![\"A](\"https://thelexbrief.com/assets/img/blog-bankruptcy-filings-first-quarter-2026-1024.webp\")
Update, November 6, 2026: The House bill described here, the Bankruptcy Threshold Adjustment Act (H.R. 7730), passed the House on September 16, 2026, and the Senate on September 28, 2026, and was presented to the President on November 5, 2026, according to Congress.gov. It had not yet become law as of that listing. See the follow-up article.
Bankruptcy filings in the United States climbed sharply in the first three months of 2026. According to data from Epiq AACER released by the American Bankruptcy Institute on April 6, 150,009 total bankruptcy cases were filed from January 1 through March 31, a 14 percent increase over the 132,094 filed in the first quarter of 2025 [1]. Individuals accounted for most of that growth.
\nConsumer filings rose 14 percent, to 141,573 in the first quarter from 124,719 a year earlier [1]. Individual Chapter 7 filings reached 89,259, up 17 percent from 76,489 [1]. Individual Chapter 13 filings, in which a debtor proposes a repayment plan, rose 8 percent to 51,962 from 47,966 [1].
\nMarch was especially active. Total filings for the month were 58,278, a 16 percent increase from March 2025, and individual filings rose 17 percent to 55,381 [1]. Individual Chapter 7 cases in March were up 20 percent, to 36,784, while individual Chapter 13 cases rose 10 percent, to 18,478 [1].
\nSmall businesses are under pressure too. Subchapter V elections, the streamlined Chapter 11 process for small businesses, rose 67 percent in the first quarter to 833 [1], after a 91 percent year-over-year jump in February alone [2].
\nEpiq AACER Vice President Michael Hunter tied the increase to broader economic pressures, pointing to household debt approaching $18.8 trillion and a late 2025 delinquency rate of 4.8 percent on outstanding balances. He noted that late payments had risen on credit cards, mortgages and student loans while inflation stayed stubborn and interest rates remained high [1]. ABI Executive Director Amy Quackenboss pointed to “persistent inflation, high interest rates, restricted credit, and global instability” as compounding the challenges facing struggling families and small businesses [1].
\nThe release also noted pending federal legislation. Bills introduced by Sen. Chuck Grassley and Rep. Ben Cline would make a $2.75 million Chapter 13 debt ceiling for individuals permanent and eliminate the distinction between secured and unsecured debt for that calculation, while raising the Subchapter V eligibility limit to $7.5 million [1]. ABI said it supports efforts to permanently expand access to both [1]. Those bills had not become law as of the release [1].
\nThe Epiq AACER figures are national and are not broken out by state in the release [1]. Still, the pressures the release identifies, including inflation, high interest rates and rising delinquencies [1], are familiar to many South Florida households already managing high housing and insurance costs.
\nA rising filing count does not mean bankruptcy is the right answer for any particular family. It does suggest that more people are reaching the point where the question deserves a serious look. Several points are worth keeping in mind:
\nRising filings are a signal, not a verdict. A clear-eyed review of income, expenses and debts is the best way to know whether bankruptcy, a negotiated arrangement or another approach makes sense.
\nAnyone in South Florida weighing their options can request a confidential consultation with The Roca Law Firm, available in English and Spanish.
General information as of November 6, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.
", "image": "https://thelexbrief.com/og/bankruptcy-filings-first-quarter-2026.jpg", "date_published": "2026-04-09T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-11-06T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Bankruptcy" ] }, { "id": "https://thelexbrief.com/bankruptcy-filings-up-11-percent-first-nine-months-2026/", "url": "https://thelexbrief.com/bankruptcy-filings-up-11-percent-first-nine-months-2026/", "title": "Bankruptcy Filings Up 11 Percent Through September 2026, and Congress Moves to Raise Chapter 13 Limits", "summary": "Individual bankruptcy filings rose 11 percent in the first nine months of 2026, and a bill to raise the Chapter 13 debt limit has passed Congress.", "content_html": "![\"A](\"https://thelexbrief.com/assets/img/blog-bankruptcy-filings-up-11-percent-first-nine-months-2026-1024.webp\")
Update, November 6, 2026: Congress.gov records that H.R. 7730 was formally presented to the President on November 5, 2026, following House passage on September 16 and Senate passage on September 28. As of that listing, the bill had not yet become law.
More Americans are turning to the bankruptcy courts. According to data from Epiq AACER released with the American Bankruptcy Institute on October 8, there were 469,719 total bankruptcy filings from January 1 through September 30, 2026, an 11 percent increase over the same period in 2025 [1]. Individual filings accounted for 444,252 of those cases, also up 11 percent [1].
\nThe growth was strongest in Chapter 7. Individual Chapter 7 filings rose 13 percent to 282,413, while individual Chapter 13 filings rose 8 percent to 160,817 [1]. In September alone, individual filings were up 7 percent from a year earlier [1].
\nEpiq AACER vice president Michael Hunter attributed the trend to “the strain of higher borrowing costs, rising household expenses, growing consumer delinquencies, and a softer job market,” and said Epiq expects filing volumes to keep climbing into 2027 [1].
\nThe longer view points the same way. Figures from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts show 608,511 bankruptcy cases filed in the 12 months ending June 30, 2026, up 12.2 percent from the prior year [2]. Non-business filings, which are mostly individuals and families, rose 12 percent to 581,570 [2]. Even so, filings remain well below historical highs: total filings peaked at nearly 1.6 million in the year ending September 2010 and fell to 380,634 in June 2022 before beginning to climb again [2].
\nThat context matters. Rising filings do not mean bankruptcy has become unusual or extreme. They reflect more households using a legal process that has always been available to people whose debts have become unmanageable.
\nThe ABI release also highlighted legislation that could affect who can file Chapter 13. The bipartisan Bankruptcy Threshold Adjustment Act (H.R. 7730) passed the Senate on September 28 and, as of the October 8 release, had been sent to the president for signature [1]. According to ABI, the bill would:
\nFor many South Florida homeowners, the secured debt cap has been a practical issue. Home values and mortgage balances in Miami-Dade and Broward can push a household’s secured debt close to the existing limit, especially when a second mortgage or HELOC is involved. A single, higher combined limit would make Chapter 13 available to more families who need a plan to catch up on a mortgage. Whether and when the bill becomes law will determine its effect, so anyone near the current limits should confirm the rules in effect on the date they file.
\nThe two consumer chapters serve different needs:
\nBoth chapters trigger the automatic stay, which generally stops collection calls, lawsuits, garnishments and foreclosure sales while the case is pending.
\nThe national numbers [1][2] show that a growing number of households are reaching the point where one of these options makes sense. Individuals and families in South Florida who are weighing that decision can request a confidential consultation with The Roca Law Firm, in English or Spanish.
General information as of November 6, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.
", "image": "https://thelexbrief.com/og/bankruptcy-filings-up-11-percent-first-nine-months-2026.jpg", "date_published": "2026-10-09T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-11-06T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Bankruptcy" ] }, { "id": "https://thelexbrief.com/student-loan-wage-garnishment-delay/", "url": "https://thelexbrief.com/student-loan-wage-garnishment-delay/", "title": "Education Department Delays Student Loan Wage Garnishment: What Borrowers in Default Should Do Now", "summary": "The U.S. Department of Education paused wage garnishment and tax refund offsets for defaulted student loans. The pause is temporary, and no new date has been set.", "content_html": "![\"A](\"https://thelexbrief.com/assets/img/blog-student-loan-wage-garnishment-delay-1024.webp\")
Update, November 5, 2026: More than nine months later, the pause continues: on October 29, 2026, the Department of Education told Yahoo Finance that involuntary collections remain paused, although the Treasury Department is reportedly looking to hire private debt collectors to restart them. Borrowers should receive notice before wages are garnished (30 days in advance) or federal benefits are offset (65 days).
Borrowers with defaulted federal student loans received a reprieve on January 16, 2026. The U.S. Department of Education announced that it will delay involuntary collections on federal student loans, including Administrative Wage Garnishment and the Treasury Offset Program [1]. For Florida workers who were bracing for smaller paychecks this month, the announcement buys time. It does not make the debt go away.
\nThe reversal came quickly. In December, officials had said wage garnishment would restart in January, with initial notices going to 1,000 borrowers the week of January 7 [2]. The Department now says the temporary delay will allow it to implement repayment reforms under the Working Families Tax Cuts Act [1].
\nSeveral points are important for borrowers to understand:
\nA federal student loan is generally considered in default when the borrower is at least 270 days behind on payments [2]. More than 5 million Americans were in default on federal student loans as of September, according to Department data cited by the Associated Press [2].
\nThe Department tied the delay to changes in the law. The Act reduces the number of federal repayment plans, giving borrowers a choice between a standard plan and an income-driven repayment plan [1]. The new income-driven plan, available beginning July 1, 2026, waives unpaid interest for borrowers who make on-time payments that do not fully cover accrued interest, and includes small matching payments from the Department in certain circumstances so that principal decreases each month [1].
\nThe law also gives borrowers a second chance to rehabilitate a defaulted loan. Before the Act, borrowers were permitted only one rehabilitation [1]. The Department said the delay gives defaulted borrowers more time to begin the rehabilitation process, and more time to evaluate the new repayment options once they consolidate or complete a repayment or rehabilitation agreement [1].
\nStudent debt is a national issue with local effects. More than 42 million Americans hold student loans, and outstanding balances exceed $1.6 trillion, according to the Congressional Research Service as cited by CNBC [3]. In a high-cost region like Miami-Dade and Broward, losing part of a paycheck or a tax refund can affect rent, insurance and car payments all at once.
\nThe delay is best used as a window to act rather than a reason to wait:
\nWhen student loans are combined with other debts that have become unmanageable, a legal review of all options, including Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy, can help a household decide which path makes sense.
\nAnyone in South Florida weighing their options can request a confidential consultation with The Roca Law Firm, available in English and Spanish.
General information as of November 5, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.
", "image": "https://thelexbrief.com/og/student-loan-wage-garnishment-delay.jpg", "date_published": "2026-01-21T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-11-05T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Consumer Debt" ] }, { "id": "https://thelexbrief.com/noaa-2026-hurricane-outlook-property-claims/", "url": "https://thelexbrief.com/noaa-2026-hurricane-outlook-property-claims/", "title": "NOAA Forecasts a Below-Normal 2026 Hurricane Season, but Property Claim Disputes Still Need a Plan", "summary": "NOAA predicts a 55 percent chance of a below-normal 2026 Atlantic season. Counsel and adjusters should still prepare for property claim disputes.", "content_html": "![\"A](\"https://thelexbrief.com/assets/img/blog-noaa-2026-hurricane-outlook-property-claims-1024.webp\")
Update, November 3, 2026: The season produced the kind of single damaging storm NOAA warned about: Hurricane Isaias struck northwest Florida as a Category 2 storm in October, and by late October potential insured losses in Florida had reached $652 million, according to the News Service of Florida. See the follow-up article on the claims now moving toward the dispute phase.
Update, August 10, 2026: NOAA’s August 6, 2026 update maintained the below-normal forecast, raising the chance of a below-normal season to 75 percent and narrowing the ranges to 7 to 13 named storms, 2 to 6 hurricanes and 0 to 2 major hurricanes.
NOAA’s National Weather Service released its outlook for the 2026 Atlantic hurricane season on May 21, at a press conference held at NOAA’s Aircraft Operations Center in Lakeland, Florida [1]. Forecasters predict a 55 percent chance of a below-normal season, a 35 percent chance of a near-normal season and a 10 percent chance of an above-normal season [1]. The season runs from June 1 through November 30 [1].
\nNOAA expects 8 to 14 named storms, of which 3 to 6 could become hurricanes, including 1 to 3 major hurricanes of Category 3 or higher, and it has 70 percent confidence in those ranges [1]. An average season produces 14 named storms, seven hurricanes and three major hurricanes [1].
\nThe agency says its forecast reflects influences pulling in opposite directions. Forecasters expect an El Ni\u00f1o to form and strengthen as the season goes on, a pattern that tends to suppress storms, while Atlantic ocean temperatures are expected to be slightly warmer than normal and trade winds weaker than average, conditions that favor a more active year [1].
\nNOAA was careful to say what the outlook is not. It is a forecast of overall seasonal activity, not a landfall forecast, and it does not indicate where or when storms may strike [1][2]. The Climate Prediction Center adds that hurricane-related disasters can occur in any season, even years with low overall activity, and that “it only takes one hurricane (or tropical storm) to cause a disaster” [2]. National Weather Service Director Ken Graham made the same point: “It only takes one storm to make for a very bad season” [1].
\nNOAA also announced changes this season, including an improved forecast cone graphic from the National Hurricane Center that will show tropical storm and hurricane watches and warnings for inland areas [1].
\nFor attorneys, adjusters and policyholders in South Florida, the number that matters is not the seasonal count but whether a storm reaches a particular neighborhood. NOAA’s outlook does not predict activity for any particular location [2], and the Climate Prediction Center urges coastal and near-coastal residents, businesses and agencies to prepare for every season regardless of any outlook [2]. Disputed claims from a single storm can reach the mediation table long after the season ends.
\nThe early weeks of a season are a good time for counsel and carriers to prepare, regardless of the forecast:
\nNOAA’s forecast offers some reason for cautious optimism, but the agency itself urged residents to review preparedness plans now and not wait for a storm to threaten [1]. The same advice applies to the legal side of a storm: claims that are organized early tend to resolve more efficiently, whether through negotiation, appraisal, mediation or trial.
\nTony Roca is a Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Civil and Family Mediator who has conducted more than 4,000 mediations. Counsel and adjusters can check his live availability and book a mediation online, by Zoom statewide.
General information as of November 3, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.
", "image": "https://thelexbrief.com/og/noaa-2026-hurricane-outlook-property-claims.jpg", "date_published": "2026-05-27T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-11-03T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Mediation" ] }, { "id": "https://thelexbrief.com/hurricane-isaias-claims-closed-without-payment-mediation/", "url": "https://thelexbrief.com/hurricane-isaias-claims-closed-without-payment-mediation/", "title": "Hurricane Isaias Claims Pass 62,000 as Thousands Close Without Payment: Preparing for the Dispute Phase", "summary": "More than 15,000 Hurricane Isaias claims had closed without payment by late October. What adjusters, counsel and policyholders should expect next.", "content_html": "![\"A](\"https://thelexbrief.com/assets/img/blog-hurricane-isaias-claims-closed-without-payment-mediation-1024.webp\")
Three weeks after Hurricane Isaias came ashore near Destin as a Category 2 storm on October 9, the claims picture in Florida is coming into focus, and it points to a busy season for property insurance disputes [2]. As reported by the News Service of Florida on October 29, more than 62,000 claims tied to Isaias had been reported to the Office of Insurance Regulation, with potential insured losses in Florida climbing to $652 million [1]. More than 52,000 of those claims involve residential property [1].
\nThe figure that stands out for claims professionals and counsel is the closure rate. As of that report, nearly 9,300 claims had closed with a payment and just over 15,000 had closed without any payment [1]. A week earlier, the counts were about 3,500 closed with payment and nearly 8,500 closed without payment [2].
\nThe losses are concentrated in the western Panhandle. Santa Rosa County accounted for almost 29,500 claims, Escambia County just over 19,000, Okaloosa County nearly 6,000, and Walton and Bay counties about 2,300 and 2,200 respectively [1]. A federal disaster declaration now covers the Panhandle counties south and west of Leon County [1].
\nPrivate modelers expect the total to grow. Moody’s RMS estimated multistate losses of $2.5 billion to $4.5 billion, and Karen Clark & Company estimated privately insured losses nationally at $3 billion, with National Flood Insurance Program claims estimated separately at about $250 million [2]. For comparison, Hurricane Milton in 2024 produced $5.6 billion in Florida losses from 385,146 claims [2].
\nA claim closed without payment is not necessarily a denial on the merits. It can reflect damage below the deductible, a duplicate report, or a loss that falls under a separate flood policy. But each one is also a potential dispute, and several issues tend to recur after a storm like Isaias:
\nFor many homeowners’ claims, the state’s Department of Financial Services runs a mediation program that puts the policyholder and the insurer in front of a neutral mediator, whether the fight is over a denial, what caused the damage or how much the repairs should cost [3]. If the only dispute is what a covered loss is worth, the policy may also allow appraisal [3].
\nFor files that move past the pre-suit stage, court-ordered or stipulated mediation in circuit court will follow. Practitioners preparing for either setting can make sessions more productive by:
\nWith roughly 43 percent of residential claims already closed by late October [1], the next several months will show how many of the rest resolve in adjustment and how many move to mediation.
\nTony Roca, a Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Civil and Family Mediator, conducts mediations by Zoom statewide. Counsel and adjusters handling storm claims can check his live availability and book a mediation online.
General information as of November 3, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.
", "image": "https://thelexbrief.com/og/hurricane-isaias-claims-closed-without-payment-mediation.jpg", "date_published": "2026-11-03T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-11-03T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Mediation" ] }, { "id": "https://thelexbrief.com/florida-homeowners-insurance-rate-decreases-october-2026/", "url": "https://thelexbrief.com/florida-homeowners-insurance-rate-decreases-october-2026/", "title": "Homeowners Insurance Rate Decreases Reach 824,300 Florida Policyholders: What to Check at Renewal", "summary": "Florida regulators say October rate cuts of up to 12.1 percent reach over 824,300 homeowners, with more due through January. What to check at renewal.", "content_html": "![\"A](\"https://thelexbrief.com/assets/img/blog-florida-homeowners-insurance-rate-decreases-october-2026-1024.webp\")
For many Florida families, the homeowners insurance renewal notice has been one of the most stressful pieces of mail of the year. On October 29, 2026, the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR) announced that more than 824,300 homeowners will see rate decreases on new policies or renewals from filings that took effect in October, with decreases of up to 12.1 percent [1]. OIR said additional decreases are pending for November, December and January and will reach roughly 450,000 more policyholders [1][2]. The news is welcome, but what it means for any one household depends on the details of the policy and the rest of the budget.
