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].

The scale of the storm

Isaias 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.

Why the deductible lands on owners

Florida’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.

The 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].

There 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.

Loss assessment coverage and what it does not cover

Owners 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].

When an assessment cannot be paid

A 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:

• Read the board’s notices and the deductible amount set at the noticed meeting [3].
• File a claim under their own policy for interior damage and loss assessment coverage, and report damage to the association promptly [3][4].
• Ask about payment plans before the account becomes delinquent and fees begin to accrue [5].

Storm-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.

Sources

1. Hurricane Damage Is Costly, and Your HOA Could Demand Thousands Extra, Realtor.com (via Yahoo Finance)
2. Hurricane Isaias leaves $582M in insured damage; state seeks $237M from FEMA, Florida Phoenix
3. Section 718.111, Florida Statutes (2026): The association, The Florida Senate
4. Section 627.714, Florida Statutes (2026): Residential condominium unit owner coverage; loss assessment coverage required, The Florida Senate
5. Section 718.116, Florida Statutes (2026): Assessments; liability; lien and priority; interest; collection, The Florida Senate

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.

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].

The statewide picture

The 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].

The 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].

Broward’s September numbers

Local 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].

Financing 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].

Why this matters for owners behind on assessments

For 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].

A few practical steps can help owners keep options open:

• Price against current data. A 7.7-month supply statewide, and a double-digit drop in Broward’s September median, mean last year’s comparable sales may overstate what a unit will bring [1][2].
• Ask for the numbers early. Delinquent balances, interest and attorney’s fees grow over time, and a buyer will need them resolved at closing [3].
• Watch the statutory notices. The intent-to-foreclose notice starts a defined period, and decisions made before it expires usually have more room [3].

Owners 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.

Sources

1. Florida condo sales rise 3.1% in third quarter, Florida Realtors
2. Broward County Mid-Market Condo Sales Rise Again, MIAMI REALTORS + RWorld
3. Section 718.116, Florida Statutes (2026): Assessments; liability; lien and priority; interest; collection, The Florida Senate

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.

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.

How the assemblage came together

Port 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].

The 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.

Why the last nine units matter

Florida’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].

At 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.

The 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].

Lessons from recent buyout fights

The 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:

• Know the exact vote count. Unit counts, commercial units and any weighted voting in the declaration determine where the 5 percent line falls [4].
• Put statutory protections on the table early. Lease-back rights, relocation payments and disclosure obligations are part of any termination and can be traded against price and timing [4].
• Negotiate before the plan is recorded. A rejected plan starts a 24-month clock that benefits no one [4].

Buyout 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.

Sources

1. Kolter, BH Inch Toward Buyout on Oceanfront Miami Beach Condo, Commercial Observer
2. Kolter Expands Miami Beach Assemblage for Condo Dev With BH Group, Commercial Observer
3. Kolter boosts North Beach assemblage with $18M in condo units, The Real Deal
4. Section 718.117, Florida Statutes (2026): Termination of condominium, The Florida Senate

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.

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.

Five years, three lawyers and no enforceable judgment

Built 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].

The 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].

What the court held

The 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].

The 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].

Practical takeaways

The 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:

• Plead the claim. An association that wants a judgment for assessments, interest and fees needs a counterclaim or its own complaint, not an affirmative defense and a general prayer for relief [1].
• Track what earlier judgments preserved. The quiet title judgment carved out post-tax-deed assessments and surplus proceeds, which set the boundaries of everything that followed [1].
• Count the cost of the process. The dispute began in 2019 and is still not resolved, over a balance the trial court put at about $66,700 [1].

Disputes 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.

Sources

1. Built Green Corp. v. Environ Condominium II, Association, Inc., No. 4D2025-1055, Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal
2. Section 718.116, Florida Statutes (2026): Assessments; liability; lien and priority; interest; collection, The Florida Senate

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.

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].

How the dispute reached a standstill

In 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].

About 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].

The 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].

Two tracks under section 720.311

Chapter 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].

A 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].

