Tag: Illinois

Regulating Religious Displays: A Trap for the Unwary

The holiday season brings with it a flurry of activity. From wish lists and shopping lists to recipes and reservations, this time of year often has the effect of raising spirits more than any other. And, while people express their holiday spirit in different ways, many choose to do so by decorating their homes; inside and out.

Yet, despite the apparent innocence of such an endeavor, the manner in which people choose to decorate the outside of their homes has caused countless “neighborly” disputes among condominium residents. Seemingly trivial protestations that a neighbor’s holiday lights are too bright, that the faux snow is too gaudy, or that nine reindeer are simply too much, can quickly turn serious.

To avoid such a situation, condominium associations often enact either rules banning decorations outright or rules restricting the manner in which owners may decorate the outside of their units. Such use restrictions are generally permissible as long as they are authorized by the condominium’s documents, are enacted for a legitimate purpose, and are enforced fairly and uniformly.

However, in some states, there is a type of decoration that condominium associations cannot ban: religious objects. For example, an Illinois statute provides that “no rule or regulation shall prohibit any reasonable accommodation for religious practices, including the attachment of religiously mandated objects to the front-door area of a condominium unit.”

In Florida, an association may not refuse a reasonable request for permission to attach a religious object on the mantel or frame of a unit owner’s door. The statute provides that unit owners are limited to a single object “not to exceed 3 inches wide, 6 inches high and 1.5 inches deep.”

It is important to note that the protection afforded by these statutes applies all year long. Thus, in addition to protecting the display of religious objects during the holiday season, they also protect their display throughout the year.

These laws represent a relatively new initiative to protect the right of condominium unit owners to decorate their doors or entranceways with religious symbols. The Illinois statute became effective January 1, 2007; the Florida statute became effective October 1, 2008. On September 17, 2008, the Freedom of Religious Expression in the Home Act of 2008 was introduced as a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives. Moreover, some municipalities, such as Chicago, have enacted their own protections in this regard. Condominium association boards should consider the possibility that these developments may indicate a trend that other state and municipal governments may soon follow.

When confronted with a request to display a religious symbol under these laws, condominium boards should proceed cautiously. Although the spirit and intent of these laws seem clear enough, significant room for interpretation and debate remain as to precisely what type of accommodation is required.

For example, unlike Florida’s statute, the Illinois statute does not specify how big the decoration may be. Other than providing that “reasonable” requests must be permitted, the statute fails to provide any specifications. Unfortunately, sensible minds can differ as to what qualifies as reasonable. Thus, disputes in this context are possible, if not likely.

Perhaps the only thing more difficult than defining reasonableness is defining religion. The intellectuals sitting on the United States Supreme Court over the years have found few questions more difficult to answer. And, in those instances where an attempt at a definition was made, never has universal agreement been achieved. It is unlikely that a condominium board will fare any better, so a broad, inclusive approach should be considered.

Moreover, it would be incorrect for a condominium board to assume that these laws only protect religious symbols, such as mezuzot or crucifixes, which are linked to “major” religions. Since these laws make no such distinction, neither may a condominium board. If it qualifies as a religious symbol, regardless of a board member’s personal belief, then a unit owner is entitled to display it. In this context, the majority does not rule.

Needless to say, few topics garner as much passion as religion. People will go to great lengths to defend their religious beliefs and their right to display such beliefs. An association’s failure to abide by these laws may come at a price, and the price of intolerance in this regard won’t be cheap.

Thus, before taking any action to prohibit a unit owner from displaying a religious symbol, even if a condominium’s documents authorize such a restriction, professional counsel should be sought to ensure compliance with any applicable statutes or ordinances.

Rising Costs, Falling Revenues: When Condominium Boards Must Raise Annual Assessments

Condominium unit owners have common interests that go beyond just the use of the pool and the clubhouse. Because residents share the expenses associated with condominium living, they have a vested interest in the financial health of their fellow unit owners, specifically their ability to pay their share of those expenses. While taking an active interest in a neighbor’s financial status may seem intrusive, it is a natural consequence of living in a condominium community, where the success of the whole is to a large extent dependent upon the resources of each unit owner.