\nOIR highlighted the following October filings, listing the policy type, the average change, the approximate number of consumers and the effective date [1]:
\nSeven of the nine filings include HO6 policies, the coverage condominium unit owners buy for their own units [1]. OIR also noted August filings already in effect from American Integrity Insurance Company, including a 0.3 percent decrease for about 184,000 consumers and a 12.3 percent decrease for about 8,900, and an 8 percent decrease from Florida Family Home Insurance Company for about 20,700 consumers [1].
\nSince January 2024, OIR said, 48 companies have filed for rate decreases and 53 have requested no change [1][2]. State officials credit the Legislature’s tort reforms for the shift, and Chief Financial Officer Blaise Ingoglia described the decreases as evidence of changes in the market since those reforms [1][2].
\nA filed rate change describes a company’s overall change, not every policy. An individual premium can still move differently based on the home’s age, roof, location, coverage limits and deductibles. A smaller rate can also be offset if coverage amounts rise at renewal. For that reason, the most useful step is to compare the new declarations page line by line with last year’s, rather than relying on the headline number.
\nA few practical checks for Florida homeowners at renewal:
\nFor a household that fell behind during several years of rising premiums, a lower renewal may free up a modest amount each month. That room can go toward catching up on a mortgage, property taxes or credit cards that absorbed past increases. If the gap is too large to close through savings alone, it may be time to look at the whole picture, including whether a Chapter 13 repayment plan or a Chapter 7 filing would help protect a home and reset the budget.
\nAnyone in South Florida weighing their options can request a confidential consultation with The Roca Law Firm, in English or Spanish.
General information as of October 30, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.
", "image": "https://thelexbrief.com/og/florida-homeowners-insurance-rate-decreases-october-2026.jpg", "date_published": "2026-10-30T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-10-30T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Florida Law" ] }, { "id": "https://thelexbrief.com/hurricane-isaias-condo-deductibles-special-assessments/", "url": "https://thelexbrief.com/hurricane-isaias-condo-deductibles-special-assessments/", "title": "After Hurricane Isaias, Condo Owners Face the Deductible Bill: How Association Repairs Become Special Assessments", "summary": "Under Florida law, a condo association's hurricane deductible is a common expense. What Isaias repairs could mean for unit owners' assessments and budgets.", "content_html": "![\"A](\"https://thelexbrief.com/assets/img/blog-hurricane-isaias-condo-deductibles-special-assessments-1024.webp\")
For many condominium owners in the western Panhandle, the most expensive part of Hurricane Isaias may arrive in the mail weeks after the storm. When an association’s building insurance pays only after a large hurricane deductible, the gap has to come from somewhere, and in Florida that somewhere is usually the owners. As a Realtor.com report published October 19, 2026, explained, if insurance proceeds and existing association funds fall short, owners can be charged a special assessment to cover their share [1].
\nIsaias made landfall near Destin on October 9 as a Category 2 hurricane, and its winds, more than its surge, did most of the damage [2]. As of October 15, insurers had reported 46,509 claims worth nearly $582 million, with Santa Rosa County accounting for 22,894 claims, Escambia 13,677 and Okaloosa 4,334 [2]. About 87 percent of residential claims, a category that includes commercial residential policies, remained open with no payment as of that date [2]. Those figures will change, but they signal a long repair season for coastal buildings.
\nFlorida’s Condominium Act answers the question most owners ask first. Under section 718.111(11)(j), property the association must insure that is damaged by an insurable event is repaired by the association as a common expense, and “all property insurance deductibles and other damages in excess of property insurance coverage” under the association’s policies are a common expense of the condominium [3]. Common expenses are shared among all owners.
\nThe board sets the deductible in advance. The statute requires deductibles consistent with industry standards for similar communities, allows them to be based on available funds, including reserves, or on predetermined assessment authority, and requires the board to establish the amount at a properly noticed board meeting [3]. As the Realtor.com report noted, even a percentage-based named-storm deductible can become a substantial dollar figure in a large community [1].
\nThere are exceptions. An owner can be charged for repairs not covered by insurance when the damage was caused by that owner’s or occupants’ intentional conduct, negligence or rule violations [3]. And an association is not obligated to pay for losses an owner knew about but did not report until after the association’s claim was resolved [3]. Prompt reporting of interior damage to the association matters.
\nOwners often assume their own policy will pay any special assessment. Florida law does require a unit owner’s policy to include at least $2,000 in loss assessment coverage for assessments resulting from the same direct loss, with a deductible of no more than $250, if the loss is the type covered by the owner’s policy [4]. For many owners, $2,000 will cover only part of a hurricane deductible assessment. Becker and Poliakoff’s Donna DiMaggio Berger advised owners to ask their agents whether their loss assessment limits are adequate rather than assume their coverage will pay every special assessment [1].
\nA properly levied special assessment is a debt secured by the unit. The association has a lien for unpaid assessments, interest and collection costs, and it may foreclose that lien and also seek a money judgment [5]. A foreclosure judgment cannot be entered until at least 45 days after written notice of the association’s intent to foreclose [5]. Owners who see an assessment coming should:
\nStorm-related assessments often arrive on top of a mortgage, insurance premiums and repair bills inside the unit. Florida owners who cannot cover them all and want to understand their options can request a confidential consultation with The Roca Law Firm.
General information as of October 26, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.
", "image": "https://thelexbrief.com/og/hurricane-isaias-condo-deductibles-special-assessments.jpg", "date_published": "2026-10-26T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-10-26T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Condo & HOA" ] }, { "id": "https://thelexbrief.com/florida-condo-sales-third-quarter-2026-prices-supply/", "url": "https://thelexbrief.com/florida-condo-sales-third-quarter-2026-prices-supply/", "title": "Florida Condo Sales Rose in the Third Quarter, but Prices Are Flat and Supply Is High: What It Means for Owners Under Fee Pressure", "summary": "Florida condo sales rose 3.1% in Q3 2026, but the median price was flat and supply hit 7.7 months. Broward's median fell 14.55% in September.", "content_html": "![\"A](\"https://thelexbrief.com/assets/img/blog-florida-condo-sales-third-quarter-2026-prices-supply-1024.webp\")
Florida’s condominium market held up better than single-family housing over the summer, according to new statewide data, but the numbers also show why many owners trying to sell their way out of rising association costs are finding it slow going. Florida Realtors reported on October 20, 2026, that closed sales of existing condos and townhouses rose 3.1 percent year over year in the third quarter, to 22,664 [1]. Single-family sales edged up just 0.2 percent over the same period [1].
\nThe headline gain comes with flat prices. The third-quarter median sale price for condos and townhouses was $295,000, unchanged from a year earlier, and September’s median was $293,500, down 1.8 percent [1]. September closed sales totaled 7,179, eight fewer than a year earlier, and new pending sales fell 3.5 percent [1].
\nThe more telling figure for owners is supply. In September, condo and townhouse inventory stood at 7.7 months, well above the 4.4 months recorded for single-family homes [1]. Florida Realtors noted that this gives buyers room to negotiate while sellers face more competition, and it cautioned that association fees, reserves and potential assessments can add to ownership costs beyond the sale price [1]. The organization described the quarter as an encouraging sign for a market that has spent several years adjusting to new reserve requirements and other regulations [1].
\nLocal data show sharper movement. In Broward County, condo transactions fell 12.54 percent year over year in September 2026, from 865 to 824, and the median condo price fell 14.55 percent, from $275,000 to $235,000 [2]. MIAMI REALTORS attributed the broader sales decline to mortgage rates rising nearly 0.6 percentage points since early September to 7.46 percent, limited inventory in some price ranges, and uncertainty around the October 6 state of emergency ahead of Hurricane Isaias, even though South Florida was not among the affected counties [2].
\nFinancing remains a hurdle for many buildings. Of 2,397 condominium buildings in Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties, only 21 are approved for FHA loans, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac eliminated the limited review option for many condo loans on August 3, 2026 [2]. Not every Broward segment is weak: sales of condos priced from $500,000 to $600,000 rose from 40 to 43 [2].
\nFor an owner facing a large special assessment or rising monthly fees, a long supply and flat or falling prices can mean a sale takes longer and nets less than expected. Meanwhile, the association’s collection rights keep running. Under section 718.116, an owner is liable for all assessments that come due while he or she owns the unit, and the association may foreclose its lien and also sue for a money judgment, with reasonable attorney’s fees recoverable [3]. The statute also bars a court from entering a foreclosure judgment until 45 days or more have passed since the association sent the owner written notice that it plans to foreclose [3].
\nA few practical steps can help owners keep options open:
\nOwners who cannot keep up with assessments, a mortgage and other debts at the same time have choices that are worth understanding before a lien foreclosure moves forward. Anyone in South Florida weighing those options can request a confidential consultation with The Roca Law Firm.
General information as of October 21, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.
", "image": "https://thelexbrief.com/og/florida-condo-sales-third-quarter-2026-prices-supply.jpg", "date_published": "2026-10-21T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-10-21T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Condo & HOA" ] }, { "id": "https://thelexbrief.com/rule-1700-remote-mediation-video-proposal/", "url": "https://thelexbrief.com/rule-1700-remote-mediation-video-proposal/", "title": "Cameras On: Proposed Rule 1.700 Amendment Would Require Video in Remote Florida Mediations", "summary": "A proposed amendment to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.700 would require audio and video whenever mediation is conducted by communication technology.", "content_html": "![\"A](\"https://thelexbrief.com/assets/img/blog-rule-1700-remote-mediation-video-proposal-1024.webp\")
Update, October 19, 2026: The Florida Supreme Court declined to adopt these amendments on October 16, 2026, so current Rule 1.700 remains in effect. See the follow-up article.
Florida’s civil mediation rule already allows sessions to be conducted through communication technology, but it has never said whether the participants must actually be seen [2]. A proposal now before the Florida Supreme Court would settle that question. The Florida Bar’s Civil Procedure Rules Committee, in Case No. SC2025-2041, has asked the Court to amend Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.700, the rule common to mediation and arbitration, so that any court-ordered or stipulated use of communication technology must include both audio and video [1].
\nUnder the current text, an order of referral or a written stipulation may call for the mediation or arbitration to happen in person, by communication technology (a term that Rule 2.530 of the Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration defines), or through some mix of both. Absent direction in the order of referral, the proceeding is conducted in person [2].
\nThe proposed rewrite keeps the in-person default. It lets the parties agree, or the judge direct, that the proceeding take place through communication technology, and it then adds a new sentence: “The communication technology must include both audio and video unless all parties stipulate or the judge finds cause” [2].
\nThe amendment also modernizes the rule’s language without changing its basic structure. “Shall” becomes “must” throughout, “pursuant to” becomes “under,” and the 15-day windows for a motion to dispense with or to defer mediation or arbitration remain in place [2]. Mediation or arbitration continues to be tolled while a motion to defer, or a motion to disqualify the mediator or arbitrator, is pending [2].
\nIf the Court adopts the proposal as written, a participant who joins by telephone only would fall outside the rule unless every party has agreed to that arrangement or the court has found cause [2]. The exception is drafted narrowly. It calls for a stipulation of all parties, not only the two sides most directly involved, or a judicial finding [2].
\nThat framing raises planning questions counsel can begin addressing now, before any rule change takes effect:
\nNone of these questions requires waiting for the Court. A short paragraph in the stipulation or the notice of mediation confirming that cameras will be on, or identifying anyone who has been excused, can prevent a dispute at the start of a session.
\nThe Court has invited all interested persons to comment on the proposal. Comments must be filed on or before May 1, 2026, with a certificate of service on the committee co-chairs and the Bar staff liaison, and the committee chair has until May 22, 2026, to respond to any comments filed [1]. Attorneys in good standing with The Florida Bar must file comments through the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal, and anyone who wishes to participate in any oral argument the Court may schedule must file a separate request [1]. The full text of the proposed rule, with deletions and additions marked, is reproduced in the Bar’s published notice [2].
\nUntil the Court acts, the existing version of Rule 1.700 controls, and the terms of each order of referral or stipulation remain the best guide to how a particular remote mediation must be conducted [2]. Practitioners and mediators who conduct sessions by video may want to review the proposal and decide whether to comment before the May 1 deadline [1].
\nTony Roca, a Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Civil and Family Mediator, conducts mediations by Zoom statewide. Counsel can check his live availability and book a mediation online.
General information as of October 19, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.
", "image": "https://thelexbrief.com/og/rule-1700-remote-mediation-video-proposal.jpg", "date_published": "2026-03-16T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-10-19T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Mediation" ] }, { "id": "https://thelexbrief.com/rule-2540-ada-notice-rule-2530-remote-depositions/", "url": "https://thelexbrief.com/rule-2540-ada-notice-rule-2530-remote-depositions/", "title": "New ADA Notice Rule for Florida Court Proceedings Takes Effect July 1, While Remote Deposition Video Goes Back to Committee", "summary": "The Florida Supreme Court amended Rule 2.540's ADA notice requirements, effective July 1, 2026, and sent a remote deposition video proposal to the civil rules committee.", "content_html": "![\"A](\"https://thelexbrief.com/assets/img/blog-rule-2540-ada-notice-rule-2530-remote-depositions-1024.webp\")
Update, October 19, 2026: The Florida Supreme Court declined to adopt the proposed Rule 1.700 video requirement on October 16, 2026. See the follow-up article.
On May 14, 2026, the Florida Supreme Court issued a short rules opinion that will change a paragraph nearly every Florida litigator uses. In Case No. SC2025-0725, the Court adopted amendments to Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.540, which governs requests for accommodations by persons with disabilities, and declined, for now, a proposed amendment to Rule 2.530, the communication technology rule [1]. The Rule 2.540 changes take effect July 1, 2026, at 12:01 a.m., and a motion for rehearing will not alter that date [1].
\nThe Florida Bar’s Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration Committee proposed both amendments, the Bar’s Board of Governors unanimously recommended them, and no comments were filed after publication [1]. The Court adopted the Rule 2.540 amendments as proposed [1]. Three changes matter most to practitioners:
\nThe required text otherwise keeps its familiar structure: a person who needs an accommodation should make contact at least 7 days before the scheduled appearance, or immediately if less time remains, and hearing or voice impaired persons may call 711 [1]. The opinion also modernizes the rule’s wording, replacing “shall” with “must” in several provisions, including those on service animals [1].
\nThe amended rule speaks to notices of court proceedings filed by attorneys or parties [1]. Offices that generate hearing notices and similar papers from templates may find that the ADA paragraph has carried forward unchanged for years. After July 1, a template with Times New Roman text or a named court employee will not match the rule’s current wording [1].
\nCounsel, paralegals and mediators who prepare notices in court-referred cases may want to review their templates before July 1, confirm the correct ADA Coordinator contact for each circuit, and update the font. Whether a particular mediation notice falls within the rule is a question for each practitioner to evaluate against the text of Rule 2.540(c)(1) [1], but using compliant language throughout avoids having to decide document by document.
\nThe second half of the opinion is shorter but signals where the remote practice debate is heading. The Court declined to adopt the proposed Rule 2.530 amendment “at this time” and referred the matter to the Civil Procedure Rules Committee, asking it to consider proposing an amendment on the use of audio-visual communication technology during a deposition in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310 [1]. The opinion does not adopt any new deposition requirement, so current practice continues while the committee takes up the question [1][2].
\nThe referral arrives while a related question is pending for mediation. In March, the Court published a Civil Procedure Rules Committee proposal to amend Rule 1.700 so that, when a judge orders or the parties stipulate to communication technology for a mediation or arbitration, the technology must include both audio and video [3]. Comments on that proposal were due May 1, 2026 [3]. The earlier article on the Rule 1.700 proposal covers it in more detail.
\nTaken together, the Court appears to be handling video requirements rule by rule, through the committee that drafts each rule, rather than through the general communication technology rule [1][3]. Practitioners who conduct depositions and mediations by Zoom should watch for a Rule 1.310 proposal from the committee.
\nCounsel looking for a Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Civil and Family Mediator can check Tony Roca’s live availability and book a mediation by Zoom statewide.
General information as of October 19, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.
", "image": "https://thelexbrief.com/og/rule-2540-ada-notice-rule-2530-remote-depositions.jpg", "date_published": "2026-05-15T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-10-19T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Florida Law" ] }, { "id": "https://thelexbrief.com/florida-supreme-court-declines-remote-mediation-camera-rule/", "url": "https://thelexbrief.com/florida-supreme-court-declines-remote-mediation-camera-rule/", "title": "Florida Supreme Court Declines to Require Cameras On in Remote Mediation", "summary": "The Court declined proposed Rule 1.700 amendments that would have required audio and video in remote mediations. What counsel should do instead.", "content_html": "![\"A](\"https://thelexbrief.com/assets/img/blog-florida-supreme-court-declines-remote-mediation-camera-rule-1024.webp\")
On October 16, 2026, the Florida Supreme Court declined to adopt proposed amendments to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.700 that would have required remote mediations and arbitrations to use both audio and video [1]. In a brief disposition, the Court said that, having considered the proposal, the comments, the response to the comments and the oral argument, it “declines to adopt the proposed rule amendments,” and closed the case [1].
\nThe decision leaves the current rule in place. For counsel, adjusters and parties who mediate by Zoom, it also leaves an unresolved practical question: what happens when a participant turns off the camera and goes silent?
\nThe Florida Bar’s Civil Procedure Rules Committee filed the proposal in Case No. SC2025-2041. As published for comment in March (covered in an earlier Insights article), the amended rule would have kept in-person mediation as the default, allowed the judge to order or the parties to stipulate to communication technology, and required that any remote session use both sound and picture “unless all parties stipulate or the judge finds cause” [3].
\nAt oral argument on September 10, committee member Melisa Bodner told the justices that nearly every member of the committee had experienced a participant turning off the camera and muting during a mediation, and that mediators have little real control over a party who does so [2]. She noted that the confidential nature of mediation prevents mediators from reporting that behavior to the court [2].
