Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content


​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Welcome to Common Ground ™ magazine’s Perspectives - a place to share opinions about the issues and problems impacting community associations. Here, you can read what others are saying about the past, present and future of common-interest communities, and then comment on their points of view.

Click on the item to read and comment on the complete article. You also may submit your own opinion piece for consideration.

 Perspective item Index

  • by: John Watkins, CMCA, AMS, PCAM

    ​Common Ground​

    THE CHANGES in accounting requirements made in 2019 by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) do not entirely serve the purpose of financial reports and audits for community associations. The FASB interpretation of revenue recognition for reserves considerably understates the financial health of a community association like mine.

    I manage a 30-year-old, mixed-use gated community that is 80% single-family homes and with more than 2,600 owners. Our concern is that reporting should give the most accurate information to respond to questions such as: What is the likelihood of a special assessment? Will the assessment rate go up rapidly? How much is a home actually worth? Is a nonprofit association supposed to pay taxes on accumulated funds?

    The association owns about a third of the 2,850 acres in the community but does not own or operate the golf course, swimming pools, tennis courts, gym, or boat yard. It does own and maintain roadways, open spaces, walking trails, parts of rivers and creeks, 96 retention ponds plus a large drainage system, two small gatehouses, and a 2,000-square-foot office building. About 20% of annual revenue is allocated to reserves for replacements, emergency repairs, and capital expenditures. The reserve study has a 40-year projection and is updated annually.

    The primary basis of the new FASB ruling appears to be that assessments and other revenue collected in advance for services to be provided cannot be recognized as revenue until the services are given (and, in many cases, further supported by a contract or other binding commitment). If an association collects assessments in advance and is obligated to give services over time, it might not be recorded as revenue until the service is provided. Revenue for most communities is often collected on a monthly or quarterly basis, and services and maintenance must be provided.

    The association's objections to its auditor's interpretation of the new FASB ruling is the use of the “deferred revenue" category and whether certain funds should be reported in the liability or equity sections of the balance sheet. Our gross annual revenues are slightly over $4 million—88% from assessments and the other 12% either from tolls for use of our private roads by commercial vehicles or from telecommunications company agreements.

    The three largest uses of these funds are security operations, landscaping of association-owned property, and reserves to maintain roads, storm drains, retention ponds, and for capital improvement projects and emergency repairs. We essentially have no directly paid expenditure for services or insurance on properties owned by private owners.

    Deferred revenue is used for funds paid with the expectation they will be repaid or are used as payments in advance for future assessments. Deposits for construction activities are repaid if the project is completed and passes a final inspection, if they are properly classed as deferred revenue until the project is closed.

    Owners who pay more than the current assessment and are prepaying a future assessment have their payments treated as deferred revenue, because if the owner leaves before the property is next assessed, the association will refund that money. If assessments are paid for the entire year and the home sells from one owner to another, the closing transaction settles a credit for the paid assessment, but the association does not refund any assessment money.​​

    The interpretation on reserve funds completely fails to recognize normal practices in reserves. Our general concept is that current owners should pay as they go. If a road needs repair 15 years from now, the owner who lived here and contributed annually for those 15 years has properly paid into the reserve. The owner who bought just last year has only made one contribution but also has only put one year's worth of wear and tear on the roads.

    Most importantly with reserve funds is the fluidity and the suggested criteria FASB states regarding when reserve funds can be recognized as revenue. We collect and hold money for roads and drainage repairs which may well occur 15–25 years out. We own about 32 miles of road and 33 miles of drainpipe. We cannot saddle homeowners 20 years from now with special assessments. The actual value of a home in our community depends, in part, on recognizing that reserve funds are assets and should have a status similar to retained earnings in the equity section.

    What is done at the start of each year is approval of an annual budget by homeowners that authorizes reserve expenses planned for the next year. We might plan for a primary road to be resurfaced in six years, but it might happen in four or eight years. If another hurricane comes along, we would most likely move some funds planned either for replacement or capital projects to emergency repair so that we do not have spikes in assessments to pay for large storms. FASB wants commitment to a contract, but such a contract will not be codified or authorized for some years.

