by Raymond Daniel Burke | Mar 7, 2019
By a vote of 139 – 0, the Maryland House of Delegates has passed legislation that would make condominium unit owners responsible for a larger amount of the insurance deductible when the condominium’s policy pays for damage from an issue that originates in the owner’s unit. Under Section 11-114, a condominium must maintain property insurance on the entire property, including the common elements and the units, except for improvements and betterments installed in the units by the owners. Where damage originates from a component of a unit, the liability of the unit owner is limited to the insurance deductible under the condominium’s policy up to a maximum of $5,000. HB 249 would double the unit owner responsibility to $10,000. The bill also adds clarifying language with regard to damage that is a common expense. The current law provides that any damage originating from the common elements is a common expense. HB 249 provides that this also would include damage originating from “an event outside of the condominium units and the common elements.” The bill now moves onto the Senate Judiciary Committee.
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Feb 21, 2019
Legislation pending in the Maryland House of Delegates seeks to supplement a prior revision that applied the percentage required for approval of amendments of condominium bylaws to only the number of unit owners “in good standing” — meaning unit owners not more than 90 days in arrears in payment of assessments of other charges. — rather than to the total number of owners. A change to the Section 11-104 of the Maryland Condominium Act adopted during 2017 provides that, notwithstanding what the bylaws themselves require, the bylaws may be amended by the affirmative vote of 60% of the unit owners in good standing, “or a lower percentage if required by the bylaws.” This had the effect of reducing the number of votes required to the extent that some unit owners were not “in good standing.” House Bill 207 would go further and provide that any lower percentage contained in the bylaws would also be applied only to “unit owners in good standing.” In other words, if the bylaws call for a percentage lower than 60%, that lower percentage requirement would also be determined only by the number of “unit owners in good standing” and not to the entire number of owners. The bill also would affect homeowners associations by making the same amendment Section 11B-116 of the Maryland Homeowners Association Act.
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Feb 20, 2019
House Bill 069 and Senate Bill 379, now pending in the Maryland General Assembly, would apply the condominium implied warranty from a developer to all common elements, and not just those enumerated in the statute, along with any component that the council of unit owners is required to maintain, repair or replace, regardless of whether it is defined as a common element in the governing documents. Under the current provisions of Section 11-131(d) of the Maryland Condominium Act, there is an implied warranty from a condominium developer to a council of unit owners, which applies to “the roof, foundation, external and supporting walls, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems, and other structural elements.” The proposed law would establish that the implied warranty applies “to all common elements, including” those listed in the current law. Additionally, the bills propose that the implied warranty is applicable “to any portion of the condominium that the council of unit owners is required to maintain, repair, or replace under the [governing documents] regardless of whether the portion of the condominium is designated as a unit or a common element.” (more…)
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Feb 19, 2019
House Bill 68 and Senate Bill 379, now pending in the Maryland General Assembly, would prohibit condominium developers from including language in the governing documents that would limit the power of a council of unit owners to bring suit. Section 11-109(d)(4) of the Maryland Condominium Act presently gives a council of unit owners authority “[t]o sue and be sued, complain and defend, or intervene in litigation or administrative proceedings in its own name on behalf of itself or two or more unit owners on matters affecting the condominium.” The proposed legislation would confirm this authority “notwithstanding any provision in the declaration, bylaws, ,or other instrument made by a developer in accordance with this title.” The pending bills would, however, permit the developer to include a requirement for mediation or arbitration of any claims brought by the council against the developer. Similarly with regard to the authority of a council of unit owners under Section 11-109(d)(19) to enforce the Section 11-131 implied warranties, the proposed legislation would preclude limits on this power, while permitting the governing documents to provide for mediation or arbitration of such warranty claims.
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Feb 13, 2019
Here is a link to my opinion/commentary in today’s Baltimore Sun: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-op-02131-drug-war-20190211-story.html