\nTwo groups opposed the amendment: the Supreme Court’s Committee on Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules and Policy and The Florida Bar’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Section [2]. Their concerns, as reported by The Florida Bar News, included:
\nThe Florida Bar News also noted that the Bar’s 2022 best practices guidance for remote proceedings already states that cameras should be on and participants visible while conferring with the mediator, unless excused [2].
\nBecause the Court did not adopt a statewide video requirement [1], the tools for managing participation are the ones that already exist:
\nRemote mediation remains the norm for much of Florida’s civil docket, and the Court’s decision [1] keeps flexibility in the hands of the parties and the mediator rather than a fixed rule.
\nTony Roca, a Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Civil and Family Mediator with more than 4,000 mediations, conducts sessions by Zoom statewide. Counsel can check his live availability and book a mediation online.
General information as of October 19, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.
", "image": "https://thelexbrief.com/og/florida-supreme-court-declines-remote-mediation-camera-rule.jpg", "date_published": "2026-10-19T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-10-19T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Mediation" ] }, { "id": "https://thelexbrief.com/rule-1442-proposals-for-settlement-amendments/", "url": "https://thelexbrief.com/rule-1442-proposals-for-settlement-amendments/", "title": "Florida Supreme Court Amends Rule 1.442: What Counsel Should Know About Proposals for Settlement and Mediation Timing", "summary": "Amendments to Florida's proposal for settlement rule take effect January 1, 2026. The 30-day clock still runs during mediation, and timing still matters.", "content_html": "![\"An](\"https://thelexbrief.com/assets/img/blog-rule-1442-proposals-for-settlement-amendments-1024.webp\")
Update, October 7, 2026: On October 1, 2026, the Florida Supreme Court declined to adopt further Rule 1.442 amendments proposed by the Civil Procedure Rules Committee, including a new procedure for enforcing accepted proposals, because they appeared to touch on substantive law. As The Florida Bar News reported, the Court left that question to the Legislature, so the rule as amended effective January 1, 2026, remains in place.
Update, July 8, 2026: In Trace Elements, Inc. v. Mackensen, decided July 2, 2026, the Florida Supreme Court held that rule 1.442(c)(3) requires a joint proposal to apportion the settlement amount even when it involves a single, unified claim. Joint proposals that do not apportion the amount risk being found invalid.
On November 13, 2025, the Florida Supreme Court amended Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442 (Proposals for Settlement), along with form 1.902 (Summons) and form 1.938 (Forcible Entry and Detention) [1]. The amendments take effect January 1, 2026, at 12:01 a.m. [1]. Because proposals for settlement so often shape what happens at mediation, the opinion deserves attention from trial counsel, claims professionals and mediators alike.
\nThe Florida Bar’s Civil Procedure Rules Committee filed the proposal, and both the Committee and the Court published it for comment [1]. The Florida Bar News carried the publication notice in April 2025 [2]. The Court received one comment, the Committee revised its proposal in response, and the Court adopted the revised version [1]. Many of the changes conform the rule to the Court’s guidelines for rules submissions in Administrative Order AOSC22-78 [1], which is why the familiar “shall” now reads “may” or “must” throughout the rule [1].
\nThose edits are largely stylistic, but rule language is where proposal disputes are won and lost, so practitioners should work from the amended text as of January 1.
\nThe core deadlines are unchanged in substance. A proposal directed to a defendant cannot be served until 90 days have passed since that defendant was served with process, and one directed to a plaintiff cannot be served until 90 days after the case was commenced [1]. The window closes 45 days before the trial date or the opening of the trial docket, whichever falls first [1].
\nAcceptance is equally strict. Unless the receiving party delivers a written notice of acceptance within 30 days of being served, the proposal is treated as rejected, and the additional-time provision of Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.514(b) does not apply [1]. Under the amended wording, oral communications will not be considered an acceptance, rejection or counteroffer [1].
\nFor mediation practice, the most important sentence in the rule may be its last. The rule states that mediation has “no effect on the dates during which parties are permitted to make or accept a proposal for settlement” [1]. A proposal served two weeks before a scheduled mediation keeps running through the session, and an impasse does not extend the 30-day acceptance window.
\nThat has practical consequences:
\nSummons and possession forms. The Court also revised form 1.902 to make clear that a defendant answering a summons in writing can file either with the clerk or through the Florida Courts E-filing Portal, and must list an e-mail address for service unless the clerk has granted an exemption from electronic service [1]. The revised summons refers defendants seeking help to The Florida Bar’s Lawyer Referral Service or local legal aid programs [1]. Form 1.938 now requires the plaintiff to disclose the property’s legal description and address if available, how the defendant obtained possession, and whether the plaintiff owns the property or is otherwise entitled to possession [1].
\nNone of these amendments changes the strategic role a well-timed proposal plays in moving a case toward resolution. They do reinforce that the proposal process runs on its own track, independent of mediation. Parties who coordinate the two, rather than treating them as one, tend to arrive at the table with a clearer view of risk.
\nCounsel looking for a Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Civil Mediator can check Tony Roca’s live availability and book a mediation by Zoom statewide.
General information as of October 7, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.
", "image": "https://thelexbrief.com/og/rule-1442-proposals-for-settlement-amendments.jpg", "date_published": "2025-11-18T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-10-07T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Mediation" ] }, { "id": "https://thelexbrief.com/defaulted-student-loans-support-center/", "url": "https://thelexbrief.com/defaulted-student-loans-support-center/", "title": "New Online Portal for Defaulted Student Loans: How Florida Borrowers Can Use Rehabilitation and Consolidation", "summary": "Education and Treasury launched a Defaulted Loans Support Center on September 30. What it offers, and how the auto pay rate cut fits in for borrowers leaving default.", "content_html": "![\"A](\"https://thelexbrief.com/assets/img/blog-defaulted-student-loans-support-center-1024.webp\")
Millions of Americans have federal student loans in default, and for years the process of getting out of default ran on paper forms, mail and fax. On September 30, 2026, the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of the Treasury announced a new online Defaulted Loans Support Center on StudentAid.gov meant to change that [1]. A day earlier, the Department extended the enrollment window for a temporary 1 percent interest rate reduction for borrowers who use auto pay [2]. Together, the two announcements give borrowers in default a clearer path back to repayment, and they are worth understanding before collection activity reaches a paycheck or a tax refund.
\nAccording to the Department, the Defaulted Loans Support Center lets borrowers with defaulted federal loans [1]:
\nBorrowers can complete a rehabilitation application online, upload documents, see an estimated payment, sign electronically and track progress without leaving StudentAid.gov [1]. The portal can be reached at studentaid.gov/default-support [1].
\nThe Department described the scale of the problem in stark terms. It said more than 5 million borrowers have been in default for more than six years, and an additional 5 million went into default in less than a year [1]. It also reported a 69 percent increase in approved loan rehabilitation applications since the Education and Treasury partnership launched, and a 95 percent increase in consolidations out of default after a technical problem was corrected [1]. In beta testing, 89 percent of users said the application was easy to complete [1].
\nThe portal centers on the two main exits from default, and the choice between them is worth thinking through.
\nRehabilitation is an agreement with the loan holder to make a series of payments, after which the loan returns to good standing [1]. Consolidation pays off the defaulted loans with a new Direct Consolidation Loan, which then goes into a repayment plan [1][2]. The Department’s guidance on the interest rate reduction notes that borrowers in default who want that benefit must log in to StudentAid.gov, consolidate their eligible loans, and apply for a new repayment plan before enrolling in auto pay [2].
\nOn September 29, the Department extended the enrollment period for its temporary 1 percent interest rate reduction by three months [2]. Borrowers who enroll in auto pay by December 31, 2026, or who are already enrolled, keep the reduction through June 30, 2028 [2]. Before July 1, 2026, the standard auto pay discount was 0.25 percent [2]. The benefit applies to Federal Direct Loans that originated after July 1, 2012, and is available to borrowers in default once they bring their loans back into good standing [2]. Nearly 2 million borrowers had enrolled in auto pay since the reduction was announced [2].
\nThe Department also tied auto pay to the new income-driven Repayment Assistance Plan (RAP), which depends on on-time payments; borrowers in RAP can receive a match on on-time payments so that interest does not accrue and balances decline [2]. Public Service Loan Forgiveness also requires 120 qualifying payments [2].
\nFor many South Florida households, a defaulted student loan is one obligation among several. Getting a federal loan out of default can restore access to repayment plans and benefits that default cuts off [1]. Before choosing a path, it helps to look at the full budget: whether a rehabilitation payment is realistic alongside rent, car payments and credit cards, and whether other debts are what is actually driving the default.
\nStudent loans are generally harder to discharge in bankruptcy than most other consumer debts, but bankruptcy can still change the picture by addressing other obligations and freeing up room in a monthly budget. Anyone in South Florida weighing their options can request a confidential consultation with The Roca Law Firm, in English or Spanish.
General information as of October 5, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.
", "image": "https://thelexbrief.com/og/defaulted-student-loans-support-center.jpg", "date_published": "2026-10-05T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-10-05T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Consumer Debt" ] }, { "id": "https://thelexbrief.com/port-royale-miami-beach-condo-buyout-five-percent-veto/", "url": "https://thelexbrief.com/port-royale-miami-beach-condo-buyout-five-percent-veto/", "title": "Port Royale Buyout Nears the Finish Line: Nine Units, a Five Percent Veto and the Case for Negotiating With Holdouts", "summary": "Kolter and BH Group now own 163 of 172 units at Port Royale in Miami Beach. How Florida's 5 percent rejection rule shapes the last stage of a condo buyout.", "content_html": "![\"An](\"https://thelexbrief.com/assets/img/blog-port-royale-miami-beach-condo-buyout-five-percent-veto-1024.webp\")
Another aging oceanfront condominium in Miami-Dade County is close to becoming a redevelopment site. As Commercial Observer reported on October 2, 2026, a joint venture of Kolter Group and BH Group has paid $61.6 million since July for 163 of the 172 units at Port Royale, the condominium at 6969 Collins Avenue in Miami Beach’s North Beach neighborhood, according to a Vizzda analysis of property records [1]. The developers plan to redevelop their assemblage into a luxury condominium complex [1]. With nine units outstanding, the deal has reached the stage where buyouts tend to succeed or stall.
\nPort Royale was built in 1971, and residents of the 172-unit building were evacuated in 2022 amid concerns over its structural integrity [2]. In July 2026, the venture bought 10 Port Royale units for about $3.8 million, and Vizzda said at the time that it expected the developers to buy the remaining units [2][3]. The same month, Kolter paid $14.4 million for the commercial condominium units of the neighboring Crystal Beach Suites hotel, adding to the Normandy Plaza Hotel the developers bought for $26 million in January [2][3]. Their earlier proposal for the hotel sites called for a 17-story building with 37 residences [3].
\nThe pace since July is notable. The venture’s July purchase covered 10 units, and by early October it held 163, after paying $61.6 million since July [1][2]. Individual owners, not the association, have been making those sale decisions.
\nFlorida’s Condominium Act explains why a buyer at 95 percent ownership still has work to do. Under section 718.117(3), an optional termination plan needs a yes vote from 80 percent or more of all voting interests before it is submitted to the Division of Florida Condominiums, Timeshares and Mobile Homes for approval [4]. But “if 5 percent or more of the total voting interests of the condominium have rejected the plan of termination by negative vote or by providing written objections, the plan of termination may not proceed” [4]. Voting interests may not be suspended for any reason in a termination vote, and a rejected plan cannot be reconsidered for 24 months [4].
\nAt Port Royale, 5 percent of 172 voting interests is 8.6. On those numbers, nine objecting units would meet the threshold, while eight would not, assuming each unit carries one equal vote [1][4]. That arithmetic gives the remaining owners real leverage, and it gives the developer a strong incentive to reach terms with enough of them before any plan is recorded.
\nThe statute also builds in protections that frame negotiations. When a bulk owner holds at least 80 percent of the voting interests at recording, owners in occupancy may lease back their former units for 12 months on market terms if they timely request it, and homestead owners receive a relocation payment equal to 1 percent of the termination proceeds allocated to their unit [4]. Bulk owners must also make sworn disclosures about the units they acquired and what they paid [4].
\nThe South Florida pattern is familiar: older buildings facing post-Surfside repair and reserve costs, developers assembling waterfront sites, and a small group of owners who hold the deciding votes. The Biscayne 21 settlement showed how expensive it becomes when that final gap is litigated rather than negotiated. For developers, holdout owners and the associations caught between them, a few points stand out:
\nBuyout negotiations with a handful of remaining owners are personal, financial and time-sensitive at once, which is where a neutral can help. Developers, owners and association counsel looking for a Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Civil Mediator can check Tony Roca’s live availability and book a mediation.
General information as of October 2, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.
", "image": "https://thelexbrief.com/og/port-royale-miami-beach-condo-buyout-five-percent-veto.jpg", "date_published": "2026-10-02T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-10-02T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Condo & HOA" ] }, { "id": "https://thelexbrief.com/built-green-environ-condominium-unpleaded-money-judgment/", "url": "https://thelexbrief.com/built-green-environ-condominium-unpleaded-money-judgment/", "title": "Fourth DCA Vacates a $66,704 Award to a Condo Association That Never Filed a Counterclaim: Built Green v. Environ Condominium II", "summary": "The Fourth DCA held a condo association cannot win a money judgment for unpaid assessments it pleaded only as a defense. Lessons for collection disputes.", "content_html": "![\"A](\"https://thelexbrief.com/assets/img/blog-built-green-environ-condominium-unpleaded-money-judgment-1024.webp\")
Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal has drawn a firm line for condominium associations that try to collect assessments as a by-product of someone else’s lawsuit. In Built Green Corp. v. Environ Condominium II, Association, Inc., decided September 23, 2026, the court reversed a $66,704.03 award to a Broward County association because the association never pleaded a counterclaim seeking that money [1]. For association counsel, unit owners and managers, the decision is a reminder that collection disputes have procedural rules that matter, and that years of litigation can still end without a collectible result.
\nBuilt Green bought a condominium unit at a tax deed sale in October 2019 [1]. It soon fell behind on special-assessment installments that came due after the sale, and the association began collection activity, including a demand for rent directed to the unit’s tenants [1]. Built Green took the position that the tax deed wiped out the association’s preexisting interest, and in February 2020 it filed a quiet title action [1]. That case ended with a judgment in Built Green’s favor as to pre-tax-deed debts, but it expressly preserved the association’s claims to assessments that came due after the tax deed and recognized that the declaration still encumbered the unit [1].
\nThe fight continued. In November 2021, Built Green sued again, seeking a declaration of what it owed and an accounting [1]. The association answered with affirmative defenses alleging delinquency and asked for “such other relief” the court deemed proper, but it filed no counterclaim [1]. After about three years of litigation, and after Built Green’s third lawyer withdrew, the trial court granted summary judgment for the association and awarded $66,704.03 in assessments, interest, attorney’s fees and costs [1].
\nThe Fourth District affirmed one part of the ruling. Built Green argued that the trial court should not have held the summary judgment hearing before the company, which could not appear without a lawyer, found new counsel [1]. The court found the issue unpreserved because the motion for more time was never set or ruled on, and in any event saw no abuse of discretion: the court had given 20 days to find counsel and the hearing took place about a month after withdrawal [1].
\nThe money award was another matter. A trial court “may not award relief that was neither requested in the pleadings nor tried by consent,” the court wrote, and a judgment granting relief wholly outside the pleadings is void [1]. The association’s allegations of delinquency could defeat Built Green’s request for a declaration that it owed nothing, but they “did not state an independent cause of action for a money judgment” [1]. A general prayer for judgment and attorney’s fees could not substitute for a counterclaim, and a summary judgment motion cannot enlarge the pleadings [1]. The court reversed the monetary award and remanded [1].
\nThe underlying debt does not disappear. Section 718.116 makes each owner responsible for every assessment that falls due during its ownership, no matter how it took title, and it lets an association pursue both a lien foreclosure and a separate suit for a money judgment, with reasonable attorney’s fees available in each [2]. What Built Green changes is how the association must ask:
\nDisputes over what a buyer at a tax deed or foreclosure sale owes are often arithmetic questions wrapped in years of procedure, which makes them strong candidates for early, structured negotiation. Association counsel and owners looking for a Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Civil Mediator can check Tony Roca’s live availability and book a mediation.
General information as of September 28, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.
", "image": "https://thelexbrief.com/og/built-green-environ-condominium-unpleaded-money-judgment.jpg", "date_published": "2026-09-28T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-09-28T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Condo & HOA" ] }, { "id": "https://thelexbrief.com/medical-debt-credit-reports-florida-protections/", "url": "https://thelexbrief.com/medical-debt-credit-reports-florida-protections/", "title": "Medical Debt and Credit Reports in 2026: Where Florida Stands as Other States Act and Preemption Fights Grow", "summary": "Fifteen states and D.C. now limit medical debt on credit reports, but Florida is not one of them. Florida patients still have collection protections worth knowing.", "content_html": "![\"An](\"https://thelexbrief.com/assets/img/blog-medical-debt-credit-reports-florida-protections-1024.webp\")
Medical bills are rarely planned and often disputed, which is why their place on credit reports has become a policy fight. On September 21, 2026, the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) updated its national review of the issue [1]. The headline for Florida readers is mixed: a growing list of states now limit how medical debt appears on credit reports, Florida is not on that list, and the federal rule that would have helped everyone was vacated in 2025 [1]. Florida does, however, have its own rules on how hospitals collect, and those rules matter for anyone sorting through medical debt.
\nAbout 15 million consumers have medical debt on their credit reports, according to figures NCLC cites, and studies have found that medical debt has little or no value in predicting whether someone will repay other debts [1]. Since 2022, the three nationwide credit bureaus have voluntarily excluded medical debt that is less than one year delinquent, removed paid medical debt, and stopped reporting medical collections under $500 [1].
\nNCLC counts fifteen states and the District of Columbia with laws that ban or restrict medical debt in credit reports, including California, New York, Maryland and, most recently, D.C., whose law took effect August 20, 2026 [1]. Florida is not among them [1].