What boards, owners and counsel can take from it

Several practical lessons follow for associations and the lawyers who advise them:

• Sort the dispute before filing. A single conflict can contain an election claim that belongs before DBPR and covenant, records or meeting claims that require presuit mediation. Treating them as one dispute risks a dismissal or a fee consequence [3].
• Weigh the time cost of an appeal. Here, the original petition dates to 2023, the arbitrator ruled in December 2023, and owners still had no election as of mid-2026 [1][2]. The longer the governance question stays open, the more collateral disputes tend to multiply.
• Use mediation for the issues that can settle. Election remedies are decided by an arbitrator or a judge, but the surrounding disagreements over bylaws amendments, meeting conduct and records access are the kinds of disputes the Legislature routed to a confidential, facilitated negotiation [3]. Resolving those can narrow what remains for the arbitrator or court.

Communities 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.

Sources

1. An Orange County HOA has postponed elections two years while appealing a state arbitrator's order, HOA Weekly
2. Florida HOA 'postpones' elections amid legal battle with resident, WKMG News 6 ClickOrlando
3. Section 720.311, Florida Statutes (2026): Dispute resolution, The Florida Senate

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.

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?

What investigators allege

According 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].

The associations named were Mira Villa, Los Sueños, 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].

One Los Sueños 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].

The bills do not stop

A 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.

Florida 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.

Options for owners who cannot keep up

Owners 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].

Unit 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.

Sources

1. 6 arrested in scheme to steal over $5.8M from Miami-Dade condos, sheriff says, NBC 6 South Florida
2. 6 arrested in $5.8 million scheme targeting condo and HOA boards in Miami-Dade, sheriff's office says, CBS News Miami
3. Section 718.111, Florida Statutes (2026): The association, The Florida Senate
4. Section 718.116, Florida Statutes (2026): Assessments; liability; lien and priority; interest; collection, The Florida Senate
5. Chapter 13 - Bankruptcy Basics, United States Courts

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.

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].

Why the numbers are climbing

Benutech’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].

The 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].

How an association lien works

For 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].

For 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.

Options when the lien becomes a foreclosure

Waiting 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].

Owners 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.

Owners 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.

Sources

1. More Florida homeowners are being targeted over unpaid HOA fees, The Daytona Beach News-Journal (USA TODAY Network-Florida)
2. Section 718.116, Florida Statutes (2026): Assessments; liability; lien and priority; interest; collection, The Florida Senate
3. Section 720.3085, Florida Statutes (2026): Payment for assessments; lien claims, The Florida Senate
4. Chapter 13 - Bankruptcy Basics, United States Courts
5. 11 U.S. Code § 523 - Exceptions to discharge, Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School

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.

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.

The case

The 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].

At 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].

Mr. 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].

Why the association lost

The 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].

The 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].

What boards and owners can take from it

Read 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.

Leak 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.

Tony 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.

Sources

1. The Grandview Palace Condominium Association, Inc. v. Judge, No. 3D25-0458, Florida Third District Court of Appeal (via Justia)
2. Vera v. Parkwood Condominium Association, Inc., No. 3D24-2149, Florida Third District Court of Appeal (via Justia)

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.

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].

What section 617.0832 now says

The 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].

The 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].

Who carries the burden

The 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].

As 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].

The association statutes still add their own steps

Section 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].

For 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].

Where these fights usually end up

Conflict 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].

Tony 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.

Sources

1. New Conflict-of-Interest Rules Under HB 797 Raise the Stakes for Association Directors, Florida Condo & HOA Law Blog (Becker)
2. CS/CS/HB 797 (2026): Nonprofit Corporations, bill history, The Florida Senate
3. Section 617.0832, Florida Statutes (2026): Director conflicts of interest, The Florida Senate
4. Section 718.3027, Florida Statutes (2026): Conflicts of interest, The Florida Senate
5. Section 720.3033, Florida Statutes (2026): Officers and directors, The Florida Senate

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.

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.

What the reporting describes

According 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].

The 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].

Inside 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].

The documents set the limits

Owners 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.

That 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.

Which forum hears which fight

Section 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].

Instead 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].

For 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.

Tony 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.

