---
The Following is to be found on the CV Web Site INFOLINK
---
REF: http://www.centuryvillagewpb.org/investigation.htm
The only problem is that these paragraphs are not to be found in Chapter 718 as the INFOLINK suggests. There is a difference between local procedures and State Law. Will it never end???
Dave Israel
----
Investigation Procedures
-
Chapter 718 — A contract for purchase or transfer of a deed or lease (if rental) must be given to the Condominium Association. This must be accompanied by a $100 check made out to the Association for the investigation. The Association deposits this check and issues an Association check for $100 made out to UCO. A married couple will be one (1) investigation. A marriage certificate is needed if the names are different. All other requests will require separate investigations; therefore, checks will be required for each investigation. Anyone can bring the contract, etc., together with the check to UCO. An application will be given to the bearer of the contract and the check.
-
Chapter 718 — The completed original application must be returned to the Condominium Association. It should be examined immediately for completeness (proof of income, proof of age, if mortgaged — a commitment letter). Page #4 is to be notarized as the thirty (30) day time clock for approval or rejection starts when all necessary information is received at UCO.
A condo board member must sign page #4 of the application before it is returned to UCO for the investigation to begin. This will affirm that the Association has screened the application and is aware of it.
Anyone can bring the completed application, after being signed by a Board Member, to UCO, for the investigation process to begin.
Only a Condominium Officer or Board Member can pick up the completed investigation report. It is a confidential report and the Officer or Board Member will be made aware of the report's contents.
18 comments:
Dave,
The manipulating and conniving
at UCO will only end when people step up to the plate who, like yourself,are concerned with what is legal instead of what is best for them.
As I have stated
many times
before, you are the one and only;
let me repeat that; you are the ONLY one at UCO
who has concern for the unit owners and respect for the law.
Rosa J. Flum
Dave,
This is an Investigations S.O.P., which is the label it should have been given instead of "Chapter 718". I assume the motivation in doing so was to give UCO's investigation proceedures an authoritative tone. Most of the specific proceedures contained within are a UCO product, though are generally provided for by each Association's Declaration (Article XI). The only aspect of this S.O.P. which is spoken to directly by Statute is in reference to the limitation on (investigation) transfer fees as follows:
Chapter 718.112 (2)(i)
"Transfer fees.--No charge shall be made by the association or any body thereof in connection with the sale, mortgage, lease, sublease, or other transfer of a unit unless the association is required to approve such transfer and a fee for such approval is provided for in the declaration, articles, or bylaws. Any such fee may be preset, but in no event may such fee exceed $100 per applicant other than husband/wife or parent/dependent child, which are considered one applicant."
My bone of contention with this S.O.P. Is as follows:
"Page #4 is to be notarized as the thirty (30) day time clock for approval or rejection starts when all necessary information is received at UCO."
There are still associations in this Village which are operating under the original (developer) documents and have failed to amend the original 10 day time limitation for sale/lease/transfer approval. Any Association that has adopted the 1990 or 1999 master Declaration revisions, or has the orginal documents and have separately recorded the thirty
(30) day amendment, can rely on this aspect of the Investigations S.O.P. Those Associations which have not, ARE STILL BOUND BY THE ten (10) DAY TIME CLOCK.
IN SUCH A CASE, WHEN THIS ten (10) DAY TIME CLOCK RUNS OUT, THE APPLICANT IS AUTOMATICALLY APPROVED!
Therefore, this 'blanket decree' of thirty (30) days should be accompanied by a proviso “except, in the absense of the 30 day provision in the Association's Declaration, the time clock is ten (10) days.”.
cAN SOMEONE ENLIGHTEN ME WITH REGARD TO THE 20% RULE? cAN OR MUST THE ASSOCIATION ALLOW SOMEONE UNDER 55 TO OWN AND OR LIVE IN APARTMENT? iS IT AT THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD OR DOES FLORIDA LAW TAKE PRECEDENCE AND THEREFORE A BOARD HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO ALLOW RESIDENCY TO SOMEONE UNDER 55?
tHANKS FOR YOUR HELP.
Hi Great1
Jan 23, 2009 3:17:00 PM
-----------------------
Your question mixes Apples and Oranges to a serious degree.
Do not confuse your Bylaws with the HUD/FHA HOPA (Housing for Older Persons Act)
REF:
http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/library/hopa95.pdf
HOPA requires that at least 80 percent of the occupied units must be occupied by at least one person 55 or older. The remaining 20 percent of the units may be occupied by persons under 55, and the community/facility may still qualify for the exemption.
Please read the entire Reference.
If there is some interest in this issue, I would be happy to put together a Research Piece.
