Do you live at home led by cooperative, cooperative or homeowner? You have questions about what they can and cannot do? Ryan Poliakoff, a lawyer and author based on Boca Raton, has answers.
Question: Our cooperative complex has several rules related to the pool area, which is more restrictive than the Articles of Association of Florida and the Department of Health and Beverages in the Pool. The rule of the Department of Health is that only commercially bottles are allowed in the wet deck area (4 ‘around the perimeter of the pool), but our community has a rule that prohibits food or drinks (except water) throughout the fenced pool area.
Would this rule be justified and executed? In addition, our community locks the gate into a fenced pool area to prevent the units owners from entering the area after sunset. Although the night swim is not allowed by the Department of Health, should the owners be closed from their property? Signed, st
Dear gIs it
It is almost impossible to say exactly whether the specific rule is reasonable or not, but I can report my forecast and make some educated guesses.
As you say, state law usually prohibits food and drinks in the pool and wet deck, except water in bottles. Your Directors’ Board is likely to have the power to publish reasonable rules and regulations governing your pool territory, even if those rules are more restrictive than state rules.
The difference here is whether the state law is a restriction or a clear right. That is, if the state had a law stating that food and drinks (law) must be allowed in the pool, the association may not be able to adopt a rule restricting this right – this would be a difficult question whether the law applies to the association, depending on when the law was first passed and whether the law is to retreate.
However, in a situation where there is a law restricting behavior, the association can usually convey rules that further restrict such behavior. Thus, by providing an additional example, if state law prohibits the toys of the duck -shaped pool, the association could apparently ban both ducks and dog -shaped pool toys (if they were legitimate reasons to do so). But if state law clearly allowed the duck pool toys, the association may not be able to limit them.
Here the association sets a stricter rule that does not contradict the state rule – the question arises as to whether the rule is justified. What is the legitimate problem of the association to solve the rule and does it actually solve this problem?
Of course, I guess, but I can certainly see how food and non -water drinks in the pool can become a care problem, attract insects and rodents, create adhesive areas where people walk barefoot, and make it difficult to maintain the pool. I have no idea whether this is the real reason for the rule, but I can certainly think about the legitimate problems of the association that may be resolved and prohibit food and drinks from the whole area to properly solve these problems. So I see how the judge would seem reasonable.
When it comes to the pool area, this is a very similar situation.
The law does not provide for a clear right to use the pool during the dark hours of the day, it prohibits the use of the pool in the dark (state law requires a specific type of lighting to use a pool at night). Sitting by the pool would not be restricted, but how could an association be able to control the police at night for the police if the pool area is open to residents? Not to mention that without proper lighting, a person could easily enter the pool and sink, which is precisely because the state does not allow night swim in public swimming pools, in particular without proper lighting. So, this one also stunts me as a reasonable rule.
Who needs to confirm the Condo legal settlements?
Question: Do unit owners have to approve legal and arbitration settlements or can they be approved solely by the Board? Signed, ke
Cute keIs it
In general, board members have the power to resolve legal disputes unless the documents of the management documents restrict this right (and I cannot remember that I have ever seen a collection of management documents that did).
However, there may be elements of a particular agreement that will need to be approved by membership before they can be carried out. For example, let’s say the Board wanted to resolve the claim by paying $ 100,000 to the plaintiff; And that they will need a special assessment to raise those funds. If the documents in the management of the Association require all special assessments to be approved in the membership, the Board’s right of resolution of the rights of the owners shall not specify the rights of the owners to approve the assessments – the Board should apply to such approval before singing a settlement agreement.
Ryan Polyakoff, Partner, LLP, LLP, is a Board certified apartment specialist and planned for Development Act. This column is dedicated to the memory of Gary Polyacoff. Ryan Polyacoff and Gary Polycoff are co-authors of the “new neighborhood-consumption, Co-op and Hoa Living.” Send your questions email By e -mail [email protected]. Be sure to include your place.
This article initially appeared at the Palm Beach Post: Can the rules of the Florida Condo basin be stricter than state law?