    In summary, more than 90% of our total revenue would be deemed deferred for some period of time, and some of it deferred for years. It is not an accurate representation of our financial position.

    » How is your community navigating the FASB's new accounting requirements?

    John Watkins is the general manager of Dunes West Property Owners Association in Mount Pleasant, S.C.

  • by: David C. Wilson, Esq.

    ​Common Ground

    GIVEN RECENT protests for social justice and the current political landscape, it should come as no surprise that the use of the word “plantation" in community association names has become a topic of conversation. It is particularly true in North and South Carolina, where the history behind the word stirs up a mixed bag of emotions for different people.

    Many community association boards struggle with the best approach to this delicate topic. Some residents in these communities are strongly for removing “plantation," while other residents are strongly against it.

    Those who are against removing the word say it would be a potentially expensive rebranding that is difficult to accomplish and detrimental to the community's reputation and even home values. To some, the word denotes a certain lifestyle and recognizes the history of the land as tied to prestige and wealth—and that using it as part of a marketing strategy emphasizes these aspects.

    Some communities say there is no real support for making a name change, and that an amendment to the governing documents would require at least a supermajority of all owners or may be an expense that owners aren't willing to support. Finally, there's the argument that removing the word is erasing history rather than educating about it, and that it doesn't address social issues or change individual behavior—constituting empty symbolism.

    However, those in favor of removing the word say that its use could deter potential homebuyers because of its negative connotation and close ties to systems of discrimination, segregation, and slavery. They say removing the word encourages sensitivity to racial issues and is a small (and relatively easy) step in the larger battle against discrimination. In addition, they argue that we would never use words such as “ghetto" or “servitude" to name a neighborhood, so why continue to use “plantation" in the name of community associations?

    Each of these arguments is on the table when communities consider whether to change their names, and they carry different weight in each. We've had more than one community look to change their name but be deterred by the cost because it may require amending several documents after obtaining homeowners' approval.

    Some associations where cost is not a concern have objected to the change because of the community's reputation in the area. To them, changing the name would mean losing the well-earned, favorable reputation built up over time. Other communities have wanted to make the change regardless of these considerations and felt like it was the right thing for their residents.

    A good approach to something like a name change will always involve the homeowners. For example, holding town hall meetings where different residents present the pros and cons of the debate in written formats and in person (or virtually because of the COVID-19 pandemic) allows people to comment and share their opinion in a respectful and organized way. Even better would be fostering open discussions and opportunities to work with local groups on the topic of discrimination and inequality with the goal of positive change.

    When all is said and done, there may not be a one-size-fits-all answer; the right decision is the one made by the residents for their individual community. In some communities, that means making the change, but even when the decision is not to do so, the process can bring people together and provide a forum for understanding, education, and progress.

    David C. Wilson is an attorney with Law Firm Carolinas. He is licensed to practice in North Carolina and South Carolina.

    » Your Turn: Is your community association considering changing its name?

  • by: Denise Lash, Esq.

    ​Common Ground

    BOARD MEMBERS, community association managers, and homeowners have been forced to fundamentally change how they go about conducting business in their communities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Holding on-site meetings is no longer feasible nor is expecting owners to cast their vote in person; both activities are simply too risky in this current state. Fortunately, the solution to these challenges already exists in the form of electronic voting.

    Unfortunately, electronic voting had faced considerable resistance from a vocal minority of the community association industry here in Canada. While homeowners associations, condominium communities, and housing cooperatives in other countries have embraced electronic voting, few in Canada were even aware it was a possibility.​

    The pandemic changed that. Adoption levels have spiked as even the most strident critics were forced to acknowledge that not only was electronic voting the way of the future, but it is also a necessity in the present. With opponents forced to wave the white flag, electronic voting is finally getting a fair shake

    In my experience, homeowners who have participated in electronic voting have high praise for it. They get to cast their vote through a secure online voting platform at their convenience and in private. They participate in the voting process and express their personal preferences—free from the influence or interference of others who may have a different agenda.

