Hyatt and Stubblefield Blog

FHFA Proposes Rule Targeting Private Transfer Fee Covenants

2011-05-04T16:21:00.003-04:00

In August 2010, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) announced that it was considering issuing "guidance" that would restrict Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks from dealing in mortgages on properties encumbered by certain types of transfer fee covenants. Following a 60-day comment period during which comments were submitted by over 4,000 individuals and organizations, including the American College of Real Estate Lawyers (ACREL), the Community Associations Institute (CAI) and the American Land Title Association, the National Association of Realtors, and numerous community associations, FHFA announced on February 8, 2011 that it was moving beyond "guidance" to formal rulemaking, publishing a proposed rule to prohibit private transfer fee covenants, with an exception for certain transfer fees paid to homeowners associations, condominiums, cooperatives, and 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations.

While we are generally pleased with FHFA's response to public comments as expressed in the Part IV.C. of the proposed rule, we believe the actual language proposed to be codified at 12 C.F.R. Part 1228 requires some modification in order to appropriately reflect FHFA's expressed intent and avoid unintended consequences. Of particular concern are the following:

1. Encumbered Property or Properties. Section 1228.1 of the proposed rule uses a variety of terms and phrases to refer to the real property encumbered by a private transfer fee covenant, The terms "encumbered property" and "encumbered properties" appear to be used interchangeably, creating ambiguity as to whether the proposed rule is referring to (i) a particular lot or parcel encumbered by a transfer fee covenant; and (ii) all of the properties in a community encumbered by the same transfer fee covenant.

2. Excepted Transfer Fee Covenants. Section 1228.1 of the proposed rule defines an "excepted transfer fee covenant" as "a covenant to pay a private transfer fee to a covered association that is used exclusively for the direct benefit of the real property encumbered by the private transfer fee covenants." [Emphasis added]. There are several issues with the wording of this definition:

(a) It fails to incorporate the essential elements of a "private transfer fee covenant," as defined later in Section 1228.1;

(b) The phrase "that is used" requires a factual determination as to how the covered association is actually using the transfer fees. The Banks and Enterprises (as defined in the Proposed Rule) should not be required to look beyond the specific wording of the covenant to determine whether a particular covenant is an "excepted private transfer fee covenant." If required to investigate and make a factual determination, the Banks, Enterprises, and title insurers are likely to simply decline to deal with properties encumbered by any transfer fee covenant, whether or not it might fall within the definition of an "excepted transfer fee covenant," defeating the purpose and intent of this exception; and

(c) The requirement that the transfer fees be used exclusively for the direct benefit of "the real property encumbered by" the private transfer fee covenants could be construed to restrict use of the transfer fees to maintenance and improvement of the individual homes, lots or parcels encumbered by the covenant when, in practice, transfer fees are rarely if ever used for such purpose. Rather, they are typically used for things such as (i) the maintenance or improvement of common facilities, such as parks, trails, and recreational facilities owned, operated, or maintained by the association for the use of the owners and occupants of the encumbered property; and (ii) educational, cultural, recreational and social programs and activities which are sponsored by the association for the benefit of the owners and occupants of the burdened community.

By requiring that any "direct benefit" run exclusively to the encumbered property, the definition of an "excepted transfer fee covenant" is more restrictive than the term "direct benefit" itself, which specifically contemplates, in the second sentence thereof, that the direct benefit might flow to the encumbered property, the burdened community and its common areas, and to adjacent or contiguous properties. It also overlooks the fact that covered associations often use transfer fees to provide programs and activities for the benefit of the owners and occupants of the burdened properties, rather than providing a direct benefit to the properties themselves.

We believe a more appropriate definition of "excepted transfer fee covenant" would incorporate the required elements of the defined term "private transfer fee covenant," would limit the inquiry to matters that can be determined from a reading of the covenant itself, and would allow the "direct benefit" to flow to the owners and occupants of the encumbered properties, to the burdened community (as defined earlier in this letter), or to any property adjacent or contiguous to the burdened community.

