House Bill 358, now pending in the Maryland General Assembly, would allow alterations in the percentage interests assigned to each unit in the common elements by a vote of less than 100% of the unit owners. Under current law, amendments to a condominium declaration generally require the approval of 80% of the unit owners. However, there are four specific changes that cannot be made without the consent of all unit owners and mortgagees: (1) the boundaries of any unit: (2) the undivided percentage interest in the common elements of any unit; (3) the liability for common expenses or rights to common profits of any unit; or (4) the number of votes in the council of unit owners of any unit. The proposed bill would remove the undivided percentage interest of any unit in the common element from this restriction. Instead, a change in percentage interests could be undertaken by a vote of 60% of the unit owners, and without any mortgagee consents.
Currently, the only amendment permitted with only 60% approval is one that adds or repeals .provisions for the suspension of the use of parking or recreational facility common elements by a unit owner that is more than 60 days in arrears in assessment payments.
House Bill 1061, now pending the the General Assembly, would authorize counties and municipalities in Maryland to create a fund to assist in the repair of infrastructure in condominiums and homeowner associations. It is intended to provide for repair and rehabilitation of property that is part a condominium or homeowners association, but of is a nature that would be “traditionally maintained by the county or municipality for the benefit of the general public, including roads and stormwater management facilities.” It would not apply to “recreational facilities used for the exclusive use or benefit of the members of a condominium association or homeowners association or their guests.” In addition to taxes and other appropriations, a portion of the property taxes paid by the condominium unit owners or homeowner association members would be allocated to the fund.
House Bill 140, now pending in the Maryland General Assembly, would make several amendments to the Maryland Condominium Act relating to governance during the period of developer control and, in all condominiums, would expand unit owner participation in meetings of the board of directors. In proposed new provisions to Section 11-109(c)(8) of the Maryland Condominium Act, the Bill would require a developer in control of a condominium to appoint a unit owner to the board of directors. Where a developer controlled condominium has a board of directors and 25% of the units have been sold, the developer would be required to appoint at least one unit owner, not affiliated with the developer, to the board. Where there is no board of directors, once 25% of the units are sold, the developer would be required to establish a board of directors, including at least one unit owner, not affiliated with the developer.
The Bill would also require and additional open agenda board meeting per year that provides an opportunity for unit owner comment. Section 11-109(c) presently requires that condominium boards hold at least one such meeting each year. House Bill 140 would amend this provision to require a board of directors to hold two such open agenda meetings per year. This requirement would also apply to board meetings during the period when the developer is still in control of the condominium.
Additionally, the Bill would add a new provision to Section 11-116 requiring that, during the period of developer control, the condominium’s books and records be maintained “separate and apart from the developer or of any other person.”
The Bill proposes to add similar provisions to the Maryland Homeowner Association Act. Please watch this blog for further developments on this legislative proposal.
The tragic collapse of the Champlain Towers Condominium in Surfside Florida, and the horrific consequences to residents and their families, will, no doubt, continue to be the subject of multiple news reports and long-term investigations. And it will be some time before we learn the true cause of the disaster, and how it might have been prevented. But the fundamental issue — deteriorated building conditions — is something about which all condominium unit owners and property managers need to be especially conscientious. Previously, I have written about the high importance of regular building evaluations by competent consultants. As a practical matter, these studies are necessary in order for an association to have information needed to develop accurate budgets for maintenance and reserves. Of equal importance to conducting a building survey, however, is properly allocating funds to address any conditions that the report identifies. The fact that the Maryland Condominium Act requires that condominiums adopt annual budgets that specifically include reserves and capital items indicates that the association must have a detailed understanding of its buildings if the specified budget items are to present a meaningful picture of building maintenance issues. The fact that the Condominium Act, and most condominium governing documents, makes the council of unit owners responsible for maintenance, repair and replacement of the common elements creates potential liability where due diligence as to building conditions is not properly undertaken. Most often, the consequences of failing to adhere to good maintenance practices are financial — resulting in expensive repair projects and burdensome special assessments. But as Champlain Towers demonstrates, some building conditions can lead to far more dreadful results.
A bill proposed in the Maryland House of Delegates would make significant changes to the Maryland Condominium Act that relate to the period during which the developer is in control of the council of unit owners. House Bill 352 would require that the developer hold at least two meeting per year, rather than the current one annual meeting, and that the unit owners have an opportunity to comment on condominium matters during those meetings. Additionally the bill would require that, if the condominium has a board of directors, within 30 days after 25% of the units have been titled to unit owners, the developer must appoint a board member who is a unit owner and not otherwise affiliated with the developer; and that, if there is no board at that time, a board must then be established The bill would further require the developer to disclose any governmental bonds affecting the project, and provide notice in advance of requesting release of any such bonds. Also, it would be required that the maintenance of the condominium’s books and records begin on the date that the council of unit owners is established, and that the condominium’s books and records be kept separate and apart from those of the developer. The bill proposes similar changes to the Maryland Homeowner Association Act.
Compliance with Section 10-702 of the Maryland Real Property Code has been a source of some considerable discussion. It requires that a home seller provide the buyer with a either a “disclosure statement,” by which information is provided relating to the seller’s knowledge of defects, or a “disclaimer statement,” which applies to “as is” sales, but still requires disclosure of “latent defects.” It should be noted, however, that neither statement is required in connection with the sale of a unit in a property containing five or more units, because the statute expressly applies “only to single family residential property improved by four or fewer units.” In the sale of a condominium unit, disclosure requirements are governed by Section 11-135 of the Maryland Condominium Act, which requires certain disclosures by both the council of unit owners and the selling unit owner.