    Electronic voting dramatically increases homeowner participation, frequently up to 90% or higher. Homeowners engage in the voting process and express their opinions because it is easy to do. All it takes is a click. The increased participation also ensures that quorum is easily obtained, often weeks in advance of a meeting, which translates into accountability.

    Homeowners are not the only ones who vouch for electronic voting; boards and community managers motivated to serve in the best interests of their communities also have embraced it and welcome the accountability that comes with increased participation. To them, it's an affirmation and recognition of a job well done.

    None of this should come as any surprise. Homeowners expect the same seamless and easy-to-use digital experience in community living as they do in other areas of their lives. The very notion that an owner should need to use a proxy to give someone else the right to cast a vote on their behalf seems like a holdover from a different era.

    It's easy to see why even before the pandemic, electronic voting was the norm in over half the states in the U.S. and spreading rapidly. It also is easy to see why some states, like Arizona and Florida, have passed legislation that prohibits proxy voting, and other states are in the process of doing the same.

    Arizona prohibits proxy voting after the developer passes control of the condominium to the homeowners. Florida, another state with a high density of condominiums, prohibits proxy voting for board elections. Illinois states that once a condominium adopts electronic voting in its rules and regulations, proxy voting is no longer allowed for board elections. New Jersey recently allowed condos to use electronic voting and, at the same time, passed a law that prohibits condos from offering proxies to owners unless they also allow owners to cast absentee ballots, effectively rendering proxies meaningless.

    Why are these states passing laws to prohibit or severely curtail the use of proxies? Experience has shown that proxy votes may entrench incumbent directors by concentrating power and decision-making in the hands of a few—resulting in low director turnover, minimal accountability, and conflicts of interest that favor the few at the expense of the many.

    Some U.S. states are now discussing whether the ban on proxies should include any type of election the association holds. There is a reason proxies have been banned in political elections in most democratic countries; if the goal is to ensure the integrity of the electoral process, allowing someone else to cast your vote makes no sense.

    Canadians have historically been slow adopters. We are cautious by nature, we encourage consultation, and we seek consensus— all of which take time. But when it comes to electronic voting, the need for its widespread adoption is self-evident and urgent.

    Those seeking to resist the tides of change and hang on to the inherently flawed system of proxy voting (whether by electronic or paper means) may have their own reasons for doing so, but the COVID-19 pandemic should make them concede that electronic voting is both the present and the future, and in the best interest of the communities they serve.

    Denise Lash is founder and principal of Lash Condo Law in Toronto and a principal of CondoVoter, which provides services for electronic voting and virtual meetings. She also is a founding member and past president of CAI's Canada Chapter.

    » Your Turn: What has been your experience with electronic voting?

  • by: ​​Maureen Radon, CMCA

    ​​​Common Ground​

    LET'S FACE IT: The COVID-19 outbreak means we're all adapting to a new normal for a while. The community association management job we had in late February, whether we've been doing it for weeks, months, years, or decades, feels a lot different now. Our priorities have changed, and so have those of the homeowners who live in the communities we manage.

    Facilities and finances were probably not top of mind for many community association residents before the outbreak. Now, as residents spend more time at home and household income possibly decreases, association expenses have come into focus. Are costs going down because the pool is off limits? Is the association saving money since the clubhouse is closed and kids can't play in the playground? How does this impact my assessments?

    Homeowners are asking whether associations plan to decrease or completely hold off on charging assessments. It's a tough conversation for managers to have because we know this isn't a possible outcome regardless of the circumstances. Association budgets don't account for wiggle room or lavish contingencies. Those of us who have managed communities through tough economic downturns know that collections will be challenging, and it will take a while for association finances to recover. That still doesn't mean assessments can stop or decrease for contracted maintenance and upkeep, or that the value of our management services goes down.

