By Jan Bergemann
The big number of arbitration cases over “material alterations” is a clear sign that these two simple words can cause a lot of havoc. One would think that the two words “material” and “alteration” would be self-explanatory. That’s clearly not the case, as every community association lawyer can tell you. And even arbitrators and judges don’t always agree with each other.
The actual explanation in simple English would be: Change of material – right? But it seems nothing is easy in community associations.
In his “Handbook” former Condo Ombudsman Virgil Rizzo gave this explanation – hoping to explain these two seemingly problematic words in layman’s terms:
“A material alteration of the common elements is covered by Florida
A material alteration or addition means to palpably or perceptively vary or change the form, shape, elements or specifications of a building from its original design, plan, or existing condition, in such a manner as to appreciably affect or influence its function, use or appearance.”
Seems easy – does it? In reality it isn’t – mark my words.
We see only too often that board members think they can just change the carpet floor and replace the carpet with tiles. Huge mistake, especially if just one of the owners doesn’t like tiles – and the fight is on. In many cases it’s not only the legal fees causing serious financial damage to the association; it’s as well the fact that most complaints are only filed after the work is done and the money spent.
The reason for creating the requirement of members’ approval is pretty obvious: People bought their home after looking at the surroundings of their new home – and the way things look when they buy their home.
Let’s say a potential buyer is impressed with the nice red carpet in the hallways. He/she buys the unit relying on being always greeted by a plush red carpet in the hallway. One day some board members feel that carpets are quickly used up by the heavy traffic in the hallway and opt to replace the fading carpet with Spanish tiles. It might be a smart financial decision in the long run, but a violation of the Florida statutes in the eyes of the red carpet-lover. And the war is on!
Let’s say a potential buyer is impressed with the nice red carpet in the hallways. He/she buys the unit relying on being always greeted by a plush red carpet in the hallway. One day some board members feel that carpets are quickly used up by the heavy traffic in the hallway and opt to replace the fading carpet with Spanish tiles. It might be a smart financial decision in the long run, but a violation of the Florida statutes in the eyes of the red carpet-lover. And the war is on!
Do you think that “material alterations” should require a membership vote?
No comments:
Post a Comment