Sources

1. How Miami condo turned into 'Animal House' with tourist rentals, Miami Herald
2. 'Animal House': Brickell condo owners outraged by short-term rental goons, The Real Deal
3. Section 718.110, Florida Statutes (2026): Amendment of declaration, The Florida Senate
4. Section 718.1255, Florida Statutes (2026): Alternative dispute resolution; voluntary mediation; mandatory nonbinding arbitration, The Florida Senate
5. Section 720.311, Florida Statutes (2026): Dispute resolution, The Florida Senate

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.

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].

The 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.

What NIST Found

On 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].

Investigators 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].

A final report has not yet been released, and some victims’ relatives have criticized the findings, saying they still lack definitive answers [3].

The Laws That Followed, and the Bills That Came With Them

The 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].

The 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].

Why These Disputes Belong at the Table

That 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.

Boards, 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.

Sources

1. Town Hosts Fifth Annual Remembrance Events, Town of Surfside
2. NIST Releases Technical Findings on What Caused the 2021 Partial Collapse of Champlain Towers South, National Institute of Standards and Technology
3. South Florida marks 5 years since Surfside's Champlain Towers collapse as families still seek answers, CBS News Miami
4. Ask a real estate pro: Can condo board set $42K special assessment for structural repairs?, South Florida Sun Sentinel

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.

Condominium associations insured by Citizens Property Insurance Corporation could soon be moved to lightly regulated surplus lines insurers under a bill Governor Ron DeSantis signed late on June 16, 2026 [1][2]. The measure, CS/CS/SB 1028, became Chapter 2026-150, Laws of Florida, on June 17 [2]. For condominium boards, managers, owners and association counsel, it adds a new step to the insurance decisions that already drive budgets, assessments and disputes.

What the New Law Does

Under the law, Citizens must create a clearinghouse that shifts its condo and commercial policies to private insurers [1]. When a participating carrier offers coverage priced within 15 percent of what Citizens charges, the policy has to go to that carrier [1]. Only companies rated A- or better by A.M. Best may take part [1]. The law took effect immediately, but Citizens has until January 1, 2027, to set up the clearinghouse [1].

The bill passed the Senate 33 to 1 and the House 88 to 19 [1][2]. Insurance Commissioner Michael Yaworsky initially opposed it because he wanted tighter oversight of the surplus lines carriers that would take policies out of Citizens [1]. Lawmakers changed the bill to give the Office of Insurance Regulation more power to vet companies applying to participate through the clearinghouse, and he dropped his opposition [1].

Why Condo Associations Are in the Middle of It

Citizens’ commercial residential coverage is the line most associations use. The Senate staff analysis describes it as covering commercial properties used for residential purposes, including the parts of a condominium that are the association’s responsibility (generally the building envelope and common areas) and homeowners’ association common property [3].

That book has already shrunk sharply. According to the analysis, Citizens had 7,654 commercial residential policies at the end of 2023, 6,176 at the end of 2024 and 2,995 as of November 30, 2025 [3]. The associations still insured there are likely among the harder risks to place.

Surplus Lines Coverage Is Different

Surplus lines insurers are largely exempt from state regulation, and their rates and policies are not reviewed by the Office of Insurance Regulation [1]. As of May 31, 2026, surplus lines carriers covered 778,000 policies in Florida, including 147,501 commercial property policies [1]. The staff analysis adds that surplus lines policies are not protected by the Florida Insurance Guaranty Association if the insurer becomes insolvent, and each insured must sign or acknowledge a disclosure saying so [3].

For a board, that means a renewal moved through the clearinghouse is not simply a change of carrier. Coverage terms, exclusions, deductibles and claims handling may all differ from the Citizens policy, and the cost comparison is only one piece of the decision.

Where Disputes May Follow

Insurance is one of the largest line items in many condominium budgets, so changes in carriers and terms tend to reach owners quickly. Several kinds of conflict are foreseeable:

• Owners and boards. Owners may question whether the board compared policy forms and deductibles carefully, or why a premium change produced a higher assessment.
• Associations and managers or agents. Questions about how a renewal was handled, what was disclosed and when can arise if a claim later goes badly.
• Associations and insurers after a storm. A surplus lines policy with unfamiliar terms can lead to coverage disputes once a claim is filed, and those disputes may not follow the patterns associations know from Citizens.