    Temporarily closing the pool doesn't stop ongoing maintenance requirements. Canceling the contract would have an adverse impact on property values once the pool fills with algae and parts break, requiring larger expenses than would have been incurred to maintain it as usual. Cutting back on landscaping services would have a similar result, as overgrowth or dead plant material would negatively impact the community both short- and long-term. Minimizing the value of contracted security takes away a great asset that keeps eyes and ears on the property and enforces facility closures. These contracted expenses were put in the budget for a reason, and they're still important.

    Projects that have been budgeted in the reserves fund and planned for years should go on as long as proper safety and social distancing measures are taken by contractors. Managers and contractors may find it's easier to accomplish some projects while fewer owners are in the common areas, such as repainting interiors, replanting areas with heavy foot traffic, and making repairs to laundry facilities that have constant use. If it can be avoided, the reserve fund should not be used to offset operating costs; associations that use reserve funds in this way will take years to recover.

    How about the community management contract? Homeowners may believe that community managers now have fewer obligations since amenities are closed, but managers are continuing their work albeit under different and challenging circumstances. There are still contracts to coordinate, residents to assist, and legal requirements to meet. It's not an option to let the insurance lapse or choose to let litigation go unanswered. Someone needs to pay the association's bills, process architectural review applications, and keep the proverbial wheels for the association going in all sorts of ways.

    Now is the time when community managers can become familiar with their association's budget and figure out if there are any places to cut costs, deploy resources to accomplish projects under a changing timeline, and build deeper relationships with the contractors who service their communities. Now is their time to shine.

    Maureen Radon is a senior community manager with Aperion Management Group, AAMC, in central Oregon.

    ​» Your Turn: How will your community handle questions from homeowners about assessments?

  • by: Donna DiMaggio Berger, Esq.

    ​Common Ground

    RAISED VOICES, REDDENED FACES, and angry gestures. You might think you are watching a congressional hearing on C-SPAN, but you are at your community's board meeting. 

    The erosion of civility in our society has begun to manifest itself in private residential communities. This comes in many forms—from rudeness and disruptive behavior at meetings to more dangerous and escalating behaviors.

    While it is impossible to legislate civility, the proximity of a multifamily dwelling or a community with shared amenities heightens the impact of these behaviors and creates myriad legal issues and operational challenges for volunteer boards and their managers.

    Perhaps the most difficult legal issue is the determination of when a lack of civility requires action in the form of regulation, enforcement or, in egregious circumstances, additional security measures.

    Boards find the quality of life and the ability to conduct business diminished as limited time and resources are increasingly devoted to the personal interactions between residents and staff, instead of the operation of the community.

    It is difficult to attract and retain good staff and contractors and, most importantly, no one will want to serve on the board or a committee.

    Given the obligation of the association to protect the person and property of the residents, there is a point where regulatory and enforcement action is required.

    1. Run a businesslike meeting. The more organized and businesslike the board members are, the less opportunity for disruption.
    2. Have your board members set the standard for civility. Some communities even require board members to sign and adhere to a code of conduct to set the proper example and tone for the community. Most associations have bylaws that are decades old. In the last few years, I have updated countless sets of documents to provide operational and communication standards for directors and owners.
    3. Adopt and enforce board rules regarding the manner in which residents treat each other, the staff, and the contractors on the property. While this is subjective, most of us recognize truly unacceptable behavior when we see it.
    4. Operate with transparency and solicit input from the community. Some communities fracture because of a sense of secrecy and some fracture because of generational differences in the approach to maintenance and improvement of facilities. It is unlikely that every owner will agree that certain projects are necessary or that reserves should be fully funded yearly, but boards are elected to make tough decisions, not just popular ones.

    Boards that address these issues and send a message that uncivil behavior is not tolerated will do a service to their communities.

    Unlike that hearing on C-SPAN that you can turn off, discord in a community association cannot be stopped at your front door. Community association residents should realize that “living together" requires a level of civility and respect that we hope will flow upward at some point.

