Florida association directors sometimes hear that their documents contain “Kaufman language.” The label is shorthand, not an adequate legal analysis. For a Northwest Florida association, the useful question is what the recorded declaration actually incorporates, and how that wording affects the particular statutory change under consideration.
A verified later decision supplies a practical distinction
This discussion uses the Third District’s official opinion in Beacon Hill Homeowners Association and Old Cutler Lakes by the Bay Community Association v. Colfin AH-Florida 7, rather than reconstructing every detail of the original 1977 Kaufman v. Shere litigation. In Colfin, the associations argued that language allowing corporate powers now or later available incorporated subsequent law.
The court rejected that position. The clause concerned corporate activities under Chapter 617, rather than specifically incorporating the Homeowners’ Association Act as amended over time. On those declarations and facts, the purchaser was not liable for the prior owner’s assessments, fees, and costs claimed after foreclosure. The distinction demonstrates why broad references to legal powers cannot automatically be treated as adoption of every future association statute.
Keep the question tied to the actual documents
A review should distinguish the declaration from the articles, bylaws, rules, and management contract. Similar wording in different documents may serve different purposes. Also distinguish a clause allowing the association to exercise lawful powers from one expressly incorporating changes to an identified statute. Neither a search result nor a title-company summary provides a complete substitute for the recorded text.
This article does not state that all later laws are inapplicable without a particular phrase. It also does not provide a current assessment-collection opinion or a universal foreclosure safe harbor. The issue must be evaluated against the specific law, its effective date, the rights affected, the association’s document history, and subsequent controlling authority.
A practical document-review checklist
- Assemble a clean original declaration and all recorded amendments. Keep an index showing recording dates and the provisions each amendment changed, so an older clause is not mistakenly treated as current.
- Identify the exact statutory provision creating the operational question. Give counsel the planned action, affected owners, proposed date, and any deadline rather than asking only whether “Kaufman applies.”
- Search the documents for references to statutes, future amendments, corporate powers, and governing law. Supply entire paragraphs and cross-references, not isolated screenshots of favorable wording.
- Ask counsel to explain the consequence for this decision in writing. A conclusion about one assessment dispute should not become an undocumented assumption governing unrelated elections or maintenance obligations.
- If an amendment is recommended, prepare a plain-language explanation of its intended scope and the approval process. Do not describe a potentially consequential change as mere housekeeping.
For management teams, a useful final deliverable is a dated instruction tied to a specific issue and reviewed document set. That is more reliable than adding “Kaufman language: yes” to a permanent community profile and applying it indiscriminately to future questions.
Reviewed November 4, 2026. Educational information only; obtain association-specific legal advice before acting.