\nAt the federal level, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued a rule in January 2025 that would have barred medical debt from credit reports used for lending decisions, but a federal court in Texas vacated it in July 2025, finding it exceeded the agency’s authority [1]. The state laws now face their own challenge. In August 2026, a federal court in Texas held that the Fair Credit Reporting Act preempts a Texas law barring the reporting of surprise medical bills, while other federal appeals courts have read preemption more narrowly [1]. NCLC notes that the CFPB issued a non-binding interpretive rule in October 2025 taking the view that federal law preempts state limits, and that the question is ultimately one for the courts [1].
\nFlorida took a different route. In 2024, the Legislature passed CS/HB 7089, signed and filed on May 10, 2024, and effective July 1, 2024 [2]. Several provisions apply to debt for care at hospitals and other facilities licensed under chapter 395:
\nUnder the law as amended in 2025, a facility may not take those actions before it has made reasonable efforts to decide whether the patient qualifies for financial assistance, before it has provided an itemized bill, during a pending billing grievance or insurance appeal, before billing the insurer, or within 30 days after written notice that collection will begin [3]. It also may not do so while the patient negotiates the bill in good faith or keeps up with a payment plan [3]. The 2025 change, filed May 27, 2025, allows a facility to sell the debt during the 30-day window only under a contract that bars interest, fees and other extraordinary collection actions by the buyer [3].
\nFor anyone in South Florida carrying hospital debt, a few steps follow from these rules. Ask for an itemized bill and a financial assistance application before paying or agreeing to a plan [3]. Use the facility’s grievance process if charges look wrong, since collection action is restricted while a grievance is pending [3]. Check credit reports to confirm that paid debts and balances under $500 are not listed, consistent with the bureaus’ voluntary policies [1]. And note the date a debt was sent to collections, because that starts the three-year clock for a hospital debt lawsuit [2].
\nWhen medical bills sit alongside credit cards, a car loan or a mortgage, the question becomes how the whole picture fits together. Medical debt is generally unsecured debt, and the exemptions and timelines above can shape the choice between negotiating, a payment plan, or a bankruptcy filing.
\nAnyone in South Florida weighing their options can request a confidential consultation with The Roca Law Firm, in English or Spanish.
General information as of September 24, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.
", "image": "https://thelexbrief.com/og/medical-debt-credit-reports-florida-protections.jpg", "date_published": "2026-09-24T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-09-24T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Consumer Debt" ] }, { "id": "https://thelexbrief.com/fed-holds-rates-energy-inflation-april-2026/", "url": "https://thelexbrief.com/fed-holds-rates-energy-inflation-april-2026/", "title": "The Fed Holds Rates Again as Energy Prices Push Inflation Higher: What It Means for Borrowers", "summary": "The Federal Reserve kept its benchmark rate at 3.5 to 3.75 percent on April 29 as a jump in energy prices lifted inflation to 3.3 percent.", "content_html": "![\"A](\"https://thelexbrief.com/assets/img/blog-fed-holds-rates-energy-inflation-april-2026-1024.webp\")
Update, September 18, 2026: On September 16, 2026, the Federal Reserve raised the target range for the federal funds rate by a quarter percentage point, to 3.75 to 4 percent, ending the run of holds described here. See the follow-up article.
The Federal Reserve left interest rates unchanged on April 29, 2026, keeping the target range for the federal funds rate at 3.5 to 3.75 percent [1]. It was the second consecutive meeting without a change, following a hold at the same level on March 18 [3]. For households carrying credit card balances, adjustable-rate loans or home equity lines, the message is that meaningful rate relief is not arriving soon.
\nThe Federal Open Market Committee said economic activity “has been expanding at a solid pace,” while hiring stayed weak on average and joblessness held roughly steady [1]. It described inflation as elevated, “in part reflecting the recent increase in global energy prices,” and it pointed to events in the Middle East as a major source of uncertainty about where the economy is headed [1].
\nThe inflation data behind that language were striking. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported on April 10 that the Consumer Price Index rose 0.9 percent in March on a seasonally adjusted basis, after a 0.3 percent increase in February [2]. Over the 12 months ending in March, prices rose 3.3 percent, up from 2.4 percent for the 12 months ending in February [2]. The energy index jumped 10.9 percent in a single month, led by a 21.2 percent increase in gasoline, which accounted for nearly three quarters of the monthly increase [2].
\nOutside food and energy, the picture was calmer. Core prices rose 0.2 percent in March and 2.6 percent over the year [2]. Shelter costs rose 0.3 percent for the month [2].
\nThe April decision drew four dissents. Stephen Miran preferred a quarter-point cut [1]. Beth Hammack, Neel Kashkari and Lorie Logan supported holding rates but did not support including an easing bias in the statement [1]. In March, by contrast, Miran was the only dissenter [3]. The split shows policymakers pulling in different directions: some see room to cut, while others are wary of signaling cuts while inflation is rising [1].
\nBefore making any further adjustments, the Fed said, it “will carefully assess incoming data, the evolving outlook and the balance of risks” [1].
\nFor South Florida families, the combination of steady rates and rising prices squeezes from two sides. Higher gasoline prices [2] raise the cost of commuting in a region where many workers drive long distances, while borrowing costs tied to the federal funds rate stay where they have been [1].
\nHouseholds already stretched can take practical steps:
\nThe Fed’s next steps will depend on whether the energy-driven jump in prices fades or spreads into the rest of the economy [1][2]. Families cannot control that outcome, but they can control how quickly they respond to their own numbers.
\nAnyone in South Florida weighing their options can request a confidential consultation with The Roca Law Firm, in English or Spanish.
General information as of September 18, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.
", "image": "https://thelexbrief.com/og/fed-holds-rates-energy-inflation-april-2026.jpg", "date_published": "2026-05-01T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-09-18T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Economy" ] }, { "id": "https://thelexbrief.com/fed-raises-rates-september-2026-borrowers/", "url": "https://thelexbrief.com/fed-raises-rates-september-2026-borrowers/", "title": "The Fed Raises Rates in September 2026: What a Higher Cost of Borrowing Means for Florida Households", "summary": "The Federal Reserve raised its benchmark rate to 3.75 to 4 percent as inflation stays above target. Here is how the increase reaches credit cards and loans.", "content_html": "![\"A](\"https://thelexbrief.com/assets/img/blog-fed-raises-rates-september-2026-borrowers-1024.webp\")
On September 16, the Federal Reserve’s Federal Open Market Committee voted 12 to 0 to raise the target range for the federal funds rate by one quarter of a percentage point, to 3.75 to 4 percent [1]. The Committee’s statement described growth as solid and joblessness as roughly flat, while noting that “inflation remains elevated,” and it described the increase as supporting a timelier return to its 2 percent goal [1].
\nFor many households, the decision is less about monetary policy and more about the monthly statement. A higher federal funds rate tends to push up the rates on credit cards, home equity lines and other variable-rate debt.
\nAt his press conference, Chairman Kevin Warsh said inflation has been running above target for more than five years and that the summer’s readings did not show a meaningful improvement in underlying trends [2]. He estimated that total PCE prices rose about 3.6 percent over the 12 months through August [2].
\nConsumer price data released days earlier pointed the same way. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the Consumer Price Index rose 0.4 percent in August and 3.4 percent over the prior 12 months [3]. Gasoline rose 3.9 percent in the month and accounted for more than one third of the overall increase, and the energy index was up 16.3 percent over the year [3]. Food prices rose 2.7 percent over the year, and the shelter index rose 0.3 percent in August [3].
\nFor a South Florida family that commutes by car and pays a high share of income toward housing, those categories matter more than the headline average.
\nThe federal funds rate is the rate banks charge one another overnight, but many consumer loans are tied to it indirectly:
\nA quarter point on its own is modest. The concern is the combination: higher interest on revolving balances arriving at the same time that fuel and other everyday costs are rising [3]. The Fed’s statement also signaled that the Committee “will deliver price stability” [1], and Mr. Warsh described the standard for future action as confidence that underlying inflation is moving to the objective “clearly and at sufficient speed” [2], which leaves room for rates to stay higher for some time.
\nHouseholds carrying balances may want to review which debts are variable and which are fixed, contact card issuers about hardship programs before missing a payment, and avoid using new credit to cover recurring expenses. When minimum payments mostly cover interest, balances can stop going down even with steady payments.
\nFor some people, the math no longer works. Bankruptcy is a legal process designed for that situation. Chapter 7 can eliminate qualifying unsecured debts such as credit cards, and Chapter 13 can consolidate debts into a court-supervised plan, often at a lower effective cost than continuing to carry high-rate balances. Whether either chapter is appropriate depends on income, assets and goals, and it is a decision best made with full information.
\nAnyone in South Florida concerned about rising payments can request a confidential consultation with The Roca Law Firm, in English or Spanish, to review the options.
General information as of September 18, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.
", "image": "https://thelexbrief.com/og/fed-raises-rates-september-2026-borrowers.jpg", "date_published": "2026-09-18T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-09-18T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Economy" ] }, { "id": "https://thelexbrief.com/univabs-radiology-group-eleventh-circuit-arbitration-award/", "url": "https://thelexbrief.com/univabs-radiology-group-eleventh-circuit-arbitration-award/", "title": "Eleventh Circuit Confirms Arbitration Award: Interpretation, Not Modification, and the FAA Applies Unless the Contract Clearly Says Otherwise", "summary": "In Univabs v. The Radiology Group, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a $620,000 award and held a Georgia choice-of-law clause did not displace the FAA.", "content_html": "![\"An](\"https://thelexbrief.com/assets/img/blog-univabs-radiology-group-eleventh-circuit-arbitration-award-1024.webp\")
Parties who lose in arbitration often try two familiar arguments on the way to federal court: that the arbitrator rewrote the contract instead of reading it, and that some body of law other than the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) should govern review. On September 10, 2026, the Eleventh Circuit rejected both in Univabs Solutions Private Limited v. The Radiology Group, LLC, an unpublished per curiam decision affirming confirmation of an award [1]. Law360 reported the award at $620,000 [2]. Although the opinion is not precedential, it is a clear restatement of how narrow award review is in the circuit that covers Florida, and it carries drafting lessons for anyone negotiating dispute resolution clauses.
\nUnivabs, an Indian company, provided radiology services to The Radiology Group (TRG) from 2012 to 2023 [1]. One of TRG’s managers, who handled finances and vendor payments, was also connected to Univabs [1]. When Univabs demanded arbitration for unpaid services, TRG counterclaimed that the manager had used inside knowledge to overcharge it [1]. The arbitrator read TRG’s operating agreement, which said certain managers could have other business interests and would incur no liability for them, as relieving the manager of fiduciary duties to TRG [1]. The arbitrator denied the counterclaims and ruled for Univabs [1]. The district court confirmed the award and denied TRG’s motion to vacate [1].
\nTRG argued that the services agreement’s choice-of-law clause, which called for Georgia law, brought in the Georgia Arbitration Act [1]. The panel disagreed on two grounds. First, the arbitrator’s preliminary hearing order stated that the AAA rules and the FAA would apply, and nothing in the record showed TRG objected, so the argument was waived [1]. Second, under Gulfstream Aerospace v. Oceltip Aviation, a general choice of state law does not displace the FAA; the clause here specified the AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules and never mentioned the Georgia statute [1]. The court quoted Gulfstream’s summary: if parties want certain rules to apply to the handling of an arbitration, “the contract must say so clearly and unmistakably. Otherwise, the Federal Arbitration Act (‘FAA’) will apply” [1].
\nOn the merits, TRG argued the arbitrator exceeded his powers under 9 U.S.C. \u00a7 10(a)(4) by modifying the operating agreement [1]. The panel repeated that the courts’ power to second-guess an arbitrator is limited, describing that standard of review as “among the narrowest known to the law” and that arbitrators do not exceed their powers by making errors, even serious ones [1]. The only question is whether the arbitrator interpreted the agreement or abandoned it [1].
\nApplying its Wiregrass framework, the court looked for the hallmarks of interpretation: textual analysis, use of evidence of the parties’ intent, and characterization of the task as interpretation [1]. The arbitrator had parsed the provision, contrasted the duties of named managers with those of the unnamed manager, and tied his reading to the parties’ intent [1]. That was interpretation, and the court emphasized in a footnote that its review does not extend to whether the interpretation was correct [1]. It also denied Univabs’s motion for sanctions [1].
\nSeveral practical points follow for counsel in Florida, where the Eleventh Circuit hears federal appeals:
\nThose limits shape settlement value. When an award is this difficult to disturb, the most meaningful chance to influence the outcome comes before the hearing, through careful clause drafting and a realistic look at the merits. Mediation before or during arbitration gives parties a way to test their positions and keep control of the result, rather than relying on post-award motions that the courts review so narrowly.
\nCounsel looking for a Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Civil Mediator for a commercial or contract dispute can check Tony Roca’s live availability and book a mediation.
General information as of September 11, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.
", "image": "https://thelexbrief.com/og/univabs-radiology-group-eleventh-circuit-arbitration-award.jpg", "date_published": "2026-09-11T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-09-11T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Litigation" ] }, { "id": "https://thelexbrief.com/north-shore-lake-hart-hoa-election-arbitration-stalled/", "url": "https://thelexbrief.com/north-shore-lake-hart-hoa-election-arbitration-stalled/", "title": "An HOA Postpones Elections While Appealing a State Arbitrator: What the North Shore at Lake Hart Fight Shows About Florida HOA Dispute Forums", "summary": "An Orange County HOA has delayed board elections for two years while appealing a DBPR arbitration order. Why the forum chosen for an HOA dispute matters.", "content_html": "![\"An](\"https://thelexbrief.com/assets/img/blog-north-shore-lake-hart-hoa-election-arbitration-stalled-1024.webp\")
A homeowners association in southeast Orange County has now gone two years without a board election while it appeals a state arbitrator’s order, and the case is a useful reminder that the choice of forum in a Florida HOA dispute can shape the outcome as much as the merits. As reported on September 10, 2026, the North Shore at Lake Hart HOA, which governs about 1,049 homes, has postponed its annual board elections for a second consecutive year while it challenges an order requiring a new election, leaving the sitting board in place [1].
\nIn 2023, homeowner Miriam Burtoff petitioned the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR), alleging that the association had amended its bylaws in 2021 to disqualify owners involved in litigation with the HOA from running for the board [1][2]. After two days of hearings, a DBPR arbitrator issued a December 2023 order calling for a fresh vote on all five board seats. The arbitrator concluded that candidates had been improperly kept off the ballot and described a “history” of “improper conduct of elections and board meetings” [2]. In April 2024, a circuit judge in Orange County confirmed that order [1][2].
\nAbout seven months later, the association sought review in the Sixth District Court of Appeal, arguing that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by ordering a five-seat election when only one seat was on the ballot at the May 2023 annual meeting [1][2]. According to the association, the vote will wait until the litigation is resolved in the courts [2]. At the 2026 annual meeting, which dozens of owners attended despite the announced postponement, the meeting was adjourned for lack of a quorum [2].
\nThe broader point, as HOA Weekly put it, is that a DBPR arbitration order is not self-executing, and an appeal can leave an owner’s remedy on hold for years, and in the meantime the same board the arbitrator faulted stays in office [1].
\nChapter 720 sends different HOA disputes down different paths. Under section 720.311(1), DBPR conducts binding arbitration of election and recall disputes between a member and an association, and the statute states that election and recall disputes “are not eligible for presuit mediation” and must be arbitrated by the department or filed in court [3]. The petitioner pays a filing fee of at least $200, and the prevailing party recovers reasonable costs and attorney’s fees [3].
\nA much larger category goes to presuit mediation instead. Section 720.311(2)(a) requires a written demand for presuit mediation before filing suit over disputes about use of or changes to a parcel or the common areas, other covenant enforcement, amendments to association documents, board and committee meetings, membership meetings other than election meetings, and access to official records [3]. Assessment and fine collection is excluded, and a party needing emergency relief may seek a temporary injunction first [3]. The statute’s required demand form warns that a party who refuses to participate in the mediation process “will not be entitled to recover attorney’s fees, even if you prevail” [3].
\nSeveral practical lessons follow for associations and the lawyers who advise them:
\nCommunities stuck in long governance fights often find that the fight itself becomes the main expense. Associations, owners and counsel looking for a Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Civil Mediator for a section 720.311 presuit mediation or another HOA or condominium dispute can check Tony Roca’s live availability and book a mediation.
General information as of September 10, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.
", "image": "https://thelexbrief.com/og/north-shore-lake-hart-hoa-election-arbitration-stalled.jpg", "date_published": "2026-09-10T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-09-10T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Condo & HOA" ] }, { "id": "https://thelexbrief.com/biscayne-21-condo-termination-settlement/", "url": "https://thelexbrief.com/biscayne-21-condo-termination-settlement/", "title": "Biscayne 21 Settles After Three Years: What the Condo Termination Fight Teaches About Resolving Buyout Disputes", "summary": "Two Roads and the Biscayne 21 holdouts settled for about $50 million after a Third DCA loss. The case shows the cost of letting a termination dispute run its course.", "content_html": "![\"An](\"https://thelexbrief.com/assets/img/blog-biscayne-21-condo-termination-settlement-1024.webp\")
One of South Florida’s most closely watched condominium disputes has ended at the negotiating table. Two Roads Development settled with the holdout owners at Biscayne 21, the bayfront Edgewater building it bought into in 2022, and the deal closed on Monday, August 31, 2026 [1]. A source told The Real Deal that the developer paid about $50 million for the remaining units, and the resolution still needs court approval [1]. For counsel who handle association, redevelopment and real property disputes, the case is a useful study in how a contested termination can become far more expensive than the gap that started it.
\nBiscayne 21 is a 192-unit building at 2121 North Bayshore Drive [1]. In 2022, an affiliate of Two Roads paid about $150 million for a majority of the units, financed in part by a senior loan from Bank OZK [1]. After buying units in bulk, the developer used its voting power to take control of the association board [3].
