Hi All,
-
In the Comment stream on rats, A Nony Mouse comments as follows:
----------
Anonymous said...
-
I believe that a unit at Coventry A was empty for a period of 3 yrs without over sight. Perhaps filling the toilet drain with alcohol or anti-freeze would be enough of a deterent.
I believe that a unit at Coventry A was empty for a period of 3 yrs without over sight. Perhaps filling the toilet drain with alcohol or anti-freeze would be enough of a deterent.
-
In our association one person has a key at their disposal. We enter a unit if it is vacant over a period time for inspection with two board members. You may have to put the right to enter and obtain a key in your association by-laws.
-
Mar 16, 2009 6:42:00 PM
Mar 16, 2009 6:42:00 PM
--------------------------
I believe that FS 718 covers this issue as follows:
REF:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0718/ch0718.htmFS-718.111(5)
RIGHT OF ACCESS TO UNITS.
--
"The association has the irrevocable right of access to each unit during reasonable hours, when necessary for the maintenance, repair, or replacement of any common elements or of any portion of a unit to be maintained by the association pursuant to the declaration or as necessary to prevent damage to the common elements or to a unit or units".
---------------------------------
I suspect that infestation by Rats, other Vermin or Mold; qualify for Unit access under the Statute, as each may in due course migrate to other Units.
-
Finally, please no alcohol in the toilet; it will evaporate away in a matter of days but in the meanwhile it is explosively flammable.
also no Anti-freeze, eventually you will have to flush it down the drain; to do so violates Federal Environmental Law as regards disposal of toxic substances.
Dave Israel
5 comments:
Please forgive the length of my file regarding 718.111(5),(irrevocable right of access to units) but the various scenerios contained within may be instructive in this matter.
RIGHT OF ACCESS 718.111(5) F.S.
Condominium Association of Plaza Towers North, Inc. (20040806). – Condominium Association of Plaza Towers North, Inc. may compel a unit owner to provide a duplicate key to the owner's unit under section 718.111(5), Florida Statutes, for the board's unilateral access to the unit.
ACCESS TO UNITS
The right of an association of access to the units is broad, and has been held to authorize an association to require that each owner submit a unit key to the association for such use as may be necessary.
See Ainslie at Century Village Condominium Association, Inc., Arb. Case No. 92-0223, Amended Final Order (August 24, 1993)(The right of access is broad enough to require that an owner provide the security combination code to disarm the unit alarm where it was necessary for the association to gain access to provide pest control services.);
The Beaches of Longboat Key-South Owners Association, Inc. v. Goldreyer, Arb. Case No. 96-0158, Partial Summary Final Order (September 9, 1996)(The right of access includes the authority to require the owner to grant access to the unit where such access was necessary for an association re-piping project.);
Carmel by the Lake Condominium Association, Inc. v. Mullin, Arb. Case No. 95-0437, Summary Final Order (January 31, 1996)(right of access held to authorize the association to enter a unit after a hurricane in order to remove items damaged by the storm.);
Higdon v. Seaspray Condominium Association, Inc., Arb. Case No. 95-0430, Summary Final Order (March 24, 1998)(association was authorized to gain access to a unit where it was necessary to monitor the progress of a balcony restoration project);
Brickell Town House Association, Inc. v. Del Valle, et al., Arb. Case No. 95-0133, Final Order (September 12, 1995), Order on Motion for Rehearing (December 6, 1995) (the right of access to the units, combined with the duty of the association to maintain and protect the condominium and the residents, was sufficient to permit the association to temporarily remove the owners from their units where it was necessary to use certain units in the reconstruction of the balcony areas.)
It has also been said that the right of access to the units is broad and is not restricted to instances in which an emergency is presented, but comes into play whenever the association’s related functions of maintenance, repair, or replacement of the property are implicated. See Cypress Isle at the Polo Club Condominium Association, Inc. v. Shelton, Arb. Case No. 98-4090,
The Fountains of Palm Beach Condo., Inc. v. Meisner,
Case No. 2004-03-1219 (Scheuerman / Final Order / August 25, 2004)
• Rule requiring that owners leave their thermostat at a setting not higher than 80 degrees is a valid exercise of the association’s duty to maintain the common elements. An ambient temperature higher than 80 degrees contributes to the levels of humidity and facilitates the proliferation of mold in the unit itself and in the building in which the unit is located. An owner, even if he does not reside in the unit, has the affirmative duty to take reasonable precautions to prevent the unit from becoming a source of hazardous pollutants to the other units and their inhabitants.
[SEE FOLLOWING DECISION ON MOLD REMEDIATION]
The petition alleges that the respondent failed to properly maintain the interior of his condominium unit by leaving the air conditioner off for extended amounts of time, resulting in the infestation of mold throughout the unit. The association sent a letter to the respondent on November 20, 2003, informing him of the mold infestation and requiring him to retain an environmental engineer to remedy the problem. However, the respondent failed to comply with the association’s demands and failed to maintain his unit properly, in violation of section 5.1 of the declaration of condominium. The association further conducted its own mold testing in the respondent’s unit and such testing indicated elevated levels and various types of mold spores located throughout the respondent’s unit. Due to the condition of the respondent’s unit, the association argues that this is a potential health risk not only to the respondent, but to other residents and their guests. (NOVEMBER 20TH, 2003 TO MAY 3RD 2004 – 4 1/2 MONTHS!) the arbitrator entered an order providing interim relief allowing the association to retain a certified company to remediate the respondent’s unit and remove mold, strip the unit and perform air quality tests and sanitize the unit. This order further required the association to provide reports to the arbitrator indicating the status of the remediation efforts and advised the parties that a separate hearing on damages would be conducted after all work was completed. The proceeding was abated on several occasions to allow sufficient time for the association to have the respondent’s unit fully remediated and free of mold.
