The board of the condominium community has the duty to maintain the common elements, but they need approval from the unit owners to make significant improvements or alterations. Some court decisions have allowed boards to make unilateral decisions if they believe the improvements are necessary for maintaining the common elements, but not all courts agree with this. Ultimately, the decision of whether to raise the seawall and prioritize this project should be made by the condominium community, not a court. The law says that the condo association can’t make big changes to the property without following certain rules. Generally, 75% of the owners need to agree to any changes. But there was a case where the court said that the association could make changes if it was necessary for maintenance, even if not everyone agreed. In that case, the court said the owners who didn’t agree still had to pay for the changes. The Tiffany Plaza decision allowed condo boards to make improvements without getting approval from the owners. The Ralph decision also supported board authority to make improvements without owner approval, as long as the work was beneficial. However, the George decision disagreed and said that owner approval is needed for any material alterations. This created a conflict in the law, as different courts were interpreting the same rules differently. These cases show that the law can be open to interpretation, and sometimes different courts may have different opinions on the same issue. Can the condo board be held responsible for not keeping the building in good shape? The law doesn’t clearly say they have to make improvements, so it’s a complicated question. But if they don’t make necessary improvements, they could be sued by unit owners. In simple terms, the authority of a condominium board to make improvements to the common areas without unit owner approval is similar to the authority of a city government to make decisions for the community. The law does not give individual unit owners the right to force the association to make improvements, and if the board suggests improvements and the unit owners say no, then the decision is final. If the courts were to give the association the duty to make improvements to keep the units livable, then the future of the community would be decided by a judge or jury, which is similar to how city decisions are made. The city of X has homes on hills and homes by the creek. The drainage system is not always effective, leading to occasional flooding of the creek side homes. If a homeowner’s house floods due to the city’s inadequate drainage system, they cannot sue the city unless they can prove negligent maintenance. The same applies to condominium associations – they are not obligated to maintain habitability of units, and courts cannot force them to make improvements. Instead, these decisions should be made by the community. If courts were to mandate improvements, it could lead to financial burdens on homeowners and potentially accelerate the collapse of the community. The Florida Legislature can help people who bought condos but can’t live in them because of defects. They can make a law that forces the condo association to buy the uninhabitable units for a fair price. This would shift the risk of defects to all the condo owners. But it could also put financial strain on the condo community if they have to buy multiple units at once. If Wetfootâs case goes to the Florida Supreme Court, it will likely rule that the condo board can’t ignore the owners’ rights to approve changes to the building. The current law doesn’t require condo associations to upgrade the building, so the court shouldn’t force them to do so. The law should be changed so that associations have to buy units that are unlivable because of building problems, instead of being forced to make major changes to the whole building. These are references to court cases in Florida about issues related to condominium associations. The court cases discuss things like maintenance, improvements, and statutes related to condominium associations. There are also references to Florida laws and constitutional provisions related to condominium associations. Some cases also discuss the termination of condominium associations, and the rights of unit owners in these associations. And there are references to bankruptcy laws applicable to condominium associations. William C. Ballard is a lawyer at Fisher & Sauls, P.A. in St. Petersburg. He is experienced in handling legal disputes related to condominiums, construction claims, and inadequate common elements in associations.
Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/who-decides-whether-to-build-it-higher-the-condominium-community-or-the-court/
Leave a Reply