|
ACTIONS
WITHOUT LIABILITY?
By
Jan Bergemann
Published
July 13, 2012
The
“attack” against the CAMs by the Florida BAR is nothing new.
Even the Florida Supreme Court dealt with this issue once.
The
big debate is over three little letters: UPL (Unlicensed Practice of Law).
If
the Florida BAR succeeds, associations and their owners pay the
price, since nearly all the regular association paperwork would
now have to run through the office of a licensed attorney.
If you see all the items the Florida BAR wants to take
out of the hands of the CAMs, there is very little left for the
CAMs to do.
Now
you may wonder why boards and owners don’t come rushing to the
aid of the CAMs under siege? The explanation is very easy: CAMs
are often not the most beloved people in a community
association. I receive many complaints about actions taken by a
CAM
that got owners – and board members -- all stirred up. And to
be honest, I sometimes can only shake my head in disbelief when
I read e-mails and/or letters sent by CAMs, signed with their
names, proudly displaying the “letter salad” behind their
names. The real problem: Many of these letters and e-mails sent
by CAMs show clearly that the sender has either no basic idea
about community association statutes or is plainly ignoring
these statutes. That goes especially for letters demanding
money!
The
DBPR CAM Licensing Division gets flooded with complaints, but
doesn’t really take any serious action, or they find
“ways” to protect the
CAM
. I filed in February a complaint against a management firm that
advertised their services without having a license – as
required by law. You might say: “What’s new?
Happens all the time.” You would be correct, only in
this case one of the principals of the firm in question teaches
the CAM Licensing course – and charges money for it! Shouldn’t
he know better?
If
even the “teachers” don’t follow the rules, why should the
new licensees follow the rules? Five months later – nothing
has happened. How long can it take to “investigate” whether
or not a firm has a license? I looked it up on the website –
and there it was: NO
LICENSE!
I
feel strongly that professionals, who get paid for their
services, should be held liable for their actions. Too many CAMs
write outrageous letters and make outrageous mistakes – but
don’t want to face the music! CAMs regularly fight complaints
against their license with the excuse: I acted on orders from
the board! They even use that excuse if the board members were
not even informed about certain actions and/or letters. In my
opinion that defense didn’t work in
Nuremberg
– and it shouldn’t work in
Florida
.
We
always hear that board members – unpaid volunteers –
shouldn’t be held liable for their actions. But CAMs are
well-paid professionals – and should be liable for their
actions. I consider it utter nonsense when contracts state that
the association has to pay for the defense of the CAM and/or
CAM
firm against complaints of owners. In my opinion a
CAM
– if not directly employed by the association -- is a
contractor like all other contractors. So is the landscaper –
right? Imagine the landscaper cuts down the tree on the private
property of an owner – by mistake – and demands that the
association must pay for the cost of defending the lawsuit filed
by the owner? What’s the difference? That the landscaper
normally gets paid a lot less than the
CAM
?
Why
should the
CAM
not be liable for his own actions? It’s always easy to make
mistakes – if somebody else has to pay for it!
These
are just some examples why associations and owners don’t jump
to the defense of CAMs.
How
about a compromise? Form letters written by attorneys and then
used by CAMs and board members? Would the Florida BAR still
consider that Unlicensed Practice of Law?
|