\nThe 1974 declaration required the unanimous agreement of unit owners to terminate the condominium, and it required 100 percent approval for any amendment altering owners’ voting rights [3]. In August 2022 the developer-controlled board amended the declaration to replace unanimity with the 80 percent statutory threshold, then approved a plan of termination over the objection of the remaining owners and conveyed the property, including their units, to the developer in December 2022 [3]. Ten owners sued in 2023 [1].
\nThe trial court denied a temporary injunction, reasoning that changing the termination threshold did not affect voting rights [3]. On rehearing in July 2025, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed. It held that an amendment changing the termination vote from 100 percent to 80 percent impacts the voting rights of the unit owners, because the original requirement gave each owner an effective veto [3]. The court also found that the declaration’s general reference to the Condominium Act “as amended” was not Kaufman language that would automatically pull later statutory changes into the declaration [3]. It remanded for entry of a temporary injunction and certified a question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court [3], which declined to hear the case in October 2025 [1].
\nFrom there, the pressure shifted to the developer. In January 2026, a Miami-Dade circuit judge ordered the building restored to a habitable condition, including utilities such as air conditioning, water and electricity [1]. The developer then sued the holdouts in February seeking equitable relief that included terminating the association [1]. Meanwhile, the owners had lost access to their units when the building became uninhabitable in 2023 and had not been paid until the settlement closed [1].
\nThe most striking detail for anyone who resolves disputes for a living came from one of the holdouts. Robert H. Murphy, an attorney and unit owner, told The Real Deal that in early 2021 he asked for roughly a third more than he was offered, and that two owners never received a response [2]. In his view, the developer could have avoided the litigation by paying him and a neighbor a combined $600,000 to $700,000 above the bulk sale price [2]. The developer’s position is different: Taylor Collins of Two Roads called the settlement a relief and urged the Legislature to create “a clear, fair and predictable process” for terminating condominium associations [1][2].
\nWhatever the merits, the arithmetic is hard to ignore. The developer carried millions of dollars in interest on its buyout financing while the case ran [1], buyers of the planned project sued over their deposits [2], and the holdouts had no access to their units from 2023 until the deal closed [1]. Their attorney, Glen Waldman, said the settlement gives his clients a better quality of life, noting they still faced years of litigation [2].
\nSeveral lessons carry over to other buyout and termination disputes:
\nTermination fights involve owners’ homes, lenders and construction timelines at once, which makes a neutral forum valuable well before the courthouse becomes the only option. Counsel looking for a Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Civil Mediator for a condominium or association dispute can check Tony Roca’s live availability and book a mediation.
General information as of September 3, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.
", "image": "https://thelexbrief.com/og/biscayne-21-condo-termination-settlement.jpg", "date_published": "2026-09-03T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-09-03T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Florida Law" ] }, { "id": "https://thelexbrief.com/operation-sundown-miami-dade-condo-fraud-owners-assessments/", "url": "https://thelexbrief.com/operation-sundown-miami-dade-condo-fraud-owners-assessments/", "title": "Operation Sundown: When Condo Money Is Stolen, Owners Still Face the Bills", "summary": "Six people were charged with stealing $5.8 million from Miami-Dade condo associations. Owners in those buildings still owe fees and special assessments.", "content_html": "![\"A](\"https://thelexbrief.com/assets/img/blog-operation-sundown-miami-dade-condo-fraud-owners-assessments-1024.webp\")
On August 27, 2026, the Miami-Dade Sheriff’s Office announced the arrest of six people accused of stealing at least $5.8 million from condominium associations, the result of a two-year investigation [1]. Sheriff Rosie Cordero-Stutz said the losses could be significantly higher [1][2]. For owners in the affected buildings, the case raises an uncomfortable question: when association money disappears, who pays for the roof, the gate and the repairs that never happened?
\nAccording to the sheriff’s office, the alleged ringleader, 60-year-old Juan Awais, used his property management companies and his relationships with board members to control the associations’ operations and finances [2]. Investigators said many of the volunteer board members were elderly and primarily Spanish-speaking [1][2]. The group is accused of billing for services already paid for, billing for work never done and moving money into personal accounts through falsified invoices [1][2]. One suspect is accused of keeping hundreds of thousands of dollars from insurance money that was supposed to fund post-Hurricane Irma repairs at a building [1].
\nThe associations named were Mira Villa, Los Sue\u00f1os, Samari Lake East, Lago Grande and Country Lake Manors, mostly in Hialeah [1][2]. The six defendants face charges that include grand theft, organized fraud, money laundering and racketeering [1]. At this stage these are charges, not convictions, and the investigation remains active [1][2].
\nOne Los Sue\u00f1os resident of 24 years told CBS News Miami that projects are unfinished, the entrance gate is broken and security cameras do not work properly [2]. His unit is paid off, but he still pays a $340 monthly fee plus a $200 special assessment [2]. The sheriff put it directly: “Your monthly association fees and special assessments are your hard-earned money. You have every right to know where that money is going” [1].
\nA theft from the association does not suspend an owner’s obligation to pay. Under section 718.116, a unit owner owes all assessments that come due while the owner holds title, and it gives the association a lien on the unit as security for those amounts [4]. The association may foreclose that lien the way a mortgage is foreclosed, may also sue for a money judgment, and may recover its attorney’s fees [4]. When stolen funds must be replaced, the gap usually shows up as higher dues or a special assessment, and an owner who falls behind can face the same collection process as any other delinquency.
\nFlorida law does build in some protection. Section 718.111 requires a condominium association to maintain insurance or fidelity bonding for everyone who controls or disburses association funds, in an amount covering the maximum funds held by the association or its management agent at any one time [3]. Owners also have a right to inspect and copy the official records, and an association that willfully fails to provide access within 10 working days of a written request faces minimum damages of $50 per day for up to 10 days [3]. Asking whether the association has made a claim on its bond or crime policy is a reasonable first question.
\nOwners hit with a new assessment on top of regular dues should contact the association early and ask about installment terms before late fees and legal fees are added. If the association moves toward foreclosure, Chapter 13 bankruptcy can stop the case: the automatic stay halts a foreclosure when the petition is filed, and the owner can then bring past due amounts current over a three to five year plan [5]. The stay does not undo a foreclosure sale that was completed under state law before filing [5].
\nUnit owners in Miami-Dade and across South Florida who are behind on association fees or facing a special assessment they cannot pay can request a confidential consultation with The Roca Law Firm.
General information as of August 31, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.
", "image": "https://thelexbrief.com/og/operation-sundown-miami-dade-condo-fraud-owners-assessments.jpg", "date_published": "2026-08-31T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-08-31T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Condo & HOA" ] }, { "id": "https://thelexbrief.com/waterfront-naples-rule-1820-trial-de-novo/", "url": "https://thelexbrief.com/waterfront-naples-rule-1820-trial-de-novo/", "title": "No Magic Words: Sixth District Splits With Third and Fourth on Rejecting Non-Binding Arbitration Awards", "summary": "The Sixth District held that a timely request for trial de novo can reject a non-binding arbitration award under Rule 1.820(h), certifying conflict with two districts.", "content_html": "![\"A](\"https://thelexbrief.com/assets/img/blog-waterfront-naples-rule-1820-trial-de-novo-1024.webp\")
Court-ordered non-binding arbitration is supposed to be a low-risk step toward resolution. A losing party who wants a trial simply asks for one. Since 2024, however, the way that request is worded has become a trap. On August 21, 2026, Florida’s Sixth District Court of Appeal held in The Waterfront in Naples Condominium Association, Inc. v. Reynolds Ventures, Inc. that a timely request for trial de novo gave adequate notice that the association rejected the arbitration award, even without the words “notice of rejection” [1]. The court certified conflict with decisions of the Third and Fourth Districts [1].
\nIn June 2024, the Florida Supreme Court retitled Rule 1.820(h) “Notice of Rejection of the Arbitration Decision and Request for Trial” [2]. Under the amended rule, the arbitration decision counts as rejected only when a party files a “notice of rejection of the arbitration decision and request for trial” no more than 20 days after the arbitrator’s written decision is served [2]. The rule also states that no action or inaction, other than filing the notice, will be deemed a rejection [1].
\nThe Fourth District applied that language strictly in People’s Trust Insurance Co. v. Hernandez, holding that a homeowners’ demand for trial de novo was not enough without an express rejection [1]. The Third District followed in Sanchez v. People’s Trust Insurance Co., declining to apply a substantial compliance test [1].
\nThe association’s Naples condominium was damaged in Hurricane Ian, and it hired Reynolds Ventures for water and mold remediation [1]. When the association refused to pay the final invoice, Reynolds recorded a construction lien and sued for breach of contract, lien foreclosure and unjust enrichment [1]. The case went to non-binding arbitration, and 20 days after the decision, the association filed a “Motion and Request for Trial De Novo” citing section 44.103(5) and Rule 1.820(h), “as to all claims” [1].
\nThe parties then kept litigating. Reynolds amended its complaint, and the association filed counterclaims, an exhibit list and a pretrial statement [1]. At a hearing on a different motion, the trial judge raised the amended rule on her own, ruled that the filing had to be called a rejection, unsealed the award and entered judgment on it [1].
\nThe Sixth District reversed and remanded for a trial on the merits [1]. Applying textualist principles, the court declined to adopt what it called a “magic-words test” [1]. It noted that the rule requires “a notice,” not a specific form of notice, and that the words “notice of rejection” are not defined, quoted or capitalized in the rule [1]. Using ordinary dictionary meanings, the court concluded that a document requesting trial de novo from a specific award “as to all claims” announced that the association refused to accept the decision [1].
\nThe court emphasized that it was not reviving substantial compliance based on a party’s conduct; its holding turned on the content of a document timely filed under the rule [1]. It also found that the association complied with section 44.103(5), which makes an award final only if a request for trial de novo is not timely filed [1].
\nThe law is unsettled. A proposal pending before the Florida Supreme Court in Case No. SC2026-0040 would require only a written request for trial to reject an arbitrator’s decision and would direct that a timely request “be construed so as to do substantial justice” [3]. Until the Court acts, the safest course is plain:
\nCounsel looking for a Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Civil Mediator for construction, condominium or insurance disputes can check Tony Roca’s live availability and book a mediation by Zoom statewide.
General information as of August 24, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.
", "image": "https://thelexbrief.com/og/waterfront-naples-rule-1820-trial-de-novo.jpg", "date_published": "2026-08-24T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-08-24T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Mediation" ] }, { "id": "https://thelexbrief.com/florida-leads-nation-hoa-condo-assessment-liens-2025/", "url": "https://thelexbrief.com/florida-leads-nation-hoa-condo-assessment-liens-2025/", "title": "Florida Led the Nation in HOA and Condo Liens in 2025: What a Claim of Lien Means for an Owner Behind on Assessments", "summary": "Florida associations filed 49,447 liens in 2025, more than any state. Here is how a lien for unpaid assessments works and what options owners have.", "content_html": "![\"A](\"https://thelexbrief.com/assets/img/blog-florida-leads-nation-hoa-condo-assessment-liens-2025-1024.webp\")
Florida homeowners and condominium associations recorded more liens against owners in 2025 than associations in any other state. On August 14, 2026, the USA TODAY Network-Florida reported that Florida accounted for 49,447 of the 284,933 association lien filings nationwide, more than 1 in 6, citing a report by real estate data firm Benutech [1]. Texas was second with 37,506 and California third with 22,602 [1]. Nationally, filings rose 8.5 percent from 2024 and were nearly double the 157,512 recorded in 2021 [1]. Florida’s count was also up from 45,012 in 2024 [1].
\nBenutech’s Brian Fox pointed to three Florida factors: one of the highest concentrations of associations per capita, rising insurance costs, and post-Surfside safety mandates [1]. He said reserve study and structural inspection requirements mean associations can no longer waive or defer reserve funding, and those assessments hit owners immediately [1]. A University of Florida real estate professor described owners “sandwiched” between paying for decades of deferred maintenance and funding future reserves at the same time [1]. A Daytona Beach owner told the paper his building’s fees run $10,000 a year before electricity [1].
\nThe trend is not new for Florida. Benutech’s data showed Florida associations filed 103,359 liens in 2010, about 41 percent of the national total, before the count fell to a low of 22,812 in 2021 [1].
\nFor condominiums, section 718.116 gives the association a lien on each unit to secure payment of assessments, and an owner is personally liable for assessments that come due while the owner holds title [2]. A claim of lien expires one year after recording unless the association files an action to enforce it within that time [2]. The association can foreclose the lien the way a mortgage is foreclosed and can also sue for a money judgment, and it may recover reasonable attorney’s fees in either action [2]. Before any foreclosure judgment, the owner must have received the association’s written notice of intent to foreclose no fewer than 45 days earlier [2].
\nFor homeowners associations, section 720.3085 requires a written notice of intent to record a claim of lien that gives the owner 45 days to pay before the lien is recorded [3]. In both settings, partial payments are applied first to interest, then late fees, then collection costs and attorney’s fees, and only then to the assessment itself [2][3]. That order is why a modest delinquency can grow quickly once a collection lawyer is involved.
\nWaiting rarely helps. Early contact with the association or its collection counsel may produce a payment plan before fees pile up. When that fails, bankruptcy can change the timeline. The filing of a Chapter 13 case triggers an automatic stay that stops a foreclosure, and the owner may then bring past due payments current over a reasonable period under a plan lasting three to five years [4]. The stay does not help if the foreclosure sale is completed under state law before the petition is filed [4].
\nOwners should also understand a limit. Federal bankruptcy law does not discharge association fees or assessments that come due after the bankruptcy is filed, for as long as the debtor keeps an ownership or possessory interest in the unit or lot [5]. Assessments that arose before the filing are treated differently [5]. Anyone planning to keep the home has to budget for the ongoing assessments as well as the arrears.
\nOwners in South Florida facing a claim of lien, a special assessment they cannot pay or an association foreclosure can request a confidential consultation with The Roca Law Firm.
General information as of August 20, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.
", "image": "https://thelexbrief.com/og/florida-leads-nation-hoa-condo-assessment-liens-2025.jpg", "date_published": "2026-08-20T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-08-20T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Condo & HOA" ] }, { "id": "https://thelexbrief.com/household-debt-q2-2026-credit-card-auto-delinquencies/", "url": "https://thelexbrief.com/household-debt-q2-2026-credit-card-auto-delinquencies/", "title": "Household Debt Dips in Q2 2026, but New Credit Card and Auto Delinquencies Stay Elevated", "summary": "The New York Fed's Q2 2026 report shows total debt edging down while credit card and auto balances grow. What the numbers mean for South Florida borrowers.", "content_html": "![\"A](\"https://thelexbrief.com/assets/img/blog-household-debt-q2-2026-credit-card-auto-delinquencies-1024.webp\")
Total household debt in the United States slipped slightly in the second quarter of 2026, but the headline number hides a more uneven picture. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York reported on August 11 that household debt fell by $13 billion, or 0.1 percent, to $18.8 trillion [1]. The decline came almost entirely from mortgages, which dropped by $74 billion. Meanwhile, credit card balances rose by $21 billion to $1.26 trillion and auto loan balances grew by $28 billion to $1.71 trillion [1].
\nFor families already stretched, the categories that grew are the ones that tend to cause the most trouble: revolving credit card debt and car payments.
\nThe overall share of debt in some stage of delinquency improved slightly, to 4.7 percent [1]. New York Fed economic policy advisor Joelle Scally noted that delinquency rates across most products have held steady for two years, but said that “new delinquencies for auto loans and credit cards remain at elevated levels” [1].
\nThe report’s flow data shows how much debt newly became 90 or more days late over the past year:
\nTransitions into early delinquency also rose slightly for auto loans and mortgages during the quarter [1]. Student loans were an exception to the steady trend, with the re-reporting of defaulted federal student debt continuing to distort the numbers [1].
\nAn accompanying analysis from New York Fed researchers addressed a confusing point. The share of credit card balances that are 90 or more days delinquent rose from 7.6 percent in the third quarter of 2022 to 12.8 percent in the first quarter of 2026, a jump that has drawn comparisons to the Great Recession [2]. The researchers found that the rise in that “stock” measure is driven largely by a pool of stale, charged-off debts that lenders are reporting for longer periods, rather than a sharp increase in new delinquencies, which have been relatively stable for nearly two years [2].
\nThat is reassuring at the national level. For an individual, though, a charged-off account that keeps appearing on a credit report is not an abstraction. It can mean collection calls, a lawsuit, a judgment and, in Florida, the possibility of bank account garnishment.
\nSeveral practical points follow from the data:
\nBankruptcy is one option for people who cannot realistically repay unsecured debt. Chapter 7 can discharge many credit card and medical balances for those who qualify, while Chapter 13 can provide a structured plan to catch up on a car loan or mortgage while keeping the property. Other paths, such as negotiated settlements or hardship programs, may fit some households better. The right choice depends on income, assets and the type of debt involved.
\nIndividuals and families in South Florida who are falling behind can request a confidential consultation with The Roca Law Firm, available in English and Spanish, to review their options.
General information as of August 13, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.
", "image": "https://thelexbrief.com/og/household-debt-q2-2026-credit-card-auto-delinquencies.jpg", "date_published": "2026-08-13T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-08-13T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Consumer Debt" ] }, { "id": "https://thelexbrief.com/haught-eagle-palms-hoa-foreclosure-money-judgment/", "url": "https://thelexbrief.com/haught-eagle-palms-hoa-foreclosure-money-judgment/", "title": "Florida Appeals Court: An HOA Can Foreclose and Still Sue for Unpaid Assessments", "summary": "In Haught v. Eagle Palms, Florida's Second District held that an HOA may pursue both lien foreclosure and a money judgment for unpaid assessments.", "content_html": "![\"A](\"https://thelexbrief.com/assets/img/blog-haught-eagle-palms-hoa-foreclosure-money-judgment-1024.webp\")
Homeowners association dues can feel like a smaller bill than a mortgage or a car loan, but a new Florida appellate decision shows how serious unpaid assessments can become. On August 7, 2026, Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal held in Haught v. Eagle Palms Homeowners Association, Inc. that an association can both foreclose its lien for unpaid assessments and also recover a money judgment for those same assessments [1][2]. The court affirmed a judgment of $30,502.44 against a later owner and his company [1].
