Florida Condo and HOA Law Amendments

Brian Rowland, Esq. — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 15:17:19 +0000

Florida condominium and homeowner association (“HOA”) laws are seeing some sweeping changes which became effective on July 1, 2010. First, condo and HOA associations will be allowed, when an owner is in arrears in assessments, to send a notice to an owner’s tenant and to the owner (for residences which are rented by their owners), whereby the tenant must pay the association the owner’s future incurred obligations to the association. The statute is (in our opinion) very poorly drafted causing many to misunderstand the rights and privileges of the association and the duties of the tenant and owner. Second, the association will have the right to step into the owner/landlord’s shoes and evict a tenant for non-payment of the monetary obligation. Finally, in another statutory tool to help associations collect assessments, associations that do not have declaration provisions allowing them to suspend the use of amenities (for non payment of assessments) will now be permitted to suspend the amenities.

The new amendments in effect appear somewhat incomplete (e.g. no specifics on how to give notice, no attorneys fee provision for tenant’s failure to comply, no clarity on whether the association receives rent payments form tenant, etc) and I think, some of the amendments will have to be clarified by court rulings and by being further amended over time. There may be serious complications regarding the practicalities of conducting an actual eviction by an association on behalf of the landlord, if the landlord refuses to be cooperative or is obstructive.

The amendments to the Laws of Florida can be found here. If you have further questions or wish to discuss how this affects your association, don’t hesitate to call us.

YouTube’s Protection Vindicated Under DMCA (for now)

Brian Rowland, Esq. — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 10:47:29 +0000

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act is generally designed to protect service providers and content providers who take certain steps to remove from their sites copyright-protected materials which have been placed online without authorization and abide by other provisions of the Act. In a ruling which supports and helps delineate when a provider is “safe” and when they are infringing, YouTube’s model and practices have been vindicated by a New York Federal Court. See article.

While I am not schooled on the intricate details of the case, it is my view that this suit is correctly decided. The act of infringement is an act perpetrated by the user who uploads the material. If the provider abides by provisions of the DMCA in a timely fashion and in good faith, the provider should enjoy the protections of the Act. YouTube is certainly distinguishable from LimeWire, Grokster and the old version of Napster.

Ontario v. Quon (right to review gov’t employee text messages)

Brian Rowland, Esq. — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 12:55:44 +0000

I cannot say that I disagree with the decision that allows a government agency (police department) to review messages which are beyond an officer’s monthly quota and which incur extra fees, in order to determine if they are official business or not. Other reasons which I think the officer should not prevail include that, in my view, he does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy utilizing a department owned and supplied pager or mobile phone and, if laws in California require “gov’t in the sunshine” any official business conducted on the texts needs to be made publicly available; a matter which the department must be able to determine for itself.

Good summary article is here.

Text of decision is here.

RIAA v. LimeWire

Brian Rowland, Esq. — Thu, 13 May 2010 00:24:22 +0000

LimeWire, the file sharing software, has been found liable of copyright infringement. Financial damages have not been determined, but the Recording Industry Association of America is seeking $150,000 per infringement. Wired Magazine has an article here, and the decision may be read by downloading this PDF.

Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission

Brian Rowland, Esq. — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 20:10:43 +0000

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of free speech today in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Hopefully this serves as a warning to the government in its meddling in political, editorial, religious and even commercial speech content.

READ THE DECISION HERE