Last summer, I blogged about a condominium association in Florida whose board inexplicably delayed a resident's request to keep a service animal at the condominium. Although the resident was clearly confined to a wheelchair, the Board required unnecessarily extensive "proof" of the resident's disability, and, even after they received it, delayed granting an exception to the association's pet restrictions. These actions were deemed to be unreasonable. You can read about it here: http://www.barkermartin.com/blog/condo-hoa-blog/post/accommodating-accommodations. In that blog post, I provided several simple tips to guide a board's decision-making when confronted with a request for an accommodation or modification under the FHA. While the FHA may be rather complicated, complying with requests for reasonable accommodations due to disability should not be. Yet, I just read about another association that got it very wrong. The facts of McHale v. Water's Edge Association, No. 1:14-cv-23381-UU (S.D. Fla. Dec. 1, 2014), read like an FHA "don'ts" list. Ms. McHale, a resident who suffers from mental and physical disabilities, requested permission to keep an assistance animal despite the condominium's no-pets policy. She provided requested documentation substantiating her disability and need for the emotional support animal to fully use and enjoy the unit. And then, the alleged bad behavior began: Ms. McHale claims she was verbally harassed by the association president, received repeated notices of violations of the no pet policy, and was asked to provide sworn testimony from her treating psychiatrist as to her disabilities and further evidence she needed the animal (which she provided). Moreover, the association enacted new pet rules that required pets to be in carriers when not in the unit, and that laundry facilities could not be used for pet bedding. Not surprisingly, Ms. McHale sued the association alleging the above facts and violations of the FHA, among other things. Preliminary motions have were heard, and the court found the association's actions amounted to a refusal to make the requested accommodation, which allowed the case to go to trial. While it appears the parties recently reached a confidential settlement, this lawsuit illustrates the types of factors that can land an association in court. Avoiding this type of litigation should not be that difficult. Association Boards should remember that there is more to complying with the FHA than simply allowing a person to keep an animal they otherwise would be prevented from keeping. If you harass the person about the animal, if you enact or enforce rules that make it burdensome for the disabled person to keep the animal, or if you make the application process difficult or too lengthy, you run the risk of violating the FHA for refusal to make reasonable accommodations, or constructive denial. This case, like the Sabal Palm case I discussed in June, seemingly could have been avoided by a little education, and a little common sense. If we can assist with either, please give us a call! read more

Earlier this year, Barker Martin released the Practical Guide to Community Association Meetings. We have received some great feedback on what a useful resource the guide is proving to be for association boards. If would like a complimentary copy of the guide please contact our office by clicking here. This week's email highlights a section of the meetings guide and here is an excerpt from Chapter 5 on making and deciding motions. Making and Deciding Motions There are generally four potential motions for each item of business: (1) motion to adopt a specific action; (2) motion to table an item to decide at a later date; (3) motion to make a friendly amendment; or (4) motion to remove an item from consideration. Circumstances will determine the appropriate type of motion. The board is limited to the discussion of one item of business at a time. The agenda should not include the specific wording of any motions to be considered as it may be a source the of confusion with owners. Motions on a specific topic will naturally and properly evolve during discussion by the board. After discussion, the presiding board member will call each motion presented to a vote. Although technically unnecessary, it is common practice for motions to be "seconded" by another attendee. Motions adopted by a majority of the board members present at a board meeting are deemed carried, provided a quorum is present. The fact that a motion has been adopted or has failed does not prevent the item from being added to the agenda to a future meeting. All motions may be reconsidered at a later time. However, if a motion is tabled, the board should be clear about why so that any issues preventing the motion from being voted on can be resolved and a clear timeline can be set for raising the motion again. This ensures that a motion is not raised again and discussed before it is ready. If, at a board meeting, a board member believes that a board action or motion is unlawful or contrary to the authority of the board, that board member may make an oral or written dissent explaining his or her reasons. The dissent should become part of the minutes. Motions may be withdrawn or modified in one of two ways: First, the original movant may modify or withdraw his or her own motion. Second, other board members may make their own motions that are modifications of another board member's motion. read more

Great news for Washington Condominium owners! Filmore LLP v. Unit Owners Association of Centre Pointe Condominium, was accepted for review by the Washington Supreme Court yesterday! Our own Dan Zimberoff authored the amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Washington State Community Association Institute. Supplemental briefs of the parties will be due in early April and the court will set a hearing after that. A short synopsis of the devastating opinion from our prior blog is below. read more