3. Direct Benefit. The first sentence of the definition of "Direct benefit" in Section 1228.1 states, "Direct benefit means that the proceeds of a private transfer fee are used exclusively to support maintenance and improvements to encumbered properties as well as cultural, educational, charitable, recreational, environmental, conservation or other similar activities that benefit exclusively the real property encumbered by the private transfer fee covenants […]." There are several problems with this language:

(a) As stated earlier, transfer fees are rarely if ever used to maintain and improve the individual properties encumbered by the transfer fee covenant, yet this appears to be mandated by the first clause of this definition. The list of permitted uses needs to be expanded to include (i) the acquisition, improvement, maintenance, repair, or replacement of property owned, operated, or maintained by the covered association, other property within the burdened community, or property adjacent or contiguous to the burdened community, and (ii) programs and activities for the benefit of the owners and occupants of the burdened community;

(b) The use of the conjunctive phrase "as well as" can be read to mandate that the transfer fees be used not only for one or more of the listed purposes preceding such phrase but also for one or more of the listed purposes following such phrase. It should be sufficient that the fees are used for any one of the authorized purposes. The use of the fees for multiple purposes should not be required;

(c) By law, the activities of an organization described in I.R.C. Sections 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) must provide a public benefit, so they cannot "benefit exclusively the real property encumbered by the private transfer fee covenants," although they often provide a greater benefit to the encumbered properties than to the general public; and

(d) The owners of the encumbered properties, acting through a board or committee they select, should be permitted to direct the transfer fees to enhancement of local schools, libraries, or other public services (e.g., volunteer fire department) which benefit the burdened community, even if those schools, libraries or public services are not physically located within the burdened community or within 1000 feet of the burdened community.

In the second sentence of the definition of "direct benefit," the phrase "community comprising the encumbered properties" should be corrected to read, "community comprised of the encumbered properties."

The last sentence of the definition of "direct benefit" indicates that any public use of facilities funded by transfer fees must be subject to payment of use fees, except for de minimis usage by charitable or not-for-profit groups. This requirement overlooks the fact that, in many cases, the nature of the property or facilities being maintained by covered associations using transfer fees is such that charging a use fee is either impractical or inconsistent with the nature of the facility. For example, a covered association may use transfer fees to maintain parks or trails within the burdened community which are part of a larger network of parks and trails owned and maintained by other entities, with reciprocal use rights for their respective members or open to use by the general public. The owners of the encumbered properties would be entitled to use that part of the park or trail network lying outside of the burdened community in exchange for the covered association permitting others to use the parks and trails within the burdened community. Even where the parks or trails are not part of a larger network, it is often impractical to prevent public use of the association's parks and trails, as policing to prevent public use would be cost-prohibitive and there may be no single point of access at which public use fees could be collected. The fact that there may be incidental benefit to the general public does not detract from the benefits enjoys by the owners and occupants of the burdened community and should not be a factor in determining whether the direct benefit requirement is met.

4. Adjacent or contiguous property. The second clause in the definition of "adjacent or contiguous property" reads, "provided that in no event shall a property greater than one thousand (1000) yards from the encumbered property be considered adjacent or contiguous […]". This is problematic in that (a) it eliminates the ability of a covered association to maintain its office in a commercial area outside of the burdened community or use transfer fees to enhance local schools, libraries, fire departments, and similar public services which in turn benefit the burdened community; (b) it creates a standard which is difficult to apply to programs and activities; and (c) uses the term "encumbered property" rather than "encumbered properties" or "burdened community," which can be literally interpreted to prohibit the use of transfer fees collected on a particular lot to benefit property that is more than 1000 yards from that particular lot, even if the benefited property is within the overall burdened community.

5. Covered association. The phrase "organization comprising owners of" in the definition of "covered association" should be corrected to read, "organization comprised of owners of" (since the organization is comprised of owners, not the other way around).

6. Private transfer fee. The definition of "private transfer fee" should be revised to incorporate the concept that it is a fee that is payable on an ongoing basis each time the property transfers (except for any transfers specifically exempted by the terms of the covenant), and that the obligation arises pursuant to a covenant executed and recorded by someone other than the owner of the encumbered property before the owner of the encumbered property took title. It should not include any fee, charge or amount payable on a one-time basis that the owner of the property contractually agreed to pay and which is simply memorialized in a memorandum of agreement, mortgage, or similar document recorded in the land records which, once satisfied, ceases to be an encumbrance on the property. This would eliminate the need to itemize numerous items that should be excepted from that definition.

7. Effective Date. The effective date of the proposed rule should be the date that the final rule is announced, rather than the date that the proposed rule was announced, so that those who would be affected by the final rule have notice of the full extent of its applicability prior to it taking effect.

