CCOC Submits Testimony Opposing Bill That Would Change Condo Association Liability For Tenants’ Acts
TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION OF RAISED BILL No. 5588 2015HB-05588-R00-HB
AN ACT CONCERNING THE LIABILITY OF UNIT OWNERS FOR CERTAIN COSTS UNDER THE CONDOMINIUM ACT AND
THE COMMON INTEREST OWNERSHIP ACT
As president of the Connecticut Condo Owners Coalition [CCOC] and on behalf of our Executive and Advisory Board, we submit our strong opposition of Raised Bill #5588. (The bill is also opposed by the Community Associations Institute – Connecticut Chapter, which mostly represents condo managers and condo attorneys)
The Connecticut Condo Owners Coalition (CCOC), is an organization, comprised of a volunteer Executive & Advisory Board. We currently have approximately 1,200 members, CCOC does not assess any enrollment or membership fees, and CCOC’s primary objective is to advocate for the rights of condominium owners statewide.
I have resided in a common interest community since 1986 and served on the Board of Directors for more than twenty-five years.
This proposed bill is unjust to all common interest community members. By excluding the acts of the tenant, this bill will impose costs to be borne by all unit owners should the association need to recoup costs including damages caused by the tenant to common or limited common property.
Currently, owners/landlords who rent their unit, have a lease agreement, and, one would presume, follow the standard procedures with a prospective renter by documenting the condition of the unit prior to renting and prior to the expiration of the lease.
Additionally, a security deposit is required to protect the landlord if the tenant breaks or violates the terms of the lease or rental agreement and may be used to cover damage to the property, cleaning, key replacement, or back rent, etc.
Raised Bill #5588 does not take into consideration the common or limited common property that will be used by the tenant. The Association is not a party to the lease, other than, in most associations, to have a copy of the lease provided to ensure the lease does not violate governing covenants of the Association.
This bill, while protecting the landlord offers no protection for all unit owners in the common interest community.
1. Should a walk through prior to leasing and prior to its expiration be done by either the Board or property manager with the prospective tenant for common or limited common areas?
2. If performed by a property manager, then related costs should be paid by the landlord.
3. Should a second lease be signed by the tenant with a security deposit to the Association for the same purpose as the landlord except to cover damage to common or limited common property?
4. Should Associations mandate a copy of the renter’s insurance policy prior to any signed lease agreement?
This bill is not in the best interest of the majority of unit owners that reside in a common interest community . Its only benefit is to the investment owner — a small minority of common interest community owners.
Condos are a person’s HOME and that seems to be forgotten. It has been my experience that the associations treat the condo owners as tenants. Condos are owned by an individual and this needs to be stated because it gets lost; this bill takes the owners’ rights away and places the association in the same authority as a rental management company. For example, if a home owner rents their home, then can the same liability of damages then be applied to the bank that holds the mortgage? If a rental car is damaged, then is the rental service liable for the damages. Personal losses should not be shared, unless you live in Russia.
Condo owners need to fall under the same rules as a home owner because obviously they own their home, it just happens to be condo. Where then does then the owner of a trailer home fall if they rent the space they put their trailer on. In Southington CT, double wide homes are placed on a piece of land that they pay rent on, if they rent the trailer home, does the owner of the land then liable for damages. In my opinion this is another example that condo owners are viewed differently they should be making any decision regarding their home-condo.
Associations are not effective now and they want to put this in their hands?? This is very very scary. The fact that a Coalition in CT has been formed is proof that the unit owners state wide are saying: “we need our regulators to protect us”. I propose that Associations be disbanded and that a management company install a phone system approval to unit owners to vote on decisions by calling in a “yes” or “no” on issues. Then we will know that the unit owner’s majority’s voice will be truly heard.
It is really time for change, again, associations are not doing what they are set up to d and do not act in the best interest of the condo owners—this is a fact that is based on my experience. CT condo owners have gone to the regulators for help, instead of the associations that were formed to protect the condo owners. In the words of Winston Churchill: “It is the best of the worst”. Of course he referring to democracy being the worst form of government but also applies to our regulators and associations – at least with the regulators, we are asked for our opinion and gives us the equality that was founded by this country.