    Donna DiMaggio Berger is a board-certified specialist in condominium and planned development law, a shareholder with the law firm of Becker, and serves as the executive director of the Community Association Leadership Lobby in Florida. She is also a fellow in CAI's College of Community Association Lawyers. Article reprinted with permission from

    »Your Turn: Is your community struggling with civility? What solutions have you tried?​

  • by: Jill Kalter

    ​Common Ground

    While attending the CAI Gold Coast (Florida) Chapter Social in June, I met Kyle Nurminen, director of business development for Altec Roofing, a CAI business partner, and the chapter’s membership committee co-chair. Kyle was introducing Craig Glover, owner of A Better Way Home Care, as a prospective business partner. I didn’t see the immediate connection but was interested to learn how home health care fits into community association living.

    A CAI brochure called “More Than Just Vendors” outlines the importance of the relationship between business partners and common-interest communities. On a short list of nine points made in the document, one states that CAI business partners are “in a better position to make recommendations and suggestions that a non-CAI business partner may not even consider.” This is exactly what Kyle did when introducing Craig to CAI.

    Kyle “walks the talk” of the CAI business partner by focusing on developing relationships as assets to common-interest communities. When I asked Kyle how a home health agency fits into the CAI business partner model, he looked at me as if I was speaking a foreign language.

    “How does it not?” he asked. “Whether a family member is recovering from surgery or suffering from temporary illness or even dementia or Alzheimer’s, people shouldn’t have to put their lives on complete hold. Craig provides a service that helps them manage these sorts of situations.”

    A smile came to his face as he saw the veil lifted from my eyes.

    “As members of CAI, whether a business partner, manager, board member, or a community association volunteer, aren’t we all here to learn from and help one another?” he asked. “If so, then why would I limit my impact by thinking my knowledge of my own position is my only asset? Anyone can do that, but that’s not what makes a solid community.”

    Kyle said that thanks to CAI, he has knowledge of the entire sector; he’s had the opportunity to learn about all the other things that play a part in a community’s decision-making process. He said it’s taught him to pay closer attention to the world around him.

    “If I had knowledge in any regard that may help my fellow members, wouldn’t it be in my best interest to share it?” Kyle asked. “This isn’t some sort of sales organization; it’s a community development organization.”

    The “outside-the-box” introduction Kyle made was brilliant. He sees the synergy between community associations and the businesses managing their operations as an opportunity to add value and benefits to the entire community. In this case, Kyle introduced a health care agency that now becomes a resource to the community that can save residents both time and money while offering convenience and peace of mind.

    I think all of us can take a few tips from Kyle’s playbook when we meet potential CAI members:

    • Look beyond the obvious and into the future while building synergistic relationships.

    • Educate yourself on someone else’s position but don’t feel the need to become an expert.

    • Don’t assume you know everything about a potential member. Challenge yourself to really learn about and understand what the prospect does.

    • Ask the right questions and see potential so you can share information.

    • Come together and share resources.

    • Bridge the gap and create opportunities.

    • Cultivate trusting relationships. They don’t just drop out of the sky and into your lap.

    Jill Kalter is principal of Resolve Mediation in Florida and a Florida Supreme Court Certified Civil & Appellate Mediator.

    >>Read “More Than Just Vendors” at; the brochure is in the “Downloads” section on the right-hand side of the page. Read more about CAI Business Partners at

  • by: Oscar Marquis, Esq.

    ​Common Ground

    ​In September, a number of homeowners associations began reporting monthly assessment payments to a credit bureau. Such a standard financial management tool is normal for creditors, landlords, and mortgage companies, but is new to common-interest communities. It is a practice that could promote a major positive shift in how boards manage their associations. 

    The reporting of the information was facilitated by Sperlonga Data and Analytics, a data aggregation company that recently started helping associations report assessment payments to Equifax. 

    No added liability. Information reported to credit bureaus is subject to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The law requires that furnishers of information to credit bureaus not report information if they know it is inaccurate or have a good reason to believe it is inaccurate. But if there are mistakes in the information they report, there is no private cause of action under FCRA. There is an exemption in FCRA from furnisher liability to consumers if the information is inaccurate. If there are systemic problems that cause the errors, the regulators can investigate, but as part of its service, Sperlonga assists in avoiding systemic problems. Under FCRA, furnisher liability to consumers can only arise if consumer disputes are not properly investigated. 