Each of these disputes involves ongoing relationships, technical documents and money that the community will have to raise one way or another. Mediation gives boards, owners, carriers and their counsel a structured setting to work through policy language, numbers and payment terms before positions harden in litigation.

Association counsel, boards, managers and carriers looking for a certified mediator for a condominium insurance or assessment dispute can check Tony Roca’s live availability and book a mediation by Zoom statewide.

Sources

1. DeSantis signs bill to push more commercial policies out of Citizens, News Service of Florida (via News4JAX)
2. CS/CS/SB 1028: Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, Bill History, The Florida Senate
3. Bill Analysis and Fiscal Impact Statement, SB 1028 (Citizens Property Insurance Corporation), The Florida Senate, Committee on Banking and Insurance

General information as of June 18, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.

Two recent South Florida decisions show how quickly unpaid condominium assessments can turn into a serious threat to a home, and why the steps an owner takes in court matter as much as the debt itself. On June 3, 2026, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a default final judgment foreclosing a condominium association’s lien in Miami-Dade County [1]. Earlier this spring, the bankruptcy court in Fort Lauderdale held that a condominium association’s lien survived an owner’s Chapter 7 discharge, even though the association had broken the automatic stay [2].

Villars v. Buckley Towers: Motions Are Not an Answer

In Villars v. Buckley Towers Condominium, Inc., the association sued to foreclose its lien for past due assessments, and the trial court entered a default final judgment against the owner [1]. The owner, who represented himself, raised what the appellate court described as “a myriad of issues” on appeal [1].

None of them changed the result. The court held that the owner failed to file a responsive pleading to the complaint, that the trial court gave the parties notice and an opportunity to be heard, and that the association proved the outstanding assessments by affidavit with an attachment [1]. The court relied on prior decisions holding that trial courts may enter defaults against parties who engage in dilatory practices such as filing numerous non-responsive motions [1].

The lesson is practical. Filing papers is not the same as defending the case. An owner who disputes the amount claimed, the late charges or the fees needs to raise those issues in a proper response, on time. Otherwise the association may obtain a judgment on its own affidavit.

In re Papagno: The Discharge Did Not Erase the Lien

The second decision involved John Papagno, who owns a unit in the NOLA Lofts condominium in Fort Lauderdale [2]. He filed a Chapter 7 case without an attorney on June 17, 2024, and received a discharge that September [2]. Three days after he filed, the association recorded a claim of lien for unpaid assessments [2].

Chief Bankruptcy Judge Scott M. Grossman held that recording the claim of lien after the bankruptcy filing violated the automatic stay, making that claim of lien void, and set an evidentiary hearing on whether the violation was willful and caused any damages [2]. But the court rejected the owner’s broader argument that the association’s claim was wiped out.

The court explained that under section 718.116(5)(a), Florida Statutes, and the association’s declaration, the association has a lien on each unit to secure unpaid assessments, interest, fees and costs, effective from the date the declaration was recorded, except as against first mortgages of record [2]. A claim of lien is a separate document the association must record before it can foreclose, but the lien itself exists as a matter of law [2]. Because the association already held that lien when the owner filed, the lien survived his bankruptcy in full [2].

The Chapter 7 discharge ended the owner’s personal liability for the prepetition assessments, but it did not stop the association from pursuing its rights against the unit itself [2]. After the discharge, the association recorded a new claim of lien and filed a foreclosure complaint stating it would not seek a deficiency against the owner personally [2]. The court held that this did not violate the discharge injunction [2]. It also declined to halt a separate eviction-related judgment that the association obtained for alleged violations of condominium rules after the filing [2].

What Owners Can Take From These Cases

Taken together, the decisions point to three practical points:

• Respond to a foreclosure complaint properly and on time. A default can end the case before the owner’s arguments are heard [1].
• A Chapter 7 discharge may not save the unit. Personal liability can be discharged while the association’s lien remains enforceable against the property [2].
• Bankruptcy decisions should be made with the unit in mind. An owner who wants to keep a condominium needs a plan for the arrears and for assessments that keep coming due, which is a different question from simply eliminating personal debt.