DEMOCRACY IS:
Democracy is “a system of government in which all the people of a state are involved in making decisions about its affairs.
I agree that this would not be fair to owners. I
Agree with the CCOC decision.
House Bill 5588 is absolutely unjust and eliminates responsibility, whether financial or moral, for one’s decisions and behavior.
I am therefore quite curious what arguments the members of the Insurance and Real Estate Committee used so convincingly that only one brave soul refrained from joining all others in this gross exhibition of moral turpitude.
I am a bit confused. I am reading the Raised Bill 5588 and certain sections indicate the act as amended is Effective October 1, 2015. Does this mean it is already passed, or IF it is passed, the changes will become effective on 10/01/2015 ?
This is certainly ridiculous that the liability of a unit owner (as landlord) and damages caused by a tenant is forgiven for the potential actions of his tenant, and may be borne by the other unit owners of the Association as a whole. Shouldn’t they as landlords take certain or ESTRA steps to protect their interests if that is what they are concerned about ?
A higher security deposit, extra coverage on an owner’s policy, and to make certain the renter has a policy in force at all times as well. We as unit owners who take pride in our homes should not be made to bear the brunt of a landlord owner that may not (and certainly now if the expense is spread out over the entire Association) will not take the proper steps to protect their interests and the interests of the Association as a whole.
An owner of a unit in the building in which I live had their water heater let go and caused about $20,000.00 in damages to the units below. In that scenario, does that mean if the person was a renter, and had no insurance, that the other unit owners would have to pay or be assesed for those damages rather than the unit owner ? Or even if the Unit Owner had insurance (rather than the tenant) that any balance would be borne by the other unit owners of the Association ?
Dear Gary
I think that the unit owners insurance might cover a certain amount. Then that amount could then be paid by the renter. Either way, the renter might loose his security deposit and then he might have to pay the balance out of picket. Just a guess. I do not know what the rule for that is.
First in reply to your comment. The repairs and replacements that were done at my complex were done because of old age. The replacement of the roof, the replacement of the parking lot, etc. were done due to age. My complaint is that the board and management company just went out and took out a loan, for this work, asked for bids, and made all decisions for this project to go further. We as unit owners did not receive to this day one piece of paper showing what bank, etc. was doing the work. It will be 1 year this august since the work has been done and not a piece of paper was disclosed to the owners. I do not know if indeed the board and management company did finally end up taking the loan for $200,000,00 or not. I myself had rejected the project. Before we took on the management co we were self supporting. We had money in the bank and CD,s. When the complex needed repairs, we took the money out and paid for the repairs as we had money. The money we saved by not giving it to a management company helped a great deal. I just feel that disclosure and the Attorney General and Consumer protection states and agrees that 100% disclosure is a must before work starts. We have some fixed people living here and the burden of paying back is going to be difficult for all including myself. I have to make a decision as to go into the hospital for surgery or not. It will cost me $400.00 per day. I know that I am not alone in having to make this difficult decision. With a condo fee of $279.00 plus what-ever the payment will be, it will be very difficult for everyone on fixed income. We were told that we would all be assessed $8,000.00 each. For me that is way to high, so selling is an option. We have already lost 1 a second is up for sale and I maybe the 3rd. I feel that the boards and Management companies need to follow the condo Docs and State regs. I take care of my own unit inside, keep the parking space clean during the snow, make sure the drainage pipe outside is clear, clean the septic top off during winter incase someone has to get into it, and shovel the sidewalk in front of my deck so if there is an emergency someone can get in. That’s more than anyone else has done. I have been here for 25+ or – years and have continued to do as I was told when I first moved in as a renter. So I think there is some confusion with what I wanted the bill to do. I feel that the docs were not followed and something has to be done about the boards and management companies doing just what they want.
One other comment. My on my above comment. This issue is the same as thing and having my kids go out and purchase a home an hand me the bill and tell me I have to pay it. That’s why I wanted the 5590 bill to pass so that problems like this could be solved before they exploded. The 5590 bill passed the house but was never called to a vote. However, that’s normal for this bill that has been hanging around for a while.