    In addition, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act doesn't apply to associations, and reporting information to a consumer reporting agency won't make it apply. For example, Chase, Citibank, Capital One, landlords, cell phone companies, and utilities report information to the credit bureaus, but that doesn't make them collection agencies. They are creditors and furnishers to consumer reporting agencies. Similarly, associations won't suddenly be collection agencies if they report information. 

    It is well-settled law that FDCPA applies only to debt collectors, not entities to whom money is owed. FDCPA applies to "debts," which is defined as "any obligation of a consumer to pay money … which (is) the subject of a transaction (used) primarily for personal, family, or household purposes." Association obligations are personal debts as defined by the law. But FDCPA only applies to "debt collectors," which is defined as "any person … in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of debts owed or due … another." The assessment is a personal debt, but an association isn't collecting debts due another—the debts are due to it

    There should be no fear that an association is operating in the capacity of a collection agency when that association is reporting account information to a credit bureau any more than Chase or landlords or cellphone companies become a collection agencies when they report. 

    Acceptance by associations and association attorneys. There has already been widespread acceptance of association credit reporting by many associations. Managers and attorneys say that it is filling a need.

    "Reporting assessment payments will transform association management," says Julie Stephens, CMCA, AMS, president of Exclusive Association Management in Atlanta.  

    Ricky Zilem, business development director at PS Properties in Round Rock, Texas, believes it's the next evolution in community management. "Our goal is to offer the most innovative solutions to our associations. We continue to look for ways to provide unrivaled innovation, unmatched service, and useful solutions to the associations we manage."  

    At the request of clients, Homeowner Management Services, AAMC, has been looking for a credit reporting solution for some time, says Mike Crew, CMCA, PCAM, president of the Alpharetta, Ga., firm.

    Jeff Rembaum, an attorney with Kaye, Bender, Rembaum in Florida, believes Sperlonga's services are a step in the right direction. "This type of credit reporting is long overdue and should be welcomed by community associations throughout Florida and the rest of the U.S.," he says.

    Empowering tool. Reporting association assessments to a credit bureau can have a positive impact on a consumer's credit profile. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau just released a report, Project Catalyst, that looks for innovators seeking to expand access to credit to borrowers who may be excluded or mispriced by existing credit models. CFPB sees opportunities to expand access by incorporating nontraditional data into credit reports. CFPB remains interested in developments that would support expanded access to responsible credit for consumers. Association data is an example of nontraditional data that would enhance such access. 

    All this activity by the government regulators, national credit bureaus, and credit scoring companies has encouraged the reporting of new types of data so that credit reports present a fuller picture of a person's payment history. Adding homeowner assessments to credit reports helps consumers as well as associations without adding any significant business or legal risk.

    Oscar Marquis is the principal of Oscar Marquis & Associates, which specializes in privacy and consumer reporting. He served as general counsel of Trans Union, one of the three national consumer reporting agencies, for over 24 years. He also served on the Federal Reserve Board's Consumer Advisory Council.

    Read the opposing viewpoint, "Keep Condo Fees Out of Credit Reporting," by attorneys Patrick Brady and Mark Einhorn.

  • by: Patrick Brady, Esq., and Mark Einhorn, Esq.

    ​Common Ground

    ​Equifax, one of the major consumer credit reporting bureaus, announced recently that it will begin including the common area fees and assessments that condominium owners pay in the calculation of consumer credit scores. Sperlonga, a data aggregator that will be collecting this information for Equifax, says the expanded reporting will help consumers improve their credit scores by adding another source of timely payments that will count in their favor.

    That may be true. But the condominium associations asked to provide this information and the management companies that collect it on their behalf leave themselves open to incur significant, unwanted, and unnecessary liability risks.