Chapter 13 is often where owners who want to keep their homes look first, but whether it fits depends on income, the size of the arrears and the mortgage situation. Both owners here represented themselves at key stages, one on appeal and one in his bankruptcy filing, and neither kept the outcome he wanted [1][2].

Condominium owners in South Florida facing an association lien or foreclosure can request a confidential consultation with The Roca Law Firm to review their options under Chapter 7 and Chapter 13.

Sources

1. Janvier Villars v. Buckley Towers Condominium, Inc., No. 3D25-1700, Florida Third District Court of Appeal
2. In re John Papagno, Case No. 24-16005-SMG, Order on Motion to Reopen and Motion for Contempt, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Florida (via GovInfo)

General information as of June 8, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.

New April 2026 sales figures show South Florida’s condominium market moving in two directions at once. In Miami-Dade, the median condo price rose slightly and sales picked up [1]. In Broward, condo sales also rose, but the median sale price dropped by nearly 8 percent from a year earlier [3]. For unit owners who are behind on association dues or facing a large special assessment, those numbers affect how much room they have to work with.

Miami-Dade: Modest Gains, Shrinking Inventory

Miami-Dade condominium sales rose 2.8 percent year over year in April, from 1,005 to 1,033 transactions [1]. The median condo price rose 1.1 percent, from $445,000 to $450,000 [1]. Sales of condos priced between $300,000 and $500,000 climbed 17.9 percent [1][2].

Supply is tightening. Condo inventory in Miami-Dade dropped 10.1 percent, from 13,238 listings to 11,899 [1]. Cash remains a major factor: 50.9 percent of Miami condos were bought with cash in April [1]. According to the MIAMI REALTORS release, Miami condo sales have risen year over year in six of the last eight months [2].

Mortgage costs remain a concern. The 30-year fixed-rate mortgage averaged 6.33 percent in April, and the association’s chief economist said rates are likely to approach 7 percent by mid-year if the U.S.-Iran conflict lingers [1].

Broward: More Sales, Lower Prices

Broward’s condo market looked different. Existing condo sales rose 1.84 percent, from 1,085 to 1,105, but the median sale price fell 7.86 percent, from $280,000 to $258,000 [3]. The release noted that condo inventory is declining year over year, which the association expects to put upward pressure on prices [3].

Financing Limits Remain a Drag

Both releases point to a structural problem for older buildings: financing. The association cited U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development statistics showing that just 21 condo buildings across Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties, out of 2,397 in total, hold approval for Federal Housing Administration financing [2][3]. That works out to only 0.9 percent of South Florida condo buildings [2][3]. Starting August 3, 2026, the association added, many condo loans will lose access to the limited review option, which Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are phasing out [2].

When fewer buyers can finance a purchase in a given building, an owner who needs to sell may have a smaller pool of buyers to draw from. Cash buyers can fill part of that gap, but they may also negotiate harder.

What This Means for Owners Behind on Dues or Assessments

For a unit owner who has fallen behind, market value is not an abstract number. It helps determine whether selling is a realistic way out, whether there is equity left after the mortgage and the association’s claim are paid, and how much is at stake if the association moves to collect.

A Broward owner whose unit is worth less than it was a year ago may have less cushion than expected, especially if a special assessment for repairs or reserves is on the way. A Miami-Dade owner in a building with strong demand may have more options, but rising mortgage rates and financing restrictions can still slow a sale. In either case, the timing of a decision matters, because the options narrow once an association begins collection in earnest.

Owners in this position have several paths to consider, including a payment arrangement with the association, a sale, or a bankruptcy filing under Chapter 7 or Chapter 13. Each has different consequences for the unit, the mortgage and the association’s claim, and the right choice depends on the owner’s income, equity and goals. Comparing those options early, before a lien foreclosure is underway, usually leaves more of them available.

South Florida unit owners who are behind on dues or facing an assessment they cannot pay can request a confidential consultation with The Roca Law Firm, in English or Spanish.