Special Update: Bent, Broken, or Unbowed? Community Associations in 2010 and Beyond

2010-12-16T15:25:00.004-05:00

The following is a brief excerpt from Wayne Hyatt's keynote address at the 25^th anniversary celebration of the Hawaii Chapter of the Community Associations Institute in October 2010. For a complete copy of the speech and to see Wayne's predictions on the future of community associations, please visit www.hspclegal.com/resources.html .

[excerpt] ... Today's challenges and circumstances surpass the general level of operational acumen that was tailored and tested in a different, more positive area in which success, perhaps in some cases, came too easily. Skills and wills were not honed for a more difficult time. Today's challenges are unique to a different environment and not met by commonly embraced practices and guidelines. In other words, business as usual no longer will address the challenges faced in this industry...

FHFA Proposes Action Targeting Private Transfer Fee Covenants

2010-09-21T11:17:00.002-04:00

A recent proposal by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) aimed at curtailing the use of private transfer fee covenants could have a devastating impact on any community that collects fees upon transfer of lots or homes in the community to fund beneficial programs and services for the community.

If adopted in its present form (see http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2010/08/16/2010-20108/private-transfer-fee-covenants), the FHFA proposal would restrict Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and all federal home loan banks from purchasing mortgages on properties in communities with "private transfer fee covenants."

While we believe the primary target of this proposed action (and a recent surge in state legislation on the same subject) is a rise in activity promoting use of transfer fee covenants to create an income stream for the primary benefit of developers and the promoter, the FHFA proposal would broadly construe the term "private transfer fee covenant" to include essentially any kind of fee that is payable on future transfers of the property and designed to generate income, regardless of who collects the fee or the intended use of the fee. This would include communities with covenants that provide for collection of such fees as contributions to working capital or capital reserves, for community enhancement, or to fund community councils or other nonprofit entities organized to promote cultural, educational, environmental conservation, historic preservation, and similar purposes.

If your community is considering or already has a transfer fee covenant in place, it could be adversely impacted if the FHFA proposal is adopted -- even if you haven't started collecting the transfer fee yet. The mere fact that the covenant has been recorded would severely impact the availability of financing for purchases of lots or units in your community, since many lenders won't lend if the mortgage can't be sold in the secondary mortgage market. In many cases, the covenant cannot easily be amended away and, even if it can, there may be no practical source of alternative funding for the activities and programs that were intended to be funded by these fees.

FHFA is providing an opportunity for public comment before the proposal is adopted. The deadline for submitting comments is October 15th. We are in the process of formulating our comments and are calling upon our clients and others in the industry for assistance in gathering data to show the adverse impact of the proposal in its present form. Our goals are to: (1) help FHFA see the distinction between transfer fees that provide no current or future benefit to the community and those that do; and (2) convince FHFA that any regulation of private transfer fee covenants needs to specifically exempt beneficial transfer fees that are payable exclusively to owners associations, 501(c) organizations, and other nonprofits and are restricted by covenant to use for the current or future benefit of the community that pays them.

Here's what you can do to help:

1. First, we are collecting examples and data to show the benefits of "good" transfer fees and the adverse impacts this proposal would have on communities that use them. Specifically, we need you to let us know if your community collects fees on transfers of lots or units, the size of the community, the amount of the transfer fee, and the purposes to which it is dedicated. We could also use information regarding the average amount collected last year (or in a typical year) and a description of actual activities it has helped to fund. Any data you have regarding how sales in your community have compared to your competition would also be helpful.

2. We encourage you to contact your representatives in Congress (and anyone else you know that could be helpful) to share your comments and concerns regarding this proposal.

3. Spread the word! If you know others who might be affected by this proposal, encourage them to get involved and submit comments as well.

Developer (Mis)representations

2009-04-30T17:06:00.001-04:00

One of the three primary areas of developer liability in community association development and operation is representation made about the nature of the project (the other two being construction defects and association operation). In simple terms, when someone reasonably relies upon what you say and takes – or refrains from taking – action based upon that reliance, you can be bound by what was said and the consequences of those actions. It does not matter that the person making the representation is not a principal in your company if, as an agent or employee, he or she has the apparent authority to speak for the company.

In these troubled economic times, potential buyers as well as existing owners will have questions about your development and the effect of the economy on development plans and the construction timeline. They will also be concerned about the completion of amenities, any operational changes, and changes in marketing strategies. It is important to have a "communication strategy" and to stick to it throughout these periods of uncertainty.