Learn about condominium finances and budgets with our online course “Condominium Finances: Budgets and Reserve Schedules.” – Only $11.45

In prosperous economic times, such a communal living arrangement benefits individual owners because the pooling of funds allows them to enjoy amenities they might not be able to afford on their own. However, in times of economic hardship, residents’ financial interdependence can work against the well-being of the condominium community. Today, perhaps as never before, condominium residents are feeling the pain of their neighbors’ financial struggles.

The current slump in the national housing market has hit condominium communities especially hard. Despite their best efforts, many unit owners simply cannot afford their assessment payments. Making matters worse is the fact that condominium associations may not receive assessment payments from residents whose units are in foreclosure. Moreover, many speculators who purchased multiple units with an eye towards “flipping” them for a quick profit have disappeared, along with their checkbooks. Whatever the reasons, the result is that many condominium associations are not receiving the revenues required to manage and maintain condominium property.

With fewer residents contributing to fixed (and often rising) maintenance costs, many condominium associations have no choice but to increase the assessments charged to residents who can pay. However, before a condominium association board can take such action, members must know and abide by all applicable rules that govern the process of substantially increasing unit owners’ assessments.

Recognizing that costs and expenses may increase over time, many state condominium statutes allow association boards to adopt yearly budgets calling for annual assessments that are modestly higher than those of the preceding year without having to take any extraordinary steps, such as getting unit owners’ approval. However, if an annual budget includes an assessment significantly higher than last year’s, then a board may have to take additional steps to ensure that the budget is approved.

In California, for example, a board of directors of a condominium association may not impose a regular assessment that is more than 20 percent greater than the regular assessment for the association’s preceding fiscal year unless the board obtains the approval of the owners. To win approval for the increased assessment, the board must hold a properly conducted meeting attended by a quorum of unit owners (in this situation, more than 50 percent of the owners) who cast a majority of votes in favor of the increase.

Similarly, in Maryland, special procedures are required for any expenditure that would result in an assessment increase for the condominium’s current fiscal year that exceeds 15 percent of the previously adopted budget assessment. In such cases, the increased amount must be approved by an amendment to the budget that has been adopted at a special meeting. Both the Maryland and California statutes make limited exceptions for emergency expenditures that might be needed to prevent a significant increase in risk of damage to the condominium if a situation is not addressed promptly.

Florida takes a slightly different approach. Annual budgets requiring unit owner assessments that exceed 115 percent of assessments for the preceding fiscal year necessitate the special procedures. In such cases, the board must conduct a special meeting of unit owners to consider a substitute budget if the board receives, “within 21 days after adoption of the annual budget, a written request for a special meeting from at least 10 percent of all voting interests.” Upon receiving such notice, the board must conduct the meeting within 60 days after adopting the annual budget; furthermore, the board must comply with the statutory requirements that apply to the process of notifying unit owners of the meeting.

Illinois adopts an approach similar to Florida’s. Unit owners are permitted to petition a board to call a meeting to reconsider a budget if the adopted budget would result in a sum of all regular assessments payable in the current fiscal year in excess of 115 percent of the sum that was payable during the preceding fiscal year.

Each state’s laws have specific requirements that apply to the adoption of the annual budget, including the imposition of regular and special assessments. These statutes may govern, among other matters, the manner in which unit owners are notified of meetings, the timing of the meetings, quorum requirements, unit owners’ right to speak, and voting procedures. Because these requirements may vary significantly by state, board members must make sure they comply with all applicable regulations.

In troubled economic times, condominium boards must do whatever they can to manage and maintain a community. In some situations, a board’s fiduciary duty to unit owners necessitates a significant increase in the assessments charged to unit owners. However, by complying with all the requirements that govern such a course of action, condominium boards can ensure that already bad times do not become even worse.