Sources

1. Pace of home sales remains brisk in Miami-Dade, South Florida Agent Magazine
2. Miami-Dade Home Sales Rise for Eighth Consecutive Month, MIAMI REALTORS + RWorld (PR Newswire)
3. Broward County Total Home Sales Rise for Second Consecutive Month, MIAMI REALTORS + RWorld

General information as of May 26, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.

Governor Ron DeSantis has signed CS/CS/HB 803, a broad building permit bill that also changes how homeowners’ associations handle owner construction projects [1][2]. The Governor approved the bill on May 6, 2026, and it was filed as Chapter 2026-63, Laws of Florida, on May 7 [2]. The new law takes effect July 1, 2026 [1][3].

Most coverage has focused on the bill’s permit exemption for small residential jobs. For HOA boards, architectural review committees, community association managers and owners, a short amendment to section 720.3035, Florida Statutes, may matter more in day-to-day disputes [3].

What the Bill Does

The bill drew no opposition. It passed the House 114 to 0 on February 25, passed the Senate 37 to 0 on March 5, and the House concurred in the Senate amendment 109 to 0 on March 12 [2].

Under the new law, a local government that issues building permits must exempt the owner of a single-family dwelling, or the owner’s contractor, from pulling a permit for projects on the property that cost under $7,500 [1]. Electrical, plumbing, mechanical, gas and structural jobs are carved out of that exemption and can still need a permit at any price, and a project may not be divided to evade permitting requirements [1]. The bill also exempts certain temporary residential hurricane or flood protection walls from permitting and, for a year following a declared emergency, lets some building officials licensed in other states do the work in Florida [1].

The enrolled text adds other homeowner-facing changes. For example, a building permit issued by a county for a single-family dwelling expires on whichever date comes later, one year after it is issued or the day the next edition of the Florida Building Code takes effect, although the local government may extend it [3].

The HOA Change: No Permit Prerequisite for Review

Section 11 of the bill adds a new paragraph (c) to section 720.3035(1), the statute governing architectural control covenants. It provides that “an association or any architectural, construction improvement, or other such similar committee of an association may not require a building permit to be issued by a governmental authority to a parcel owner as a prerequisite for review by the association or committee concerning the construction of structures or improvements on the parcel” [3].

The provision addresses sequence. On its face, it does not require an association to approve any project, and it does not remove permit requirements that still apply under local law [1][3]. What it forbids is refusing to review an application until the owner already holds a government permit [3].

Where an association’s guidelines, application forms or committee practices call for a permit before the committee will act, those documents will need attention before July 1. Boards may also want to consider how the $7,500 exemption interacts with their review process, since some smaller projects may need no permit at all after that date [1]. A committee that relied on the permit file to understand a project’s scope may need to ask for plans, specifications or contractor information directly instead.

Where Disputes Are Likely, and Why Mediation Fits

Architectural review is already a frequent source of conflict between owners and associations. The new paragraph creates fresh questions: whether a committee that delays or conditions review is effectively requiring a permit, whether an approval can be conditioned on obtaining permits later, and how existing guidelines should be read alongside the statute.

Many of these disputes will be resolved without a state agency. Unlike condominiums, homeowners’ associations are not regulated by a state agency, and the Legislature’s stated intent in chapter 720 is that HOAs and their members benefit from presuit mediation of disputes involving covenant enforcement under section 720.311 [4]. That leaves the work of resolving these questions largely to the parties, their counsel and the mediator they choose. Mediation also allows a board and an owner to agree on practical terms, such as the documents the committee will accept, a review timeline and the conditions of approval, that a court ruling on a narrow statutory question would not address.

Association counsel, boards, managers and owners facing an architectural review dispute can check Tony Roca’s live availability and book a mediation. Mr. Roca mediates HOA and condominium disputes, including the presuit mediation that section 720.311 requires for many HOA disputes, by Zoom statewide.

Sources

1. Florida bill that drops permitting for small building projects signed by DeSantis, News Service of Florida (via NBC 6 South Florida)
2. CS/CS/HB 803: Building Permits and Inspections, Bill History, The Florida Senate
3. Enrolled CS/CS/HB 803, Engrossed 2 (Building Permits and Inspections), The Florida Senate
4. Bill Analysis and Fiscal Impact Statement, CS/SB 1498 (Community Associations), The Florida Senate, Committee on Regulated Industries

General information as of May 13, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.