Federal Law Imposes New Requirements on Community Pools

2009-03-12T10:39:00.002-04:00

The Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. § 8001 (the "Act"), which regulates the safety of public pools and spas, went into effect on December 19, 2008. The Act regulates "public" swimming pools and spas, including privately owned community pools and pools owned or operated by a homeowners association, condominium association, apartment building, or other residential real estate development.

As of December 19, 2008, all public pools and spas must have drain covers that meet the American National Standards Institute and American Society of Mechanical Engineers A112.19.8-2007 standard on every drain and/or gate. If the pool or spa does not have these drain covers, it must close immediately. A list of drain cover manufacturers can be found at the Consumer Product Safety Commission's website: www.cpsc.gov/whatsnew.html#pool.

In addition, if the pool has a single main drain (other than an unblockable drain), the operator must either disable the drain or install a second anti-entrapment device or system. This can take the form of an automatic shut-off system, gravity drainage system, Safety Vacuum Release System, or suction-limiting vent system. If a pool has dual or multiple main drains more than three feet apart, it may be exempt from this second requirement. Pools and spas with single main drains that are unblockable are also exempt from this requirement. A list of SVRS manufacturers can be found at www.cpsc.gov/businfo/draincman.html.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission has issued technical and legal interpretations of Act, which can be found at www.cpsc.gov/businfo/vgpsa.pdf.

Keeping Homeowners Informed, Part 2: Protecting Your ASSets

2009-02-17T10:09:00.000-05:00

This is a follow-up to and expansion of a previous post, Keeping Homeowners Informed and Happy. Ensuring that homeowners are aware of developer decision-making and even developments in the actual planning process is not just an admirable goal for developers; in a time of economic recession, rising foreclosures, and mounting homeowner unease, it is a vital necessity. Developers concerned about lowering their risk and minimizing their liability in an environment of change and upheaval should communicate to homeowners not only regarding decisions involving the board of directors or homeowners directly, but also regarding planning and development decisions such as reducing density, the size of units, and price points. Although owners may have no direct say in any of these decisions, keeping them informed of the issues, considerations, options, and possible outcomes facing developers will go a long way toward enhancing developer-homeowner cooperation, building trust, and reducing developer exposure to unhappy residents in these uncertain times.

If you have any questions about how to keep homeowners in the loop on a regular basis, or how to navigate communications with homeowners generally, please contact us. As always, questions and comments are encouraged and greatly appreciated.

Hyatt & Stubblefield and CSOs featured in Houston Business Journal

2009-02-13T16:23:00.000-05:00

Today’s Houston Business Journal features an article by Teresa Talerico entitled Building Roots into the Master Plan. The article discusses the creation and success of community stewardship organizations, or CSOs at Telfair and Ladera Ranch, two communities in Sugar Land, Texas, and Orange County, California, respectively. Both of these communities were developed with the help of Hyatt & Stubblefield. As noted in the article, “these social and philanthropic nonprofit organizations complement traditional homeowners’ associations, or HOAs. While HOAs handle deed restrictions and other matters, CSOs can enhance quality of life for residents and foster a greater sense of neighborhood — both inside and outside the community.” If you have any questions about CSOs or would like information on how we can help you establish CSOs, or what CSOs can do, please do not hesitate to contact us. We’re more than glad to help.

Shareholder Jo Anne Stubblefield is quoted in the article.

Renters Are Your Friends

2009-02-12T11:08:00.003-05:00

Renters have long been perceived and treated, rightly or wrongly, as negative forces within a community. Because of anticipated problems relating to property maintenance and upkeep, the behavior of renters generally, and the negative impact of rentals on property values in the community, many communities have included provisions in their governing documents which limit or prohibit rentals in the community. The secondary mortgage market also has contributed to this perception of rentals by encouraging owner-occupied communities.

Given the current economic and housing downturn, it is appropriate for communities to rethink such strict restrictions on rentals. Permitting renters in a community may help financially, by allowing non-occupying owners to pay assessments. Also, people occupying units or homes in a community, whether as renters or owners, creates a vibrancy within the community that, ironically, may help stabilize or increase values. As such, while targeting the negative behavior associated with renters should remain a priority, loosening restrictions on rentals within the community may provide some short or long term assistance in distressed environments.