Dave Israel
For those not interested in such a long read, an additional excerpt may be instructive in further answering your question - GREAT1
“There continues to be confusion concerning what is often referred to as the 80/20 split. HOPA states that the minimum standard to obtain housing for persons who are 55 years of age or older status is that ‘‘at least 80%’’ of the occupied units be occupied by persons 55 years or older. There is no requirement that the remaining 20% of the occupied units be occupied by persons under the age of 55, nor is there a requirement that those units be used only for persons where at least one member of the household is 55 years of age or older. Communities may decline to permit any persons under the age of 55, may require that 100% of the units have at least one occupant who is 55 years of age or older, may permit up to 20% of the occupied units to be occupied by persons who are younger than 55 years of age, or set whatever requirements they wish, as long as ‘‘at least 80%’’ of the occupied units are occupied by one person 55 years of age or older, and so long as such requirements are not inconsistent with the overall intent to be housing for older persons.
The final regulation retains the provision that a unit occupied by a person or persons as a reasonable accommodation to the disability of an occupant need not be counted in meeting the 80% requirements. This provision ensures that a community or facility seeking to authorize the reasonable accommodation for a resident who, because of a disability, requires an attendant, including family members under the age of 18, residing in a unit in order for that person to benefit from the housing will not have its exemption adversely affected by permitting the accommodation. The authority for this provision arises under the Act’s requirement that reasonable accommodations be provided to persons with disabilities.”
A while back there was a blog that a Century village further south had some new owners that were younger than 55. I cannot find the UCO Reporter that had a remark stating that "Our lawyer says that we cannot have that here." Does anyone remember that? I only mention it because again UCO comes out with false information that we should take as the truth. In these times when it is so difficult to sell a condo and so many are up for sale I think that as long as the person our couple are in their 40s and have no small children or teens and the association approves stays within the 80/20 they should be allowed to buy and live here. It is an association decision not UCOs. As I wrong?
Hi Grace
Jan. 24, 2009 10:20:00 am,
The UCO reporter article you reference is to be found at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8972382/109-UCO-Reporter
It is in UCO President Loewenstein's column on the front page.
The reason for the main Post is to point out the "bad practice" of attempting to color the UCO Investigation procedure with the force of State Law. As Randall notes, it should be re-labeled properly, and most definitely not as being part of FS 718.
UCO's role in such matters should be advisory and accurate in a legal sense, NOT directive in nature.
It is indeed the responsibility of each Association to set their Age/Occupancy Byaws, in accordance with Federal and State guidlines.
Please be careful however, so as not to be on the wrong end of a Discrimination suit.
Dave Israel
Grace,
An association can accept a limited number of under 55 occupants who are not residing in a unit with at least one person 55 or older. What George was attempting to state clearly, was that once the documents are altered to permit a limited number of underage occupants, lets say, over 40 years old, they cannot be enforced. By rejecting an individual who is 35 with children,
the practice becomes discriminatory based on familial status. It is indeed a slippery slope. The 55 plus restriction could be removed legally, but then the property taxes would, for that association, include funding for schools/education (which we are now exempt from paying). Removing or altering the Housing for Older Persons provision in the Declaration is definitely not recommended!
Hi all,
Well, someone is reading our BLOG!
I am pleased to announce that the "Chapter 718" reference has been removed.
Dave
My computer must be broken. When I punch up investigations on info link, I still get references to 718.
What's up ????
Press F5 or your refresh button.
Dear Ding Dong,
I opened up the CV INFOLINK, I hit investigaions, and lo and behold, there was CHAPTER 718.
Don't you people realize that all this is not cute, it's CRIMINAL.
I'm sure Madoff thought all his manipulation was cute also.
Who said anything was cute!
Listen up! I gave you good advice.
Here is more:
Have a cup of coffee.
Reboot your brain
When on Infolink investigations Press F5 or refresh
Or go to tools, internet options, clear saved pages.
That's the end of CVCC lesson today.
Ding dong,
I know what I saw and I know what I did and who asked you ??!!
Go manipulate your mama.
Can someone under 55 own, not reside, a condo here in CV/ Can the board stop the purchase or is it illegal under the fair housing act (federal law)?
Hi Great one
Jan 25, 2009 3:45:00 PM,
Anyone who can legally sign a contract, and has the ability to pay, may own property in CV.
Age only comes into the equation as regards Occupancy.
Your Board my approve the under age applicant; without Occupancy.
Ownership of property is a fundamental American right.
Make sure the prospective under-age purchaser understands the rules of the game.
Dave Israel
Thank you1 One more question - what kind of ID card would be issued to sucha person-obviously not a resident's pass.
Dave,
Under most circumstances I would agree with your statement. What if you have an Association which has no rentals (except for a hardship provision) and a purchase restriction effectively blocking any sale "for business, speculation, and leasing as a regular practice"? Under such circumstances, I believe that the association could block the sale to an underage purchaser. An age qualified individual under the same set of circumstances could state on the application that he intends to live in the unit... and then not do so. Such an approach would not be viable for the underage applicant. Again, this is of course not a legal opinion, only a statement of personal experience for what that's worth.
Post a Comment