\nEagle Palms is a townhome subdivision in Riverview [1]. In 2014, the association obtained a foreclosure judgment against the owners of one townhome who had stopped paying assessments [1]. Those owners filed bankruptcy, which postponed the foreclosure sale, but the sale eventually took place in August 2015 [1].
\nBefore that sale, Barry Haught paid the owners $1,000 for the property and took a quitclaim deed into a land trust [1]. He and his partners rented out the townhome and, despite collecting rent, paid no past due or current assessments [1]. The association sued in 2016 for the unpaid assessments and later added fraud-based claims [1].
\nAt trial, the defendants pointed to the association’s declaration, which said the association “may bring an action at law against the Owner personally obligated to pay the same, or foreclose the lien against the Lot” [1]. They argued that the word “or” limited the association to one remedy, and that because it had already foreclosed, it could not also sue for damages [1].
\nThe Second District disagreed. Section 720.3085(1)(c), Florida Statutes, provides that an association may foreclose a lien for assessments “and may also bring an action to recover a money judgment for the unpaid assessments without waiving any claim of lien” [1]. That language has been in the statute since 2007 [1].
\nThe court read the declaration as a whole. It noted that the declaration makes assessments both a continuing lien on the property and the personal obligation of the owner, and that the section on nonpayment is titled “Remedies,” in the plural [1]. Reading the single word “or” to cut off one remedy would make either the lien or the personal obligation meaningless [1]. The court also noted that the declaration had been amended in 2010 to make a lot owner jointly and severally liable with the previous owner for unpaid assessments, consistent with the statute [1].
\nThere are more than a few lessons here for families in South Florida communities governed by an HOA or condominium association:
\nFalling behind on association dues often happens alongside other financial stress, such as rising insurance premiums, special assessments or job loss. Addressing the problem early, before an association files a lien foreclosure or a collection lawsuit, usually leaves more options open.
\nAnyone in South Florida facing association collection, a lien foreclosure or other mounting debt can request a confidential consultation with The Roca Law Firm, in English or Spanish.
General information as of August 10, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.
", "image": "https://thelexbrief.com/og/haught-eagle-palms-hoa-foreclosure-money-judgment.jpg", "date_published": "2026-08-10T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-08-10T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Florida Law" ] }, { "id": "https://thelexbrief.com/grandview-palace-water-leak-causation-condo-association/", "url": "https://thelexbrief.com/grandview-palace-water-leak-causation-condo-association/", "title": "Grandview Palace: A Wet Hallway Is Not Proof, Third DCA Tells Condo Associations Suing Owners Over Leaks", "summary": "The Third DCA affirmed a directed verdict against a North Bay Village condo association that could not rule out common element pipes as a leak's source.", "content_html": "![\"A](\"https://thelexbrief.com/assets/img/blog-grandview-palace-water-leak-causation-condo-association-1024.webp\")
Water leaks are among the most common sources of friction between condominium associations and unit owners, and the bill for drywall, carpet and mold remediation often becomes a lawsuit. On July 29, 2026, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a directed verdict against a condominium association that sued an owner for leak damage but could not prove where the water came from [1]. For boards, managers and association counsel deciding whether to pursue an owner for repair costs, the opinion is a practical guide to what proof a jury needs to see.
\nThe Grandview Palace is a high-rise condominium with more than 500 units in North Bay Village [1]. Its declaration makes the association responsible for maintaining the common elements and makes each owner responsible for damage to the common elements caused by the owner, family, guests or tenants [1]. The association sued owner Tracey Judge for breach of the declaration and unjust enrichment, alleging that leaks from his washing machine and water heater caused damage [1]. Mr. Judge denied it and asserted that the association had failed to maintain the common elements [1].
\nAt trial, the association called two witnesses: its property manager, testifying as corporate representative, and Mr. Judge [1]. The manager described reports of water in the hallway and in the unit below, and said he saw a soaking wet carpet near the water heater and water at the heater’s drip pan after the association opened the hallway wall [1]. On cross-examination, he conceded that the association never hired a leak detection company, that his photographs showed a wet hallway rather than a leaking appliance, and that the building has common element pipes running through its walls [1]. Before trial, the court had barred the representative from proving causation through inadmissible hearsay [1].
\nMr. Judge testified that his water heater and washer had never leaked since he bought the unit in 2015, and that he had watched the association open walls on numerous floors to address leaks in common element pipes [1]. The trial court directed a verdict for him, observing that, as a general rule in Florida, technical questions like the source of a building leak call for expert testimony [1].
\nThe Third District applied the rule against stacking inferences. A fact may be proved by circumstantial evidence, but a party cannot build a second inference on the first unless the first is established to the exclusion of all other reasonable inferences [1]. To win, the association needed a jury to infer that the water heater was the source, then that Mr. Judge failed to maintain it, then that the failure caused the damage, which the court called “a bridge too far” [1]. Because it was equally reasonable to infer the water came from the common element pipes, the first inference failed [1]. In the court’s words, “Because the Association failed to directly prove causation or rule out the common element pipes as the source of the leak, no proper view of the evidence can sustain a verdict in its favor” [1].
\nThe same court reached a mirror-image result five weeks earlier. In Vera v. Parkwood Condominium Association, a unit owner who slipped on wastewater in her bathroom lost on summary judgment because no witness knew whether the blockage was in her unit’s pipes or the association’s sanitary stack [2]. She had to show it was more likely than not that the problem was in the association’s pipes [2].
\nRead together, the two decisions mean that whoever brings a leak claim, association or owner, must locate the source [1][2]. A board considering a chargeback or lawsuit should know before filing whether it has a leak detection report, a plumber or engineer who can testify, and documents that fit a hearsay exception [1]. Without that, the case may not survive the close of the association’s own evidence.
\nLeak disputes also have a short list of real issues: source, maintenance responsibility under the declaration, and the cost of repair. When causation is uncertain for both sides, an early exchange of the plumbing evidence and a negotiated allocation of costs often makes more sense than a trial that turns on an expert neither side has hired.
\nTony Roca is a Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Civil Mediator who mediates condominium and HOA disputes by Zoom statewide. Associations, owners and counsel can book a mediation online.
General information as of August 3, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.
", "image": "https://thelexbrief.com/og/grandview-palace-water-leak-causation-condo-association.jpg", "date_published": "2026-08-03T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-08-03T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Condo & HOA" ] }, { "id": "https://thelexbrief.com/hb-797-director-conflicts-of-interest-associations/", "url": "https://thelexbrief.com/hb-797-director-conflicts-of-interest-associations/", "title": "HB 797 Rewrites the Conflict-of-Interest Rules Every Condo and HOA Board Must Follow", "summary": "Since July 1, 2026, revised section 617.0832 decides who carries the burden when owners challenge a board contract with a director's company or relative.", "content_html": "![\"An](\"https://thelexbrief.com/assets/img/blog-hb-797-director-conflicts-of-interest-associations-1024.webp\")
Few association disputes turn personal faster than a contract between the association and a company tied to a director. On July 27, 2026, the Florida Condo & HOA Law Blog explained how House Bill 797 changed the rules that govern those deals [1]. The bill rewrote Florida’s nonprofit corporation statute to track the American Bar Association’s Model Nonprofit Corporation Act, became law as Chapter 2026-168, and took effect July 1, 2026 [2]. Because Chapters 718 and 720 both point back to that statute, the change reaches condominium and HOA boards across the state [1][4][5].
\nThe revised section 617.0832 defines a director’s conflict of interest transaction and adds definitions for terms that used to invite argument. A “family member” includes the director’s spouse and a child, stepchild, parent, stepparent, grandparent or sibling of the director or the director’s spouse [3]. A “material financial interest” is one that would reasonably be expected to impair the objectivity of a director’s judgment [3]. “Fair to the corporation” means the transaction, as a whole, benefits the corporation and its members, considering whether the director dealt fairly and whether the terms are comparable to an arm’s length deal [3].
\nThe statute does not ban interested transactions [1]. A conflicted transaction that is fair to the corporation when it is approved is not void or voidable, and the conflict alone is not grounds for equitable relief, damages or other sanctions [3].
\nThe practical change is a burden-shifting rule. If the material facts and the director’s interest were disclosed to the board, and a majority of the qualified directors approved the transaction, the person challenging it must prove it was unfair [3]. Approval cannot rest on a single director [3]. Members can also approve: a majority of the votes cast by disinterested members, with units voted under the interested director’s control left out of the count [3]. If neither path was followed, the burden flips, and the side defending the transaction must prove it was fair [3].
\nAs the blog put it, that creates a strong incentive to disclose conflicts, record them in the minutes and let directors without a personal stake decide [1].
\nSection 617.0832 is the floor, not the whole process. For condominiums, section 718.3027 requires directors, officers and their relatives to disclose any activity that may reasonably be construed as a conflict, and it creates a rebuttable presumption of a conflict when a director or relative contracts with the association, or holds an interest in a business that does, without prior notice [4]. The proposed activity and its contract documents must be attached to the meeting agenda, the 617.0832 disclosures must go into the minutes, and approval requires two-thirds of the other directors present [4]. The interested director may present, then must leave during discussion and the vote [4]. Members may cancel the contract by majority vote at the next meeting, and an undisclosed contract is voidable on written notice signed by 20 percent of the voting interests [4].
\nFor HOAs, section 720.3033 likewise requires compliance with section 617.0832, entry of the disclosures in the minutes, a two-thirds vote of the directors present and disclosure to the members, who may cancel the contract by majority vote [5].
\nConflict disputes tend to arrive as a records request, a heated owners meeting or a demand letter alleging self-dealing. Under the revised statute, the board’s paper trail largely decides who carries the burden, which makes these disputes well suited to early, documented negotiation: production of the minutes and disclosures, an independent look at the pricing, and an agreed path to re-approve, rebid or unwind the contract. A negotiated result can also fix the record going forward, by setting a disclosure and recusal protocol that tracks sections 617.0832, 718.3027 and 720.3033 for the next vendor decision [3][4][5].
\nTony Roca is a Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Civil Mediator who mediates condominium and HOA disputes, including pre-suit mediation under section 720.311, by Zoom statewide. Boards, owners and counsel can book a mediation online.
General information as of July 31, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.
", "image": "https://thelexbrief.com/og/hb-797-director-conflicts-of-interest-associations.jpg", "date_published": "2026-07-31T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-07-31T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Condo & HOA" ] }, { "id": "https://thelexbrief.com/florida-property-insurance-litigation-decline-oir-2026/", "url": "https://thelexbrief.com/florida-property-insurance-litigation-decline-oir-2026/", "title": "Florida Property Insurance Lawsuits Keep Falling: What the January 2026 OIR Stability Report Means for Claim Resolution", "summary": "Florida's January 2026 property insurance stability report shows another sharp drop in lawsuits. The data points to where early resolution can still save money.", "content_html": "![\"A](\"https://thelexbrief.com/assets/img/blog-florida-property-insurance-litigation-decline-oir-2026-1024.webp\")
Update, July 28, 2026: OIR’s July 1, 2026 Property Insurance Stability Report updated these figures: Florida’s share of nationwide homeowners insurance lawsuits fell to 41 percent in 2025, as Insurance Business reported on July 23, 2026. See the follow-up article for the new data.
The Florida Office of Insurance Regulation released its Property Insurance Stability Report dated January 1, 2026 [1]. Florida law requires the report every January 1 and July 1, and it must address, among other things, the litigation practices and outcomes of insurance companies [1]. The latest edition shows property insurance litigation continuing to decline, and it offers useful data for attorneys, adjusters and parties deciding how and when to resolve disputed claims.
\nThe report attributes the market’s direction to a series of legislative changes: 2019 legislation curbing assignment of benefits litigation, SB 76 in 2021, SB 2-D and SB 2-A in 2022, and HB 837 in 2023 [1]. HB 837, approved by the Governor on March 24, 2023 [2], repealed Florida’s one-way attorney fee statutes with certain exceptions and provided that a contingency fee multiplier is appropriate only in a rare and exceptional circumstance [1]. Separately, a party must now submit a notice of intent to initiate litigation before suing a property insurer, and SB 2-D allows an insurer to recover fees and costs for obtaining a dismissal when that notice was not provided at least 10 days before suit [1].
\nSeveral measures point the same way:
\nThe market indicators followed. For residential policies effective in 2024 or later, 39 companies requested a rate decrease and 100 requested no change [1]. The number of companies under enhanced monitoring fell to 14, from 17 in the July 2025 report [1].
\nThe most useful figures for anyone evaluating a disputed claim come from the report’s closed claim data. Insurers reported 698,742 claims closed in 2024, of which 60,261 were litigated and 621,154 were not [1]. Average loss adjustment expense was $12,701 for litigated claims compared with $1,778 for non-litigated claims [1]. Across all perils, insurers took an average of 57 days to close a claim, with a median of 27 days [1].
\nThat gap is the economic case for early resolution. Every dollar spent on adjusting and defending a litigated claim is a dollar not available to settle it. Fewer lawsuits do not eliminate disputes over scope, causation or valuation; they change where and how those disputes are resolved.
\nThe report’s county data shows why claim disputes still carry real stakes in this region. As of September 30, 2025, the average homeowners premium including wind coverage was $6,023 in Miami-Dade County and $6,220 in Broward County [1]. In Miami-Dade, the average condominium unit owner premium including wind was $2,848 [1]. Policyholders paying those amounts expect claims to be handled promptly, and insurers face pressure to control costs.
\nPractical takeaways for claim professionals:
\nCounsel and adjusters looking for a certified mediator for a property insurance dispute can check Tony Roca’s live availability and book a mediation by Zoom statewide.
General information as of July 28, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.
", "image": "https://thelexbrief.com/og/florida-property-insurance-litigation-decline-oir-2026.jpg", "date_published": "2026-01-07T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-07-28T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Litigation" ] }, { "id": "https://thelexbrief.com/florida-property-insurance-litigation-share-falls/", "url": "https://thelexbrief.com/florida-property-insurance-litigation-share-falls/", "title": "Florida's Share of Homeowners Insurance Lawsuits Falls to 41 Percent: What It Means for Claim Resolution", "summary": "OIR's July 2026 report shows property insurance suits falling, yet South Florida litigation rates stay high. The data points to a larger role for early resolution.", "content_html": "![\"A](\"https://thelexbrief.com/assets/img/blog-florida-property-insurance-litigation-share-falls-1024.webp\")
Florida has long accounted for a share of the nation’s homeowners insurance lawsuits far out of proportion to its share of claims. The latest data from the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR) shows that gap narrowing quickly. As reported by Insurance Business on July 23, Florida’s share of nationwide homeowners insurance lawsuits dropped from 79 percent in 2020 to 41 percent in 2025, while its share of national homeowners claims fell to under 5 percent [1].
\nThe figures come from OIR’s semiannual Property Insurance Stability Report dated July 1, 2026, which tracks litigation practices, premiums, profitability and reinsurance in the residential market [2]. For mediators, defense counsel, policyholder counsel and adjusters, the report offers a useful look at where disputes are going and where they are still concentrated.
\nOIR’s preliminary 2025 market conduct data shows 41.29 percent of nationwide homeowners suits opened in Florida, down from 73.15 percent in 2024 [2]. Personal residential lawsuits served on property insurers through the Department of Financial Services fell 23 percent from 2023 to 2024 and 25 percent from 2024 to 2025, and the first five months of 2026 showed a further 25 percent decline compared with the same period a year earlier [2]. Assignment-of-benefits suits have nearly disappeared from the data [2].
\nOIR attributes the change to the Legislature’s reforms, including SB 76 (2021), SB 2-A (2022) and HB 837 (2023), which repealed the one-way attorney fee statutes with limited exceptions and restricted contingency fee multipliers [2].
\nStill, the claims lifecycle data shows litigation remains a significant cost. Of 456,200 claims closed in 2025, 53,413 were litigated, about 12 percent [1][2]. Average loss adjustment expense on a litigated claim was $15,257, compared with $2,044 on a non-litigated claim [1].
\nThe regional split matters for practitioners in Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach. According to the report’s figures, those three counties recorded a 27.27 percent litigated claims rate, compared with 8.16 percent in the rest of the state [1]. Among all perils, windstorm and hail claims ended up in litigation most often, at a rate of 16.44 percent [1].
\nIn other words, the statewide decline has not erased the South Florida litigation pipeline. Files already in suit, and new disputes over roof damage, causation and scope of repairs, continue to need a path to resolution.
\nSeveral points stand out for counsel and claims professionals preparing for mediation in the current market:
\nWith hurricane season underway, the volume of new claims later this year will test whether these trends hold. Either way, a substantial number of South Florida property disputes will continue to land at the mediation table.
\nTony Roca, a Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Civil and Family Mediator, conducts mediations by Zoom statewide. Counsel and adjusters can check his live availability and book a mediation online.
General information as of July 28, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.
", "image": "https://thelexbrief.com/og/florida-property-insurance-litigation-share-falls.jpg", "date_published": "2026-07-28T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-07-28T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Mediation" ] }, { "id": "https://thelexbrief.com/keathley-judicial-estoppel-bankruptcy-disclosure/", "url": "https://thelexbrief.com/keathley-judicial-estoppel-bankruptcy-disclosure/", "title": "Supreme Court Rules That Honest Mistakes in Bankruptcy Schedules Deserve a Closer Look", "summary": "In Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, the Supreme Court said courts must weigh all the circumstances before barring a debtor's undisclosed claim.", "content_html": "![\"Two](\"https://thelexbrief.com/assets/img/blog-keathley-judicial-estoppel-bankruptcy-disclosure-1024.webp\")
Update, July 24, 2026: On remand, the Fifth Circuit returned the case to the district court on July 16, 2026, and on July 20 the district court gave both sides a fresh start under the Supreme Court’s standard. It said it was strongly inclined to reject judicial estoppel and let the injury claims proceed, with any renewed estoppel motion to wait until discovery is complete.
