“Owner Claims ‘Harassment’ From Board Member” – News-Press
Q: Can a condominium board member show up at my home and harass me? (K.W., via e-mail)
A: “Harassment” in the legal sense is defined in Section 784.048 of the Florida Statutes to include engaging in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress and serves no legitimate purpose. Such behavior could also qualify as “stalking” if it is willful, malicious, and repeated. Section 810.15 of the Florida Statutes also makes it unlawful to picket or protest at someone’s dwelling with the intent to harass or disturb them.
A 2020 Florida appeals court case addressed the conduct of a condominium board member in this context and focused on the stalking component of the law. The dispute involved a series of unpleasant interactions between an owner who had just been elected to the board, and another owner who had failed in his bid for reelection to the board. Apparently, disagreements over the association’s landscaping program were at the heart of the conflict between these two owners.
The court emphasized that to obtain an injunction for stalking, the petitioner must prove at least two separate incidents that would cause substantial emotional distress to a reasonable person, and which serve no legitimate purpose. In this case, the court found that most of the alleged incidents, such as yelling profanities and making accusations, did not meet the statutory threshold for stalking because they either served a legitimate purpose or did not cause substantial emotional distress. However, one incident, where the respondent cornered the petitioner in an elevator while yelling, was deemed sufficient to potentially qualify as stalking because the court concluded, it lacked a legitimate purpose and could cause substantial emotional distress.
The court further clarified that unpleasant or offensive speech, even if defamatory, does not automatically constitute harassment or stalking unless it is part of a course of conduct that meets the statutory requirements. For example, the court noted that complaints voiced in an uncivil manner about condominium-related issues could serve a legitimate purpose and thus would not qualify as harassment under the statute.
While I would not say that it meets the legal definition of “harassment” (though it could in some cases), I do not recommend association board members or other representatives of an association approaching owners in their homes, unannounced, to address association matters. At the least, it is rude and an intrusion into the personal solitude of an owner who may have been at work all day or may be dealing with some problem in their own life. At worst, especially given Florida’s firearm self-defense laws, it could quickly escalate to an avoidable tragedy, regardless of who was “right” and who was “wrong” about the underlying issue.
In general, communications between associations and their owners regarding disputes or complaints should be in writing, should be professional and civil, and should come from association representatives who have been authorized by the board to take this action. This would typically be the board president, the manager, or the association’s attorney, in cases where that level of formality is warranted.
That is not to say that “neighborhood disputes” should not be resolved informally when they can be, I think they should. However, this should be done on the basis of a mutual willingness to do so, offered in a respectable manner. For example, I see no problem in an association sending an owner an email or text message stating that there is a concern the association would like to bring to their attention and asking if they would like to speak on the phone or meet to talk about it.
Joe Adams is an attorney with Becker & Poliakoff, P.A., Fort Myers. Send questions to Joe Adams by e-mail to jadams@beckerlawyers.com. Past editions may be viewed at floridacondohoalawblog.com.