    The Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act impose hefty penalties for inaccurate reports or other violations of the statutes. Managers and attorneys who handle collections for condo associations have argued successfully that the FDCPA, in particular, doesn't apply to them, because they are not collecting a personal debt; they are pursuing a lien enforcement action directly against the property and authorized under applicable state statutes.

    These lien enforcement actions generally do not target the owner of the property, hence the exemption from the statute. That exemption arguably would not apply to managers who collect and report adverse credit information about homeowners, because they would be perceived to be collecting a debt from the consumer.

    The FDCPA applies to third parties that collect and report credit information for others; it would not apply to associations that report payment information themselves. But associations would, nonetheless, be vulnerable to lawsuits if they submit erroneous information about owners, and they would have to comply with applicable provisions of the FCRA, which makes no allowances for mistakes.

    Mistakes are easy to make. For example, property records kept by associations and their managing agents don't always list full names—with initials—and there are an awful lot of John Smiths in the world.

    Associations also have to worry about discrimination complaints if they aren't absolutely consistent in the way they report delinquent payments. An association that reports a minority owner who is 30 days behind and fails to report a white owner who is equally or more delinquent can expect to be sued as a result.

    The liability risks associations incur by reporting payment information might be justified if they were mitigated by offsetting benefits—for example, if the threat of an adverse credit report would significantly reduce delinquencies or improve collection efforts. But there is no reason to believe that would be the case.

    Owners who fall behind in their condo payments don't typically do so willfully—they do so because they have encountered financial difficulties. Threatening to report the delinquency isn't going to cure the owner's financial problems and may actually be counterproductive. For example, refinancing a high-rate mortgage to lower the payments might free up enough cash to cover the condo fees and possibly even avoid a foreclosure. But reporting the delinquency could make it impossible for the owner to refinance.

    Even if reporting gave associations some added collection leverage, they don't need it. Most states have some version of a priority lien statute that puts unpaid condo fees ahead of the first mortgage and allows associations to foreclose, if necessary, to collect. That is a powerful collection tool—considerably more powerful than credit reporting.

    Condominium associations have to ask who benefits if an association reports owners' payments. It's not the condominium association, which simply incurs unwanted liability risks, along with the considerable expense of registering with the credit bureau. Owners may benefit from whatever small boost the reporting of timely payments will give their credit scores. But simply making timely payments and avoiding negative reports will do far more to protect their credit profiles.

    The primary beneficiaries of the reporting are the credit bureaus, which can charge more for the enhanced credit report, and the companies aggregating the information, which can charge for that service. So why should condo associations do anything to facilitate their efforts? They shouldn't.

    Patrick Brady and Mark Einhorn are partners in Marcus, Errico, Emmer & Brooks, New England's largest firm specializing in condominium law.

    Read the opposing viewpoint, "Reporting Assessment Payments Is Good for Owners and Associations," by attorney Oscar Marquis.

  • by: Peter B. Miller, RS

    ​Common Ground

    ​Maybe it’s just me, but when I hear the term “vendor,” images come to mind of an apron-wearing gentleman selling hot dogs and soft drinks out of a cart parked on a city sidewalk. I don’t think many people picture the valuable roles served by community association accountants, attorneys, bankers, insurance providers, reserve specialists, technology experts and others. Yet too often, “vendor” is used to describe these professionals. Instead, we all should be striving to call these individuals “business partners.” It better captures the role they serve for community clients.

    Business partners have specialized knowledge, experience and industry contacts who can help associations reach their goals. As a business partner myself, my goal isn’t simply to sell associations something. My goal is to help associations and their managers reach their goals. If an association’s goal is to provide a great service to its residents, I can help do that. If the association wants to find a better product or service that will make life easier, and I can’t do that, I probably know someone who can.

    Some business partners complain about getting calls from community managers or CAI chapters only when they’re being asked to sponsor something. I understand that, but business partners also need to ask themselves whether they’re being perceived as vendors because they’re acting like vendors. Think about it. Do we call on community managers and community association volunteer leaders only when we want to make a sale? Or do we call them to offer assistance or to see if there is any way in which we can make their lives easier?

