Page 7 - New England Condominium February 2020

NEWENGLANDCONDO.COM NEW ENGLAND CONDOMINIUM -FEBRUARY 2020 7 QUESTIONS & ANSWERS Legal Q A& Write to The New England Condominium and we’ll publish your question, along with a response from one of our attorney advisors. Questions may be edited for taste, length and clarity. Send your questions to: pat@yrinc. Disclaimer: Th e answers provided in this Q&A column are of a general nature and cannot substitute for professional advice regarding your specifi c circumstances. Always seek the advice of competent legal counsel or other qualifi ed profes- sionals with any questions you may have regard- ing technical or legal issues. Are Volunteers the Answer? Q Our board president said that her husband was qualifi ed to per- form gutter and minor roof re- pairs at our community, and would do the work for free. He is not licensed or insured, yet the other board members agreed to use her husband to avoid doing an assessment. Th ey also agreed that we should always try to have members of the association do work for free if they volunteer. Is there cause for concern? —Sensing Problems A “In a word, ‘yes,’ there is cause for concern,” says Gary M. Daddario, part- ner in Marcus, Errico, Emmer & Brooks, PC, which has offi ces in Braintree, Massa- chusetts and Merrimack, New Hampshire. “Anytime someone is performing work on the association’s property, there is some amount of risk involved. In situations in which a person is not licensed for the type of work they are performing, if licensing is applicable, the risk increases. “In situations in which a person is per- forming work without insurance, the risk to the board, there could also be allegations increases signifi cantly. Even those persons of self-dealing by those who may choose with the best of intentions will feel com- pelled to fi le suit if an injury on your prop- erty results in permanent disability or the governing documents contain language need for signifi cant medical treatment and prohibiting the association from dealing ongoing expenses. In the event of a tragic with ‘inside’ parties. death, you will not even be communicating with your ‘vendor,’ you will be dealing with erning documents, it is possible that this the executor of that person’s estate, who type of arrangement is prohibited. Another may very well elect to fi le suit to increase consideration is presented with respect to the estate’s assets. “Th ese are the direct scenarios that could ner which is not satisfactory, it is diffi cult spin out of an unlicensed, uninsured person for the association to seek redress when the performing work at the property. Further person performing the work is an ‘insider’ complications could arise if this person’s ac- cident ends up also injuring other people or having obtained the services free of charge, damaging property. “Still more complicated questions would ing remedies. be posed if poor performance of the work— even if it’s unintentional—resulted in injury multitude of potential problems, it is advis- or property damage surfacing sometime af- ter the fact. Frankly, these liability risks do associations deal with outside vendors who not even account for the full spectrum of hold the necessary licenses and adequate potential issues. To the extent that the per- son performing services has a connection not to believe that some form of compen- sation isn’t being exchanged. Further, some “Depending on the language in the gov- the work itself. If the job is done in a man- and not an ‘arm’s length’ vendor. Here again, the association could face obstacles in seek- “In sum, given the increased risk and able, at least from a legal perspective, that insurance. “Although negative incidents may be rare, it would only take one such issue to more than eliminate any cost savings re- sulting from insider dealing. Further, there is nothing inequitable about unit owners being assessed appropriate condo fees to cover the necessary expenses associated with proper maintenance of the property.” Q&A