On June 11, 2026, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decided Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc., a case about what happens when a person in bankruptcy fails to list a lawsuit or potential claim on the bankruptcy schedules [1]. The Court held that before barring the claim, courts must look at the totality of the circumstances to decide whether the omission was an honest mistake [1]. The decision matters to anyone in Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 who is injured, wronged or owed money while the case is open.
\nThomas Keathley and his wife filed a Chapter 13 petition in December 2019 [1]. The Bankruptcy Code requires debtors to list their property on bankruptcy schedules, including “claims against third parties, whether or not [the debtor] ha[s] filed a lawsuit or made a demand for payment,” and debtors sign those schedules under penalty of perjury [1]. In April 2020, the bankruptcy court confirmed a plan to repay 100 percent of creditors’ claims over five years [1].
\nIn August 2021, while the case was still open, Keathley was in a car accident with a driver employed by Buddy Ayers Construction [1]. He hired a personal injury attorney and told his bankruptcy counsel he intended to sue, but neither disclosed the claim to the bankruptcy court [1]. He filed the injury lawsuit in December 2021 [1].
\nIn March 2023, the company moved for summary judgment based on judicial estoppel, arguing that Keathley could not pursue a claim he had not disclosed in bankruptcy [1]. Keathley immediately amended his schedules and submitted affidavits saying the omission was inadvertent [1]. The district court, following Fifth Circuit precedent, ruled against him because he knew the facts behind his claim and hypothetically had a motive to conceal it, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed [1].
\nWriting for a unanimous Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson explained that judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine meant to protect the integrity of the courts by preventing parties from deliberately changing positions [1][2]. Equity “eschews mechanical rules,” the Court said, and requires a case-by-case look at all relevant facts [1].
\nThe Fifth Circuit’s approach failed that standard in two ways. It was too rigid, because it allowed courts to consider only whether the debtor knew the underlying facts and had a potential motive to conceal, and it was too broad, because those two circumstances will almost always be true [1]. The Court vacated the judgment and sent the case back for a fuller look [1]. It assumed, without deciding, that judicial estoppel can apply in bankruptcy and that inadvertence or mistake can be an exception [1]. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Sotomayor each wrote concurring opinions [2].
\nThe ruling gives debtors who make genuine mistakes a fairer hearing. It does not make disclosure optional. Keathley still spent years in litigation over a claim that could have been listed when it arose [1]. Practical lessons for anyone in a South Florida bankruptcy case:
\nAnyone in South Florida with questions about a pending or planned bankruptcy can request a confidential consultation with The Roca Law Firm, in English or Spanish.
General information as of July 24, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.
", "image": "https://thelexbrief.com/og/keathley-judicial-estoppel-bankruptcy-disclosure.jpg", "date_published": "2026-06-15T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-07-24T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Bankruptcy" ] }, { "id": "https://thelexbrief.com/florida-leads-nation-foreclosure-rate-midyear-2026/", "url": "https://thelexbrief.com/florida-leads-nation-foreclosure-rate-midyear-2026/", "title": "Florida Posts the Nation's Highest Foreclosure Rate in the First Half of 2026", "summary": "Florida had the worst state foreclosure rate in the first half of 2026, and starts are climbing. Here is what homeowners behind on payments should know.", "content_html": "![\"A](\"https://thelexbrief.com/assets/img/blog-florida-leads-nation-foreclosure-rate-midyear-2026-1024.webp\")
Foreclosure filings across the United States rose sharply in the first half of 2026, and Florida sits at the top of the list. According to ATTOM’s Mid-Year 2026 U.S. Foreclosure Market Report, released July 16, 227,548 properties nationwide had a foreclosure filing (a default notice, scheduled auction or bank repossession) in the first six months of the year, up 21 percent from the same period in 2025 and up 28 percent from two years earlier [1].
\nFor Florida homeowners, the numbers are more pointed. The state recorded the worst foreclosure rate in the country, with 0.27 percent of housing units receiving a filing, roughly one in every 373 homes [1]. Florida’s total of 27,494 properties with filings was up about 33 percent from the first half of 2025 [1].
\nThe increase is not limited to one corner of the state. Among larger metropolitan areas, Punta Gorda (0.50 percent) and Lakeland (0.48 percent) posted the two worst foreclosure rates in the nation, and Cape Coral, Jacksonville and Ocala also ranked in the top ten [1].
\nEarly-stage activity is rising too. Florida had 20,358 foreclosure starts in the first half of the year, second only to Texas, and lenders completed 2,070 repossessions in the state over the same period [1]. Nationally, foreclosure starts rose 18 percent and bank repossessions climbed 33 percent from a year earlier [1].
\nATTOM’s chief executive described the trend as a gradual return to more typical patterns, while noting that the increases suggest some homeowners may be under greater financial strain than a year ago [1]. That reading is consistent with credit data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which reported in May that the rate at which mortgage balances moved into serious delinquency accelerated slightly in the first quarter of 2026, from 1.4 percent to 1.5 percent [2].
\nOne detail in the report deserves attention from anyone who has fallen behind. Properties foreclosed nationally in the second quarter of 2026 had been in the process for an average of 563 days, the shortest average since 2013 and 13 percent shorter than a year earlier [1]. Shorter timelines mean less time between a first missed payment and a sale date.
\nFlorida uses a judicial foreclosure process, so a lender must file a lawsuit and obtain a judgment before a sale. That gives a homeowner a defined window to respond, but it is not unlimited, and waiting usually narrows the available choices.
\nBankruptcy is one of several tools a homeowner can consider, and it works differently depending on the chapter:
\nThe right choice depends on the amount of the arrears, household income, the equity in the home and how far the foreclosure case has advanced. Florida’s homestead protections can also affect the analysis. Because the national figures show both more filings and faster completions [1], homeowners who have received a default letter or a summons benefit from reviewing their options early rather than after a judgment is entered.
\nMortgage delinquencies remain low by historical standards, and most homeowners are current on their loans [2]. But Florida’s position at the top of the state rankings [1], combined with rising insurance and living costs, means a growing number of South Florida households are feeling pressure on the largest bill they pay each month.
\nHomeowners in Miami-Dade, Broward or elsewhere in South Florida who are behind on mortgage payments can request a confidential consultation with The Roca Law Firm, in English or Spanish, to review whether Chapter 7, Chapter 13 or another path fits their situation.
General information as of July 20, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.
", "image": "https://thelexbrief.com/og/florida-leads-nation-foreclosure-rate-midyear-2026.jpg", "date_published": "2026-07-20T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-07-20T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Consumer Debt" ] }, { "id": "https://thelexbrief.com/club-at-brickell-bay-short-term-rentals-condo-board/", "url": "https://thelexbrief.com/club-at-brickell-bay-short-term-rentals-condo-board/", "title": "The Club at Brickell Bay: When Short-Term Rentals Split a Condominium, the Board Becomes the Battleground", "summary": "A Miami Herald investigation of a 643-unit Brickell tower shows how short-term rentals turn into governance, election and records fights inside a condo.", "content_html": "![\"A](\"https://thelexbrief.com/assets/img/blog-club-at-brickell-bay-short-term-rentals-condo-board-1024.webp\")
On July 16, 2026, the Miami Herald published an investigation of The Club at Brickell Bay, a 43-story, 643-unit condominium in Miami’s financial district where roughly 545 units operate as investor-owned vacation rentals and full-time homeowners and tenants have dwindled to about 15 percent of the building [1]. The Real Deal summarized the reporting the same day [2]. The story is about noise, parties and police calls, but for boards, managers and association counsel it is mostly a story about governance: who controls the board, what the documents allow, and which forum hears the fight.
\nAccording to the Herald, the five board officers who controlled the building are themselves short-term rental hosts and do not live there [1]. A former board president who runs six rentals in the tower told the paper the building “was built to be a short-term rental building,” and supporters point to bylaws that set no minimum leasing period [1]. The Real Deal reported his estimate that a single unit can earn as much as $50,000 a year [2].
\nThe legal picture is more complicated than the bylaws. The Herald reported that Miami’s zoning code bars stays of fewer than 30 days in multifamily residential buildings unless the building holds a condo-hotel Certificate of Use, and that the building’s 2007 certificate approves a “condo shell” with no reference to lodging [1]. City inspectors issued five citations for unlawful lodging, but they were dismissed without a code enforcement hearing after the listings were briefly taken down [1].
\nInside the building, residents who complained received cease-and-desist letters from the association’s attorney [1]. A June 22 board election was marked by allegations of forged ballots, and the longtime president lost his bid for a ninth term [1]. The new leadership has pledged a review of the association’s financial and voting records, and the board plans to fix code and health violations in the garage, pool area and laundry room and to explore obtaining a proper certificate for short-term rentals [1]. Separately, a property manager who previously worked for the building faces a pending criminal case for grand theft and organized fraud and has not yet gone to trial [1][2].
\nOwners hoping to end the rentals by amending the declaration face a statutory limit. Under section 718.110(13), an amendment that prohibits renting, changes the duration of rental terms or limits how often units may be rented applies only to owners who consent to it and to owners who take title after it becomes effective [3]. In a building where most units are rented, a new leasing amendment would bind few current investors even if it passed.
\nThat leaves the existing documents, the city’s zoning rules and the board’s enforcement choices. Each of those is a different kind of dispute, and Florida law sends them to different places.
\nSection 718.1255 defines the condominium disputes that go to the state’s nonbinding arbitration program. The definition covers the board’s authority to require an owner to take, or not take, an action involving the owner’s unit, and a board’s failure to properly conduct elections, give adequate notice, properly conduct meetings or allow inspection of books and records [4]. It excludes, among other things, the levy or collection of assessments, tenant evictions and claims of breach of fiduciary duty by directors [4].
\nInstead of arbitration, a party may submit an eligible condominium dispute to presuit mediation under section 720.311, but election and recall disputes are not eligible for mediation and must be arbitrated by the state division or filed in court [4]. When mediation is used, the statute makes the proceedings privileged and confidential to the same extent as court-ordered mediation, and the mediator must be a Florida Supreme Court certified circuit civil mediator [5].
\nFor a building like The Club, that sorting matters. The election allegations belong in arbitration or court [4]. Rental enforcement, records access and meeting complaints can be negotiated, and with a new board in place there is room to do it. A mediated framework (registration, conduct rules, records production and a timetable for zoning compliance) can give full-time owners and investors terms that neither side would get from a code board or a judge.
\nTony Roca is a Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Civil Mediator who mediates condominium and HOA disputes, including pre-suit mediation under section 720.311, by Zoom statewide. Boards, managers and counsel can book a mediation online.
General information as of July 16, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.
", "image": "https://thelexbrief.com/og/club-at-brickell-bay-short-term-rentals-condo-board.jpg", "date_published": "2026-07-16T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-07-16T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Condo & HOA" ] }, { "id": "https://thelexbrief.com/stewart-v-vindel-prejudgment-interest-equitable-distribution/", "url": "https://thelexbrief.com/stewart-v-vindel-prejudgment-interest-equitable-distribution/", "title": "Stewart v. Vindel: Florida Supreme Court Allows Prejudgment Interest in Equitable Distribution", "summary": "The Florida Supreme Court held that trial courts may award prejudgment interest when dividing marital property, a discretionary remedy that can change settlement math.", "content_html": "![\"A](\"https://thelexbrief.com/assets/img/blog-stewart-v-vindel-prejudgment-interest-equitable-distribution-1024.webp\")
On July 9, 2026, the Florida Supreme Court held in Stewart v. Vindel that trial judges dividing marital property under section 61.075, Florida Statutes, may, in their discretion, add prejudgment interest when needed to reach an equitable result [1]. The Court approved the Third District’s decision in a Miami-Dade case and disapproved the First District’s contrary holding in Iarussi v. Iarussi, which had barred prejudgment interest in equitable distribution [1]. For family law practitioners and mediators, the ruling adds a new variable to cases where the marital estate is valued early and divided years later.
\nScott Stewart filed a petition for dissolution in 2018 [1]. Nine months later, the trial court entered an uncontested judgment dissolving the marriage but reserved ruling on equitable distribution, alimony, and attorney’s fees and costs [1]. The contested distribution issues were not fully resolved until 2022, and the trial court used the petition’s filing date as the valuation date for the marital assets [1].
\nThe former wife asked for interest on her share of the assets from the petition date to the date of distribution [1]. The trial court refused, finding it would be inequitable to charge the former husband for delays largely caused by the pandemic [1]. The Third District held that this stated basis lacked evidentiary support and was inconsistent with the purpose of prejudgment interest, and it acknowledged tension with Iarussi [1].
\nWriting for the majority, Justice Grosshans focused on the text of section 61.075. The statute states that its distribution provisions supplement, rather than replace, the court’s other tools “to do equity between the parties” [1]. The Court reasoned that equity runs throughout the statute, including the factors for unequal distribution, interim distributions, the flexible valuation date and the provision on dissipation of assets [1]. Nothing in the statute prohibits prejudgment interest, and the Court described prejudgment interest as an equitable remedy in this setting [1].
\nThe Court rejected the First District’s view that the statute’s express reference to interest on installment payments implied that prejudgment interest was excluded [1]. It also noted that the First District was the only district court to hold that prejudgment interest is never available in equitable distribution [1].
\nThe Court was careful about limits. A party is not automatically entitled to prejudgment interest; there must be facts that justify it, such as a spouse being deprived of significant marital property while the case is pending [1]. Even then, the trial court retains discretion to decide whether interest is a fitting tool to do equity [1]. The case was remanded for the trial court to reconsider the request [1].
\nThe vote was 4 to 1. Chief Justice Couriel and Justices Mu\u00f1iz, Francis and Sasso concurred, Justice Labarga dissented, and Justice Tanenbaum did not participate [1]. The dissent would have held that because the Legislature provided for postjudgment interest and not prejudgment interest, courts should not supply the missing remedy [1].
\nThe decision matters most where there is a long gap between the valuation date and the actual division of assets [2]. Practical points for counsel and parties preparing for family mediation:
\nTony Roca is a Florida Supreme Court Certified Family Mediator. Counsel and parties can check his live availability and book a mediation by Zoom statewide, in English or Spanish.
General information as of July 15, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.
", "image": "https://thelexbrief.com/og/stewart-v-vindel-prejudgment-interest-equitable-distribution.jpg", "date_published": "2026-07-15T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-07-15T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Florida Law" ] }, { "id": "https://thelexbrief.com/trace-elements-joint-proposal-apportionment/", "url": "https://thelexbrief.com/trace-elements-joint-proposal-apportionment/", "title": "Trace Elements v. Mackensen: Florida Supreme Court Requires Apportionment Even for Spouses With a Single Claim", "summary": "A divided Florida Supreme Court held that Rule 1.442(c)(3) requires apportionment of every joint proposal for settlement, even one on a unified, single claim.", "content_html": "![\"A](\"https://thelexbrief.com/assets/img/blog-trace-elements-joint-proposal-apportionment-1024.webp\")
On July 2, 2026, the Florida Supreme Court decided Trace Elements, Inc. v. Mackensen and held that Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442(c)(3) requires apportionment of a joint proposal for settlement even when the proposal concerns a “unified, single claim” [1]. The Court quashed the Fourth District’s decision and approved the Second District’s approach in Cobb v. Durando [1][2]. For counsel who use proposals for settlement to set up mediation and trial, the message is that the apportionment requirement has no case-by-case exceptions.
\nWolfgang and Nadja Mackensen, who are married, engaged the design firm Trace Elements to manage the renovation of a Vero Beach home they rent to vacationers [1]. When the firm left the project before finishing, the couple sued for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, and the company counterclaimed [1].
\nBefore trial, the Mackensens served a proposal offering to accept a lump sum of $10,000 from Trace Elements in full settlement, with mutual dismissals [1]. Trace Elements rejected it, and the jury awarded the Mackensens $41,273.70 on their contract claim [1]. Section 768.79 generally entitles a plaintiff to fees when the defendant rejects a demand and the plaintiff recovers a judgment at least 25 percent greater than the offer [1]. The trial court nonetheless denied fees because the proposal did not allocate the $10,000 between the two spouses [1].
\nThe Fourth District reversed, reasoning that a joint proposal on a unified, single claim did not need apportionment [1]. That conflicted with Cobb, where the Second District invalidated an unapportioned proposal by married homeowners against a roofing contractor [1].
\nWriting for the majority, Justice Mu\u00f1iz explained that Rule 1.442(c)(3) states that “[a] joint proposal must state the amount and terms attributable to each party,” and that a joint proposal is simply one made by or to multiple parties [1]. The Court pointed to a line of precedent that has invalidated unapportioned proposals in many settings, including offers by two plaintiffs, offers to two defendants and cases of purely vicarious liability [1]. In identifying a joint proposal, the Court said, it has never looked beyond the number of parties; the parties’ relationships, theories of liability and the nature of their claims have been irrelevant [1].
\nThe majority also stressed predictability. Consistent application of the rule lets parties rely on a stable framework instead of guessing whether a statutory purpose will excuse noncompliance [1]. Because the Mackensens’ proposal came from two distinct plaintiffs and did not allocate the lump sum, it was invalid [1].
\nThe vote was 4 to 3. Chief Justice Couriel and Justices Labarga and Grosshans joined the majority, and Justice Sasso dissented, joined by Justices Francis and Tanenbaum [1]. The dissent argued that the damages of a married couple with an undifferentiated claim could not logically be divided, and cited earlier cases describing joint proposals as “a trap for the wary and unwary alike” [1]. As with any new opinion, the decision was not final until the time to seek rehearing expired [1].
\nProposals for settlement remain one of the most effective tools for moving a case toward resolution, but only if they are drafted to survive a challenge. Counsel looking for a Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Civil Mediator can check Tony Roca’s live availability and book a mediation by Zoom statewide.
