain a class action under this rule, the association may be joined in an action as representative of that class with reference to litigation and disputes involving the matters for which the association could bring a class action under this rule. Nothing herein limits any statutory or common law right of any individual homeowner or unit owner, or class of such owners, to bring any action that may otherwise be available. An action under this rule shall not be subject to the requirements of rule 1.220.

Unfortunately, what the Florida Supreme Court did in providing automatic class action standing for homeowner associations was not coupled with the Florida Legislature, as it had done long ago for condominium associations (F.S. 718.203), inserting developer and contractor warranties of fitness and merchantability into F.S. Chapter 720 (homeowner associations). As a result, even though the procedure to get into court as a class has been made significantly easier for member of homeowner associations, identifying sustainable causes of action for securing compensation remains a challenge.

AIA Owner/Architect and Owner/General Contract Forms - Beware of Arbitration Glitch

AIA contract forms are popular for major community association repair contracts. Unfortunately, the AIA (American Institute of Architects), presumeably to shield architects from liability, long ago created an arbitration glitch in instances where the Owner/Architect and Owner/General Contractor Contract forms are being utilized for a given project. The glitch is that the Owner/Architect form prohibits the architect (absent the architect's agreement) from being joined in an arbitration proceeding between the owner and general contractor.

Where defects in the work are a result of both design and construction flaws, this glitch can create a major dispute resolution headache.

The owner is forced (absent the architect's agreement) to file separate arbitrations against the general contractor and architect. The general contractor in the one arbitration can attempt to deflect responsibility by blaming the design. The architect in the other arbitration can attempt to deflect responsibility by blaming the construction. Not only is this a very expensive proposition, but the worse case scenario is that both arbitration panels buy the defense arguments, with one walking the general contractor while pinning the blame on the design while the other walks the architect pinning the blame on the general contractor.

Word to the wise, if you use both the AIA owner/architect and owner/general contractor forms, insert provisions in each providing for a joint arbitration of all disputes involving both the design and construction teams. This should include sub-designers (engineers) and subcontractors. Better yet, consider scrapping the arbitration clauses entirely. . . More on this in upcoming blogs.

Proving What Was On Major Rehab Projects

Every remedial project has the potential of causing damage to building components and personal property. It is typical to charge back the contractor for such damage. Remedial projects requiring work on both the common elements and unit interiors present special challenges in documenting such damage. Balcony slab rehab work on a hi-rise where the slab deterioration extends into the unit is a classic example. In order to complete the job, sliders may have to be removed, carpets or tile pulled up, draperies and window coverings removed and furniture moved. At the end of the job, all this needs to be replaced or reinstalled.

Meticulous pre-job documentation is a key in proving contractor charge backs and fending off owner claims of damage. For a balcony slab rehab project such as is described above, the condition of each involved slab, balcony railing, slider, slider track, floor covering, window covering, wall finish and piece of furniture should be documented by photograph and in writing. The contractor and unit owner should sign off on a pre-job statement of condition.