    Similarly, CAI and its community manager members have been striving to raise the level of professionalism and public awareness of the value of their work. Not long ago, managers asked that we refer to them as “community managers” instead of “property managers” because the term better reflected their area of specialization. The “community manager” term acknowledges these individuals’ years of experience and education. It also captures their specialized skills in working with a diverse group of residents and a varying set of challenges. All of us should remember to use the “community manager” term and give these professionals the respect they’ve earned.

    If business partners want to be recognized for the value we bring to this relationship, then we first have to recognize that value ourselves. We have to alter our own perception of our role from “buy and sell” to being “a resource in a meaningful professional relationship.”

    Fortunately, CAI has developed the online course Business Partners Essentials, which is a great refresher for “old hands” like me to remind us of the core ideas of why we’re here and an excellent way for those new to the industry to get some important tips on how to operate effectively in this business environment. Go to for more information.

    Business partners have so much to offer community associations, which is why I’m not shy about correcting those who refer to us as vendors. I’m no longer content to be perceived as someone who just wants to sell something. My years of experience mean too much to me to be viewed as a commodity, and I know many CAI business partner members feel the same.

    All CAI members should make an effort to strike “vendor” from our vocabulary. When was the last time you saw a business partner pushing a hot dog cart?

    Peter B. Miller is a principal of Miller-Dodson Associates, a reserve studies firm in Annapolis, Md., and a member of CAI’s Business Partners Council.


Comments should include the full name of the writer and should adhere to the following guidelines:

  • Follow proper netiquette by keeping posts civil, mature and free of derogatory and inflammatory remarks toward any individual
  • Keep all posts as brief as possible and on topic for that thread
  • Do not post advertisements or promotional information
  • Do not cut and paste content from any other website (You may reference another website and include a link.)

Abuse of this comments section will result in termination of privileges at the sole discretion of CAI, and without prior notice.

Comments are not moderated. Posts solely reflect the opinions of individual participants and do not necessarily reflect the position or opinions of CAI. CAI does not warrant the accuracy or validity of the contents of posted comments.


Opinion piece submissions are subject to editing for content and clarity, and are published at CAI’s discretion. Authors must be able to verify that the information in their articles is accurate, that the article is their original work and that it has not appeared in another publication. Proper attribution must be given to quotes, reports or ideas not your own. The articles should not promote a particular company, product or service.

If your opinion piece is accepted, the full article or an excerpt of the article may be published, at the editor’s discretion, in Common GroundTM magazine.

Submissions may be sent to

 ‭(Hidden)‬ Perspectives Topic Index

Welcome to Common Ground TM magazine’s Perspectives—a place to share opinions about the issues and problems impacting community associations.

Here, you can read what others are saying about the past, present and future of common-interest communities, and then comment on their points of view.

Click on the item to read and comment on the complete article. You also may submit your own opinion piece for consideration. 



Comments should include the full name of the writer and should adhere to the following guidelines:

  • Follow proper netiquette by keeping posts civil, mature and free of derogatory and inflammatory remarks toward any individual
  • Keep all posts as brief as possible and on topic for that thread
  • Do not post advertisements or promotional information
  • Do not cut and paste content from any other website (You may reference another website and include a link.)

Abuse of this comments section will result in termination of privileges at the sole discretion of CAI, and without prior notice.

Comments are not moderated. Posts solely reflect the opinions of individual participants and do not necessarily reflect the position or opinions of CAI. CAI does not warrant the accuracy or validity of the contents of posted comments.


Opinion piece submissions are subject to editing for content and clarity, and are published at CAI’s discretion. Authors must be able to verify that the information in their articles is accurate, that the article is their original work and that it has not appeared in another publication. Proper attribution must be given to quotes, reports or ideas not your own. The articles should not promote a particular company, product or service.

If your opinion piece is accepted, the full article or an excerpt of the article may be published, at the editor’s discretion, in Common Ground TM magazine.

Submissions may be sent to