Pre-suit mediation under section 720.311 is a condition precedent to many homeowners’ association lawsuits, and arguments about whether it was done correctly are common early in a case. On May 6, 2026, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal held that those arguments generally cannot be resolved on a motion to dismiss when the complaint alleges that the condition was performed or waived [1]. The court reversed the dismissal of a lender’s suit against Rio Poco Homeowners’ Association in Palm Beach County [1].

The Dispute

Wells Fargo, as trustee for a mortgage trust, acquired title to a home in the community through foreclosure [1]. Its lawsuit concerned the amounts the association represented as due in an estoppel certificate and the association’s denial of access to the property after Wells Fargo took title [1].

The complaint alleged that Wells Fargo had sent a demand for pre-suit mediation under section 720.311, and that all conditions precedent to suit “have been performed, waived, or have occurred” [1]. After a default was entered against the association, the association moved to vacate it and to dismiss, arguing that Wells Fargo had not complied with the statute’s requirements for the method and address of service of the demand [1]. The trial court vacated the default and dismissed the case, finding that the demand was not served at the association’s address by certified mail. In doing so, it relied on the demand attached to the complaint, but also on the association’s response to the demand and emails between the parties, which were not attached [1].

What the Court Held

The Fourth District reversed the dismissal [1]. A motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint, so the court’s review is confined to the complaint itself and the exhibits attached to it [1]. Under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.120(c), a plaintiff may allege generally that all conditions precedent have been performed or have occurred, and may likewise allege waiver generally [1].

The court recognized that a complaint must be dismissed if it pleads neither satisfaction nor waiver of a statutory condition precedent, but explained that remaining factual issues about compliance are premature on a motion to dismiss [1]. The parties disputed whether the attached demand itself showed noncompliance with the statute’s service requirements, but the court did not need to decide that question. Wells Fargo had also alleged waiver, nothing in the complaint or its exhibits negated that allegation, and the factual issue of waiver precluded dismissal [1].

Practical Points on Service of the Demand

The statute is specific about service. The demand must substantially follow the statutory form and go out two ways, by certified mail with a return receipt requested and by regular first-class mail, addressed to the responding party at the most recent address listed in the association’s books and records [2]. The responding party then has 20 days from mailing to respond in writing by the same two methods, to the address shown on the demand [2]. A party’s failure to respond, agree on a mediator, pay fees on time or appear operates as an impasse by that party [2].

Several lessons follow for counsel on both sides:

• Serve by both methods and keep the proof. Certified mail with return receipt and a first-class copy, to the correct address, avoids the argument entirely [2].
• Plead conditions precedent, including waiver. A general allegation that conditions were performed, occurred or were waived preserved Wells Fargo’s case at the pleading stage [1].
• Respond in writing. An association that engages with a demand, even informally by email, may later face a waiver argument when it challenges the form of service. The court did not decide that issue here, but it left it for the trial court as a factual question [1].
• Consider simply mediating. The cost of litigating whether a demand was properly served can exceed the cost of the mediation the statute contemplates, and the parties share the mediator’s fee equally unless they agree otherwise [2].

Tony Roca, a Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Civil Mediator, conducts pre-suit mediation required for many homeowners’ association disputes under section 720.311, by Zoom statewide. Counsel and boards can check his live availability and book a mediation.

Sources

1. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee v. Rio Poco Homeowners' Association, Inc., No. 4D2024-3029, Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal
2. Section 720.311, Florida Statutes (2025): Dispute resolution, The Florida Senate

General information as of May 6, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.

Florida’s condominium market showed more activity in March 2026, but not much more pricing power. Statewide closed sales of existing condos and townhouses totaled 9,423, up 12% from March 2025, according to data Florida Realtors released on April 17, 2026 [1]. The statewide median price was $315,000, unchanged from a year earlier [1]. For condo owners who are weighing a sale because of rising dues or a special assessment, the details matter more than the headline.