General information as of July 7, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.
", "image": "https://thelexbrief.com/og/trace-elements-joint-proposal-apportionment.jpg", "date_published": "2026-07-07T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-07-07T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Litigation" ] }, { "id": "https://thelexbrief.com/means-test-median-income-april-2026/", "url": "https://thelexbrief.com/means-test-median-income-april-2026/", "title": "New Means Test Figures Take Effect April 1: What Florida Households Should Know Before Filing", "summary": "Updated Census median income figures apply to bankruptcy cases filed on or after April 1, 2026. Here is what the new Florida numbers are and why they matter.", "content_html": "![\"A](\"https://thelexbrief.com/assets/img/blog-means-test-median-income-april-2026-1024.webp\")
Update, July 2, 2026: On June 30, 2026, the U.S. Trustee Program updated the IRS expense standards and Chapter 13 administrative expense multipliers used in the means test, effective for cases filed on or after July 15, 2026. The Florida median family income figures listed above are unchanged in the table for cases filed on or after July 15, 2026.
On March 18, 2026, the U.S. Trustee Program announced that it had updated the Census Bureau median family income data used in bankruptcy cases and that it will apply the new figures to cases filed on or after April 1, 2026 [1]. For a Florida household thinking about bankruptcy this spring, the change can affect which chapter is available and how the paperwork is completed.
\nUnder the Bankruptcy Code, individual consumer debtors must pass a “means test” before they can receive Chapter 7 relief [3]. When the test shows disposable income above certain limits, the case can be challenged: the U.S. Trustee, a creditor or another interested party may ask the court to dismiss it [3]. A debtor who fails the test, or who would rather take a different route, may instead file under Chapter 13 and pay creditors over time through a court-approved plan [3].
\nMost individual debtors complete a version of Official Form 122. The 122A forms are used in Chapter 7 cases, and the 122C forms are used in Chapter 13 cases [3]. Some of the information on those forms, such as current monthly income, comes from the debtor’s own records. Other information, including the state median income, comes from the Census Bureau and the IRS [3].
\nFor cases filed between April 1, 2026 and July 14, 2026, the median family income figures for Florida are [2]:
\nFor households larger than four, $11,100 is added for each additional person [2]. The U.S. Trustee Program publishes the table in a format designed for completing Official Forms 122A-1 and 122C-1 [2].
\nFor comparison, the four-person median in neighboring Georgia is $123,481, and in Texas it is $117,962 [2]. Florida’s figures sit below those states for a family of four, which means a Florida household’s income is measured against a lower benchmark than it would be in either of those states.
\nBecause the new data applies by filing date, the same household can be measured against different figures depending on whether its petition is filed before or after April 1 [1]. A case filed in late March uses the prior table, while a case filed on April 1 or later uses the updated one [1][2].
\nThe median comparison also matters in Chapter 13. The U.S. Trustee Program explains that income sets the length of a Chapter 13 plan, usually three or five years [3]. For debtors above certain income levels, the plan payment amount begins with the disposable income figure produced by the means test [3].
\nThe means test also uses IRS expense standards and, in some cases, a Chapter 13 administrative expense multiplier for the debtor’s judicial district [3]. Those figures are published by the U.S. Trustee Program on the same means testing pages and are updated periodically [3]. Working through them correctly requires the debtor’s actual income history for the months before filing, which is why gathering pay records early helps.
\nAnyone in Miami-Dade, Broward or Palm Beach County weighing bankruptcy can take a few steps now:
\nNone of these steps commits a household to filing. They simply make an informed decision possible.
\nAnyone in South Florida weighing their options can request a confidential consultation with The Roca Law Firm, in English or Spanish.
General information as of July 2, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.
", "image": "https://thelexbrief.com/og/means-test-median-income-april-2026.jpg", "date_published": "2026-03-23T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-07-02T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Bankruptcy" ] }, { "id": "https://thelexbrief.com/surfside-five-years-nist-findings-special-assessments/", "url": "https://thelexbrief.com/surfside-five-years-nist-findings-special-assessments/", "title": "Five Years After Surfside: New Federal Findings and the Special Assessment Disputes Facing Condo Boards", "summary": "As Surfside marked five years since the Champlain Towers South collapse, NIST released its findings. What it means for boards and owners arguing over repairs.", "content_html": "![\"Engineers](\"https://thelexbrief.com/assets/img/blog-surfside-five-years-nist-findings-special-assessments-1024.webp\")
The Town of Surfside held its Fifth Annual Remembrance Ceremony on June 24, 2026, honoring the 98 people who died in the collapse of Champlain Towers South [1]. Families, survivors, first responders, elected officials and residents gathered for the daytime ceremony [1]. Earlier that morning, the annual Lighting of the Torch took place at 1:22 a.m., the exact time the 12-story building partially collapsed in 2021 [3].
\nThe anniversary arrived days after federal investigators released their technical findings on what went wrong. For condominium boards and owners now living with the inspection and reserve laws that followed, those findings are a reminder of why the repair bills are arriving, and why so many of them end up in dispute.
\nOn June 22, 2026, the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s National Construction Safety Team released its technical findings [2]. According to the team, the failure started in early June 2021 with the breakdown of two points where garage columns joined the pool deck [2]. Over the next three weeks, cracks grew and loads shifted in the pool deck to adjacent slab-column connections that were not strong enough to carry them, leading to the catastrophic collapse on June 24 [2].
\nInvestigators said the building’s margins against failure were “too narrow from the start” [2]. They attributed the low margins primarily to severe and widespread deviations in the original structural design from the codes and standards of the day (along with some limitations in those standards), and to deviations in construction from the design drawings [2]. Loads added over the building’s life, including pool deck modifications, and long-term corrosion further reduced those margins [2]. The team ruled out other suspected causes, including nearby construction vibrations, foundation failure or sinkholes, hurricane and storm surge effects, and a roof project underway at the time [2].
\nA final report has not yet been released, and some victims’ relatives have criticized the findings, saying they still lack definitive answers [3].
\nThe collapse prompted changes to building inspection and condominium safety laws in Florida [3]. Older condominium buildings must now undergo structural inspections and reserve studies, which identify what a building needs to maintain structural integrity and what those repairs will cost [4]. As a Sun Sentinel real estate column put it, boards can no longer quietly skip funding for major structural items, and some associations that deferred repairs for decades now face owners collectively paying to bring buildings up to standard [4].
\nThe same column answered a question from a retired owner on a fixed income facing a $42,000 special assessment for structural repairs [4]. The columnist’s view was that the board could almost certainly levy it, and that the owner’s best course was to confirm the board acted correctly: request the inspection report, reserve study, board minutes and contractor bids in writing, and check that the assessment was approved at a properly noticed meeting [4]. He warned against withholding payment, since a valid unpaid assessment can lead to a lien, foreclosure and the association’s attorney’s fees, and suggested asking whether the board would finance the work with a bank loan or line of credit to spread the cost over time [4].
\nThat advice describes the shape of many post-Surfside conflicts. The repairs are often unavoidable, but the questions around them are not settled: whether notice and voting rules were followed, how the cost is divided, whether financing is available, what payment schedule is realistic and how owners who cannot pay will be treated. Litigation tends to answer only whether an assessment is valid. A negotiated resolution can also address timing, installment terms, interest and the information owners need to trust the process.
\nBoards, association counsel, community association managers and unit owners in a dispute over structural repairs, reserves or special assessments can check Tony Roca’s live availability and book a mediation. Mr. Roca, a Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Civil Mediator, mediates condominium and HOA disputes by Zoom statewide.
General information as of July 2, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.
", "image": "https://thelexbrief.com/og/surfside-five-years-nist-findings-special-assessments.jpg", "date_published": "2026-07-02T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-07-02T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Condo & HOA" ] }, { "id": "https://thelexbrief.com/pung-tax-sale-surplus-supreme-court/", "url": "https://thelexbrief.com/pung-tax-sale-surplus-supreme-court/", "title": "Supreme Court Rules Tax Sale Owners Get the Surplus, Not Market Value: What Pung Means for Homeowners Behind on Property Taxes", "summary": "In Pung v. Isabella County, the Supreme Court held that a former owner whose home is sold for unpaid taxes is owed the sale surplus, not the home's market value.", "content_html": "![\"A](\"https://thelexbrief.com/assets/img/blog-pung-tax-sale-surplus-supreme-court-1024.webp\")
On June 23, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Pung v. Isabella County, a case about how much a homeowner is owed after the government sells a home to collect unpaid property taxes [1]. The Court held that the measure of “just compensation” after a fairly conducted tax sale is the price the property brought at auction, not its hypothetical fair market value [1]. For families who have fallen behind on property taxes, the ruling is a reminder that waiting until a tax sale usually means losing much of the home’s equity.
\nThe Pung family owed $2,241.93 in real property taxes, and local tax authorities in Isabella County, Michigan, foreclosed and sold the home at public auction [1]. The home had been assessed at $194,400 for tax purposes, but it sold for $76,008 [1]. Michael Pung sued in federal court, and the district court ruled that he was entitled only to the surplus, meaning the difference between the sale price and the tax debt, rather than the home’s fair market value [1]. The Sixth Circuit affirmed [1].
\nPung argued that the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause required the county to pay him the gap between the home’s value and the auction price, and that keeping that gap amounted to an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment [1][2].
\nThe case built on Tyler v. Hennepin County, a 2023 decision holding that the government must return any surplus proceeds from a tax foreclosure sale [1]. Pung asked the Court to go further. In an opinion by Justice Alito, the Court declined [1].
\nThe Court explained that for hundreds of years, English and American law have allowed property to be seized and sold to collect taxes, provided the government returns any surplus to the owner [1]. Fair market value was not the right measure, the Court said, in part because owners can generally avoid tax sales [1]. As SCOTUSblog summarized the opinion, an owner who believes the property is worth more than the taxes owed may be able to refinance, borrow against the property or sell it before foreclosure, pay the tax debt and keep the rest [2]. The Court also rejected the Excessive Fines Clause argument [1].
\nThe Court did not resolve Pung’s newer arguments that the procedure the county used was unfair, and it left those for the Sixth Circuit on remand [1]. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Gorsuch and Jackson, wrote a concurrence, and Justice Thomas, joined in part by Justice Gorsuch, concurred in part and in the judgment [1]. Justice Thomas noted that the auction brought less than half of the home’s assessed value and less than half of what it later sold for on the market [1].
\nThe practical lesson is about timing. Under Pung, a former owner’s constitutional protection after a fair tax sale is the right to the surplus, and auction prices can fall far below what a home would bring in an ordinary sale [1][2]. In the Pung case, a tax debt of about $2,200 led to the loss of a home assessed at about $194,000 [2].
\nFlorida has its own tax certificate and tax deed system, and the details, deadlines and notices differ from Michigan’s. The broader point still applies to anyone in Miami-Dade, Broward or Palm Beach County who has unpaid property taxes:
\nFor some households, a bankruptcy filing is one of the structured options worth evaluating, particularly when tax arrears are one part of a larger debt problem. Whether it fits depends on income, the type of debt and the equity at stake, which is why early advice matters more than any single rule.
\nHomeowners in South Florida who are behind on property taxes or other debts can request a confidential consultation with The Roca Law Firm, in English or Spanish, to review their options before a sale date is set.
General information as of June 29, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.
", "image": "https://thelexbrief.com/og/pung-tax-sale-surplus-supreme-court.jpg", "date_published": "2026-06-29T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-06-29T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Consumer Debt" ] }, { "id": "https://thelexbrief.com/save-plan-ends-borrowers-must-switch/", "url": "https://thelexbrief.com/save-plan-ends-borrowers-must-switch/", "title": "The SAVE Plan Is Over: What 7.5 Million Student Loan Borrowers Need to Do Next", "summary": "The Education Department is telling SAVE borrowers to pick a new repayment plan. The timeline, the new options arriving July 1, and how to plan the household budget.", "content_html": "![\"A](\"https://thelexbrief.com/assets/img/blog-save-plan-ends-borrowers-must-switch-1024.webp\")
Update, June 22, 2026: The Department of Education announced the new Repayment Assistance Plan and a 1 percent autopay interest rate reduction taking effect July 1, 2026. See the follow-up article.
The Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) repayment plan has ended. On March 27, 2026, the U.S. Department of Education began sending guidance to the roughly 7.5 million borrowers enrolled in SAVE, telling them to leave the plan and choose another federal repayment plan [1]. For households that have gone months without a required student loan payment, that means a new bill is coming, and planning for it now matters.
\nIn December 2025, the Department announced a proposed joint settlement with the State of Missouri to end SAVE [2]. Under that agreement, the Department would not enroll new borrowers in SAVE, would deny pending applications and would move all SAVE borrowers into other repayment plans [2]. The Department said in its March 27 announcement that a court approved the settlement earlier in March [1].
\nAccording to the Department:
\nThe Department says applying for an income-driven repayment plan is faster when borrowers consent to let it obtain their federal tax information directly from the IRS, which avoids uploading income documents manually [1].
\nTwo new plans created by the Working Families Tax Cuts Act become available July 1, 2026 [1]:
\nBecause automatic placement is in a fixed-payment plan [1], borrowers whose income is tight should not wait for the deadline. An income-based plan chosen on purpose will often fit a budget better than a default plan assigned by a servicer.
\nFor many Florida families, the student loan payment will come back while rent, car payments and credit card balances remain high. A few steps can help:
\nThat last point is where bankruptcy can sometimes help. Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 may address credit cards, medical bills and other debts that are competing with the student loan for the same paycheck, which can make the new repayment plan affordable.
\nSouth Florida borrowers trying to fit a returning student loan payment into an already stretched budget can request a confidential consultation with The Roca Law Firm, in English or Spanish.
General information as of June 22, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.
", "image": "https://thelexbrief.com/og/save-plan-ends-borrowers-must-switch.jpg", "date_published": "2026-04-01T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-06-22T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Consumer Debt" ] }, { "id": "https://thelexbrief.com/student-loan-rap-autopay-rate-cut-defaults-july-2026/", "url": "https://thelexbrief.com/student-loan-rap-autopay-rate-cut-defaults-july-2026/", "title": "Student Loan Changes Arrive July 1: New Repayment Plans, a 1 Percent Autopay Discount and Record Defaults", "summary": "RAP and Tiered Standard plans open July 1, autopay borrowers get a 1 percent rate cut, and defaults reached a record 9.16 million in April.", "content_html": "![\"A](\"https://thelexbrief.com/assets/img/blog-student-loan-rap-autopay-rate-cut-defaults-july-2026-1024.webp\")
Federal student loan repayment changes on July 1, 2026. On June 18, the U.S. Department of Education announced that borrowers enrolled in autopay will receive a 1 percent interest rate reduction beginning July 1, the same day two new repayment plans open: the income-driven Repayment Assistance Plan (RAP) and the Tiered Standard plan [1]. The same day, Department data showed that the number of borrowers in default reached a record 9.16 million in April [2]. For many households, the next few weeks are a chance to choose a plan before choices are made for them.
\nToday, servicers cut a borrower’s rate by 0.25 percent for enrolling in autopay [1]. Starting July 1, borrowers already in autopay will automatically receive an additional 0.75 percent reduction, for a total of 1 percent [1]. The lower rate lasts until June 30, 2028, both for current autopay users and for anyone who signs up by September 30, 2026, provided they remain in autopay [1]. The benefit applies to Federal Direct Loans originated after July 1, 2012 [1].
\nBorrowers in default are not in repayment and cannot simply switch on autopay. The Department says they must log in to StudentAid.gov, consolidate eligible loans and apply for a new repayment plan first [1]. Only 40 percent of borrowers currently use autopay, compared with more than 80 percent of borrowers in active repayment before the pandemic [1].
\nUnder RAP, monthly payments run between 1 and 10 percent of income, reduced by $50 per month for each dependent [3]. When a borrower makes an on-time payment, remaining unpaid monthly interest is waived, and if the payment does not reduce principal by at least $50, the Department adds a matching principal payment of up to $50 [3]. Any balance left after 360 on-time monthly payments can be discharged [3]. Eligible borrowers making on-time monthly payments can also work toward Public Service Loan Forgiveness, which discharges certain loans after 120 payments [1].
\nUnder the Tiered Standard plan, the size of the balance determines the repayment term, which is fixed at 10, 15, 20 or 25 years [3]. In the Department’s example, a $30,000 balance that required $341 a month under the old 10-year standard plan would require $262 a month over 15 years [3].
\nBorrowers still in the SAVE plan, which the Department now calls defunct, must choose a legal repayment plan starting July 1 [1]. The earlier article on the end of SAVE covers how that plan wound down. According to Bloomberg, the 7 million-plus borrowers enrolled in SAVE get a 90-day window to pick a new plan before they are reassigned, and only about 400,000 had moved to another plan [2]. The Department’s fact sheet separately states that certain borrowers in phased-out plans with loans made before July 1, 2026, have until July 1, 2028, to choose between RAP, Tiered Standard or Income-Based Repayment [3]. Because the rules differ by plan and loan, borrowers should confirm their own deadline with their servicer.
\nThe default numbers explain the urgency. Defaults rose from 7.7 million in December and 6 million last August to 9.16 million in April, so roughly 20 percent of the country’s 43 million federal student loan borrowers have fallen more than a year behind on payments, and about 3 million more are at least 90 days late [2]. Collections and credit reporting penalties have resumed, and while plans to garnish wages were halted early this year, officials say they will revisit them after the new plans launch [2]. An earlier article on the garnishment delay explains that pause.
\nWhen student loans, credit cards, a car note or medical bills are all competing for the same paycheck, the right plan depends on the whole picture. Anyone in South Florida in that position can request a confidential consultation with The Roca Law Firm, in English or Spanish.
General information as of June 22, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.
", "image": "https://thelexbrief.com/og/student-loan-rap-autopay-rate-cut-defaults-july-2026.jpg", "date_published": "2026-06-22T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-06-22T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Consumer Debt" ] } ] }