There is an intersting legal issue being discussed in the news recently, spurred by legislative action in 2024. It involves retroactive application of statutory changes in the broadest context, but the focus is a Home Owner Association (HOA) in Sarasota.
The story starts with covenants attached to land in a particular neighborhood development. As a result of these in particular, residents are not allowed to park trucks at their homes overnight ("between the hours of 11 p.m. and 5 a.m.").
That may not be completely accurate. It seems vehicles may be parked inside a garage at any hour. As it is possible such garages are at those homes, then perhaps some such vehicles may be parked at homes overnight. Those whose vehicles will not fit in their garage apparently pay hundreds of dollars a month to park in a lot about a mile from their home.
Moneywise reports that homeowners in this community knew of the truck constraint when purchasing their homes (or when purchasing their trucks). The restriction on truck parking dates to 1976, and is derogated in the article as "an archaic HOA rule." That "archaic" rule is essentially attached to the property that people have purchased.
Some see rules of this sort as protecting the neighborhood and property values. There are neighborhoods out there in which residents park assorted vehicles in driveways, yards, and streets. There is a population of people who find such collections unsightly or unappealing and they prefer a more uniform appearance.
That said, there are others who perceive home ownership as an issue of personal freedom. These believe generally that their home and property are their business and no one else's. They feel it is their choice alone if they wish to park their boat, RV, or trailer in the driveway or yard and that the appearance is no one's business but their own.
Thus, some property owners are drawn to the orderliness of HOAs and others are repelled. There have been odd reports of HOA rules. One reportedly defines a dress code for garage sales, or what time the garbage may be put at the road for pick up. Others may prevent for-sale signs or require conforming appearances. I had a friend who once complained of being fined for leaving her garage door up on a Sunday.
Years ago, I lived next door to an aspiring basketball player. This kid was persistent in his practice and thrived on the sport. His parents had been denied permission to put a goal on the house, but had one that could be wheeled out into the driveway and later stored in the garage. Other neighbors, offended by the noise, soon approached me with a petition to limit the hours of permissible dribbling. They wanted to change our HOA agreement to set permissible times for such activity. I demurred. Sorry, folks, kids engaging in sports is likely a good thing.
In the parking situation, the Florida Legislature took up HOA constraints in 2024. House Bill (HB) 1203 was passed and signed. It addressed parking by a "property owner, or a guest, tenant, or invitee." The new law said that those people could not be prohibited
"from parking his or her personal vehicle, including a pickup truck: in the property owner's driveway, or in any other area at which the property owner or the property owner's tenant, guest, or invitee has a right to park."
Viva la camioneta!
The crux of the recent news coverage, however, is that this change in the law is not being given retroactive effect. Apparently, some contend that the law does not change contracts (covenants) that were entered into before the law was passed. Those folks see the covenant or contract of the HOA constraints as binding, and there is a citation to Kaufman v. Shere, 347 So. 2d 627, 628 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1977). The press does not refer to this case as "archaic," though it dates similarly to the HOA restrictions discussed.
This is of interest to the world of workers' compensation because it is a statutory change in common law rights. There are rights and obligations imposed by statute and the law generally characterizes those laws as part of the "contract of employment." This maxim says that the rights of the parties to this "contract" of workers' compensation are bound to that agreement despite later statute changes.
This works to the benefit or the burden of various employees or employers. For example, if an accident occurred at 11:59 on December 31, 2023 the "maximum compensation rate" in Florida might pay only $1,197; but if that accident happened at 12:01 on January 1, 2024, then the maximum would be $1,260. That change is driven by statute and changes each year.
Is it fair for the law to make such a distinction? Might the 2023 employee complain that the "archaic" constraint of 2023 is being applied despite the change? What about the impact over years as that rate continues to increase annually but leaves behind the 2023 employee? Fair? Would it be fairer to take more of the employer's property each year after an accident to pay the increased rate instead? In that, there might be complaints of predictability or underwriting.
Similarly, it is also possible for the Legislature to change the law. If a particular injury is defined with entitlement to certain benefits, then employees and employers are bound by that law if an injury occurs. Thus, an injury in 1993 might entitle a worker to "wage loss" benefits and the same injury days later in 1994 might only entitle the worker to "impairment benefits." And the difference there might be only minutes, as noted above.
Some cry foul. There is some sentiment that changes in the law should be more generalized. Those who advocate this are arguing for "fair," but usually from their own perspective. There is a counterargument that the benefits should be predictable. Those who advocate for predictability are also usually focused on their own perspective.
So, an employee injured this year may be limited to the benefits in the law this year, and her/his employer is likewise limited. The employee can budget and plan, as can the employer. Nonetheless, there may be outcomes viewed by any particular party or group as fair or not.
The Court has explained that whether statutory amendments in workers' compensation have a "retroactive" effect is analyzed, in part, by considering whether a change is "substantive" or "procedural." In Ace Disposal v. Holley, 668 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). There is a detailed explanation there of this distinction. Thus, in the end, some might suggest that the question "does this law change apply retroactively?" might validly be "It depends."
There is logic in both paths. It makes sense that a new statute would not increase an employer's cost or decrease a workers' benefits for a previous injury. It also makes sense that if a new form or process is created, that new process for obtaining and paying benefits might be more readily deployed in a consistent manner for all employees and employers. Nonetheless, there has been litigation over the years about what is or is not "substantive."
In the parking example above, there are those who think the new law should override the old HOA rules, the rules by which those homeowners agreed to live when they selected that neighborhood or vehicle. Others think that they are entitled to the protection from unsightly vehicles (who sees them "between the hours of 11 p.m. and 5 a.m.?)" around the neighborhood.
As in Kaufman, that may depend upon whether the contract (the HOA agreement) says that it is subject to change. There, the agreement in question adopted existing law and said "as it may be amended from time to time.” The Court concluded that language signaled the intent of the parties to be bound by that statute as it existed or as it might thereafter change. That may play a role in the parking dispute.
Or, it may be that the homeowners might meet and amend their own bylaws to conform to the desires of the majority as regards parking or any number of common issues perceived in such a development. One might wonder if changing the rules, in a small neighborhood democracy is "archaic?" Similarly, parties to a workers' compensation case might meet and reach agreements regarding benefits and process, called stipulations, that could be unique to a particular case or situation.
In the end, the parking is an interesting reminder that legislative change may or may not impact a particular situation or circumstance. There is the potential need for interpretation, consideration, and construction to discern what law applies in what manner in what circumstance. That may be frustrating and perplexing, but it is how the law works.