Now is the time for communities to analyze their governing documents and their practices to determine whether policies and provisions relating to renters are appropriate in this environment and to consider how to encourage responsible renting while continuing to discourage the negative behaviors associated with rentals. Please contact us to discuss this. We would be happy to help.

Keeping Homeowners Informed and Happy

2009-02-12T11:03:00.002-05:00

During tough economic times, while it may prove necessary to reduce operating costs by, for example, limiting access to amenities or even shutting them down altogether, it is also imperative that the association keep homeowners informed throughout the decision-making process. Although excluding homeowners from decision-making may seem like the easiest, most conflict-free way to go, overlooking homeowner opinion may turn out to be the worst possible course of action, as angry homeowners may react very strongly and negatively to such lack of communication and involvement. Keeping owners informed is your best bet to limit conflict and your legal exposure in a weak economy. Who knows? As homeowners themselves retrench and tighten their own budgets, they may be able to come up with creative ideas and solutions to help the association survive the recession as well.

A Timely Announcement for Developers, Lenders, & Fellow Lawyers

2009-01-27T15:17:00.008-05:00

As the economic and housing downturn has gotten worse, many real estate developers and developments have fallen into distress due to the lack of sales, inadequate or dysfunctional community association governance, and potential liability issues arising from construction, representations, operations, or other causes. These problems can be quite significant as lenders seek to operate and reposition projects, as successors seek to revitalize a development, or as the original developer tries to make the project ultimately work.

Community association law in all its variations is our fundamental area of practice. Over the years, we have worked with developers not only in creating and operating hundreds of new condominium and homeowner associations, but also helping to restructure and reposition distressed projects. Many of our clients have welcomed simple, straight forward assistance such as a day or half-day "tutorial" on community association governance and addressing homeowner concerns. We are also genuinely interested in working together with homeowners themselves to make them part of a viable solution rather than a permanent part of a growing problem.

Our national practice has provided us with an extremely deep and well-equipped "tool box" of ideas and approaches and an awareness of what works and what perhaps might not. Over the coming weeks and months, we will use this blog to discuss lessons we have learned and ideas we have gleaned from over three decades as leaders and innovators in community association law. We hope you will find this information useful, and we look forward to receiving any feedback or questions you may have for us.

Publication of New Article: Practical Issues in Planning for Age-Restricted Housing under the Housing for Older Persons Act (HOPA)

2009-01-27T15:09:00.003-05:00

Associate Marian Black and shareholder Jan Bozeman authored the recent article “Practical Issues in Planning for Age-Restricted Housing Under the Housing for Older Persons Act (HOPA)” published in the January/February 2009 issue of Probate & Property, a publication of the Real Property, Trust and Estate Law Section of the American Bar Association. The article discusses practical issues and potential pitfalls for developers of age-restricted communities, such as distinguishing business strategy from marketing strategy, disclosing age restrictions, selling into the “20% buffer,” defining “occupancy,” and taking account of state and local laws. Members of the Real Property, Trust and Estate Law Section of the ABA can access the article directly here, or you can contact us directly for a copy.

Upcoming events: Winter 2008-2009

2008-12-18T08:31:00.004-05:00

Jo Anne Stubblefield will be serving as a faculty member for the upcoming ALI-ABA program on "Drafting (and Re-Drafting) Documents for Condominiums and Planned Communities in Troubled Times" to be held February 26-28, 2009 at The Westin Riverwalk in San Antonio, Texas. Attorneys and developers involved and/or interested in workouts and revitalizing troubled projects should attend.

Florida court issues poor ILSFDA decision

2008-12-18T08:08:00.003-05:00

In a poor decision earlier this month, 200 East Partners, LLC v. Gold, the Florida appeals court, Fourth District, rejected the concept of piggybacking the improved lot exemption of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (ILSFDA) and the 100 lot exemption, despite an advisory opinion from HUD to the developer specifically authorizing such action.

The improved lot exemption exempts a sale of a lot from ILSFDA’s reporting and registration requirements if the sale is under a contract obligating the seller to erect a building thereon within a period of two years. The 100 lot exemption provides that the sale of lots in a subdivision containing fewer than 100 lots, which are not exempt under subsection (a), will be exempt from ILSA’s reporting and registration requirements.

Upon the first sale in excess of ninety-nine, 200 East planned to guarantee completion of construction within two years, thereby placing the last sixteen units under the purview of the improved lot exemption and exempting all sales from ILSA’s reporting and registration requirements.