.......
Marian Ross, vice president of the board of directors and a full-time resident at the condominium, testified that the respondent failed to properly maintain and properly ventilate his residence resulting in the proliferation of mold throughout the unit. When the association requested that he remedy the situation, Ms. Ross testified that the respondent refused. While at one point the respondent indicated to the board that he would remedy the mold problem, he never did so. Ms. Ross testified that the board hired Trade Winds Environmental Restoration, Inc. and Allied Appraisal Services, Inc. to assist with remediation efforts and paid the companies $13,267.09 and $1,275.00, respectively, for services rendered for remediation of the respondent’s unit. The association was not charged for extra work conducted by Trade Winds when the unit failed to pass preliminary mold inspections performed by Home Team Inspection Service. A sum of $3,150.00 was paid by the association to Home Team Inspection Service. Ms. Ross testified that the association remitted a total of $17,692.09 to the companies retained by the association to remediate the respondent’s unit.
Florence Peck, Senior Personal Property Appraiser for Allied Appraisal Services, Inc., testified that the company performed appraisal work for personal property located in the respondent’s unit, some of which was destroyed and some was salvaged. The charge for the total services provided by Allied Appraisal Services, Inc. amounted to $1,275 and such was paid by the association in full.
Colin Conroy, owner of Home Team Inspection Service, testified that his company performed mold inspections of the respondent’s unit, to which the association paid a total amount of $3,150.00 for these services.
Dean Jones, Project Manager and Lead Estimator for Trade Winds Environmental Restoration, Inc., testified that his company performed remediation services on the respondent’s unit to remove mold infestation. Mr. Jones testified that billing for his company’s services totaled $13,267.09 and that the association has remitted $12,417.09 and currently owes the remaining $850.00. In response to Mr. Jones’ testimony, Marian Ross testified again and indicated that she thought this money had already been paid to Trade Winds, but if the money had not been paid, she asserted that the association would pay it promptly.
At the termination of the hearing, the respondent had still not contacted the association’s attorney or the arbitrator nor had he arrived at the attorney’s office to participate in the hearing. The association was provided fourteen (14) days to provide supplemental information concerning the $850.00 missing payment to Trade Winds Environmental Restoration, Inc. On June 27, 2005, counsel for the association submitted additional evidence regarding testimony taken at the final hearing. The association submitted evidence of payment of $850.00 to Trade Winds Environmental Restoration, Inc., which include a copy of the association’s check and a letter, dated June 16, 2005, signed by Linda S. Ball, accounting manager for Trade Winds, confirming that the association’s account was paid in full.
Based on the foregoing, the arbitrator finds that the respondent, who failed to file an answer or assert any defenses in this matter, has violated section 5.1 of the declaration of condominium by failing to maintain his unit properly, leading to unacceptable mold infestation. When provided with an opportunity to remedy the violation, the respondent failed to do so. Thus, the respondent has violated section 5.1 of the declaration and shall reimburse the association for monetary damages sustained in remediating the respondent’s unit and removing mold from the premises.
It is therefore ORDERED: Within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, the respondent, William Forbes Mathieson, shall pay the amount of $17,692.09 to the association and shall properly maintain his condominium unit in the future, in compliance with section 5.1 of the declaration.
Valencia Condo. Residences Assn., Inc. v. Banoub,
Case No. 99-2302 (Pine / Summary Final Order / April 17, 2000)
The association is required to follow its own policies for maintaining custody and control of keys to units, and is required to take due care to prevent damage to and theft of unit owners' property by use of those keys. The association is answerable in damages for negligence and is financially responsible for the destruction or disappearance of the unit owners' personal property at the hands of workers hired by the association and let into the units by the association.
Case No. 99-0463 (Scheuerman / Order Granting Motion for Temporary Injunction / April 29, 1999)
1 • Where owner refused access to unit by association for purpose of inspecting construction undertaken by owner without association approval, temporary injunction entered permitting association access to unit. In performing its statutorily-mandated duties to repair, replace, and protect the common elements, it is necessary for the board, from time to time, to have access to the unit.
Thanks Randall. It is very informative.
I'm not suggesting alcohol or anti-freeze by itself. When I leave for the north in April I shut off the water and leave the toilet full. When I come back in January of the following year the water is still in the unit.
What I am suggesting is adding anti-freeze to the water similar to what one does in a car. Where is the danger?
Hi A Nony Mouse
Mar 17, 2009 9:51:00 AM,
The alcohol will evaporate within a few days.
Antifreeze from a car radiator has a sweet taste and it is irresistible to cats and dogs. Both of which get very sick or die as a result of lapping it up from a leaking car.
It is against the law to flush such stuff down any drain.
Dave Israel
Like the picture.
Post a Comment