The trial court found that both the 100 lot exemption and the improved lot exemption had to be in effect and completely valid at the time the Golds executed their purchase and sale agreement, and the Florida appeals court affirmed, finding that at the time the Golds signed their contract purchasing one of the first ninety-nine units, the contract language applying to the remaining sixteen units in the 115-unit development failed to obligate 200 East to complete construction within two years. Therefore, because 200 East failed to provide the Golds with a printed property report, 200 East violated the ILSFDA. The appeals court refused to interpret HUD Guidelines to permit a developer to wait until the sale of a unit in excess of the first ninety-nine to qualify for an exemption for the remaining units, and found HUD’s advisory opinion letter permitting the combination of exemptions unpersuasive.

This ruling, in our opinion, constitutes poor judicial interpretation. Not only does the language of the 100-lot exemption specifically contemplate that it can be combined with any exemption under 1702(b) through (h), but the Guidelines to Exemptions published on HUD's website (formerly Appendix A) specifically authorize the combining of exemptions in this type of approach with either past or future sales, and without having to specifically identify the lots to be sold under each exemption. The Guidelines state:

For example, a developer of a subdivision containing a total of 129 lots since April 28, 1969, qualifies for this exemption if at least 30 lots are sold in transactions that are exempt because the lots had completed homes erected on them. The 30 exempt transactions may fall within any one exemption or a combination of exemptions noted in Sec. 1710.5 (b) through (h) and may be either past or future sales. In the above example, the developer also could qualify if twelve lots had been sold with residential structures already erected on them, nine lots had been sold to building contractors and at least nine lots were reserved for either the construction of homes by the developer or for sales to building contractors. The reserved lots need not be specifically identified.

Association's Silence on Construction Permit Review Construed as Acceptance

2008-12-11T17:42:00.000-05:00

Architectural Control: An association will lose its ability to limit construction projects in a community if it chooses not to assert its claims for years and the defendant relied upon their silence.

Huntington Park Condominium Association, Inc. v. Van Wayman (No. 13-05-00464-CV, Tex. App. Ct., February 28, 2008) establishes the principle that an assocation will lose its ability to limit construction projects in a community if it chooses not to assert its claims for years, and the unit owner relied upon the association's silence.

Kenneth Van Wayman owned a unit at Huntington Park Condominium. Before he purchased the unit, he sought permission from the condo association to enclose the patio area adjacent to the unit. The association's board did not reply to his submitted plans. Three years later Van Wayman enclosed the patio without further approval, and the association subsequently sued Van Wayman, asking the court to order him to remove the fence.

The trial court ruled in favor of Van Wayman, concluding that (1) Van Wayman's enclosing the patio did not cause imminent harm or irreparable injury; (2) the association ratified the enclosure by telling Van Wayman that the enclosure was acceptable a year before the suit; and (3) the association's claims were barred by laches.

The appeals court upheld the trial court's decision. Van Wayman prevailed both because he relied on the association's notice that the patio enclosure was acceptable and because the association did not respond to his initial request for approval. The association led Van Wayman to believe that he was permitted to enclose his patio, a factor that was fundamental to his purchase of the unit. The association's silence only furthered the notion that the enclosure was neither illegal nor disruptive to the community.

Furthermore, the association's failure to assert a claim, together with a lapse of time, prejudiced the association. The association was guilty of inaction because it was given notice of Wayman's plans prior to his purchase of his unit. Wayman completed the enclosure in 2003, and the association did not file the suit until 2005. The court noted that the association failed to perform the due diligence that was required within 30 days of the proposed plans by the community's declaration.

Upcoming events: Winter 2008

2008-11-10T16:49:00.000-05:00

Jo Anne Stubblefield will be chairing and serving on the faculty of the ALI-ABA Course of Study on Resort Real Estate and Clubs in Savannah, Georgia, on November 13-14, 2008. Attorneys and developers interested in the latest developments and hottest topics in resort and club real estate and development should attend. Click here for more information.
David Herrigel and Jan Bozeman will be presenters at the National Business Institute program "Legal Aspects of Condominium Development and Homeowners' Associations" on January 12, 2009 in Atlanta. They will be speaking on the Legislative Framework and Overview of Common Interest Communities and Effective Document Preparation and Formation Process. Click here for more information on the program and how to attend.