The Statewide Numbers

Florida Realtors described a market moving in “a more balanced and sustainable direction,” with “more flexibility in the condo-townhouse market” [1]. The March summary shows what that flexibility looks like [2]:

• Supply. Active condo and townhouse listings fell 11.1% from a year earlier, to 68,757, but that still equals 9.1 months of supply, down from 10.1 months [2]. Single-family homes, by comparison, were at 4.8 months [1].
• Time to sell. The median time to contract was 66 days, up from 62, and the median time to sale was 105 days [2].
• Discounts. Sellers received a median of 93.1% of their original list price [2].
• Cash buyers. Of the 9,423 closed sales, 5,099 were paid in cash [2].
• Fewer new listings. New listings fell 13.3%, to 14,832, while new pending sales rose 9.6% [2].

For the first quarter, the statewide condo-townhouse median was $310,000, down 1.6% from the first quarter of 2025 [1]. Florida Realtors’ chief economist noted that mortgage rates began rising in March after a spike in global oil prices, though they remained below year-earlier levels [1].

South Florida’s Financing Problem

In Miami-Dade, existing condo sales rose 2.88% year over year in March, to 1,071, and the median condo price rose 1.73%, to $445,000 [3]. The MIAMI Association of Realtors also pointed to a financing barrier. Relying on U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development data, it reported that Federal Housing Administration loans can be used in only 21 of the region’s 2,397 condo buildings across Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties [3]. The association said Florida is the only state that requires a buyer to put down 25% for a limited review when a building lacks enough reserves, compared with 10% elsewhere [3].

That matters most at the lower end of the market, where buyers rely on financing. A building with weak reserves, pending repairs or no FHA approval can narrow the pool of buyers to those paying cash, and those buyers tend to negotiate.

What Owners Under Pressure Should Consider

With more than nine months of supply and sellers accepting a median of about 93% of their original asking price [2], selling a condo to escape a large assessment may take longer, and net less, than an owner expects. Meanwhile the obligations keep running: monthly dues, special assessment installments, the mortgage, insurance and taxes. An owner who falls behind on assessments can face a lien, late charges and attorney’s fees that are typically added to the balance, and the association may foreclose.

Owners in that position have more than one path. Some can negotiate a payment plan with the association. Some can sell, if the numbers work after closing costs and payoffs. Others may consider bankruptcy: Chapter 13 can allow a homeowner to catch up on assessment or mortgage arrears over a three- to five-year plan while staying in the unit, and Chapter 7 may make sense when the owner intends to let the unit go and needs relief from other debts. The right choice depends on equity, income and how far behind the owner already is.

Condo owners in South Florida weighing a sale, an assessment or a possible foreclosure can request a confidential consultation with The Roca Law Firm, in English or Spanish.

Sources

1. Fla.'s March, 1Q Housing: Closed, Pending Sales Up, Florida Realtors
2. Monthly Market Summary, March 2026: Townhouses and Condos, Florida, Florida Realtors
3. Miami-Dade Home Sales Rise for Seventh Consecutive Month, MIAMI Association of Realtors

General information as of April 21, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.

A landscaping dispute in a Palm Beach County community has produced a short appellate opinion with a long lesson for association counsel. On April 1, 2026, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed an attorney’s fee award to The Preserve at Bay Hill Estates Homeowners Association as premature and dismissed the homeowners’ appeal of a summary judgment order that was never reduced to a final judgment [1]. A concurring opinion by Judge Gross went further, explaining how the case “became more legally complex than it needed to be” [1].

From Pre-Suit Mediation to Litigation

According to the concurrence, the conflict started in 2022 over how the homeowners were keeping up their property [1]. Following a pre-suit mediation in March 2023, the parties signed a settlement agreement with landscaping requirements, deadlines and procedures [1]. If both sides performed, the association would waive all fines, and each side would bear its own fees and costs. If the owners breached, the association could seek all fines imposed, and the prevailing party in any litigation could recover fees [1].

The settlement fell apart. In August 2023, the association sued for breach of the settlement agreement, breach of the governing documents and injunctive relief, seeking among other things to collect all fines imposed [1]. The owners defended in part by arguing that some violations were procedurally or substantively incorrect [1]. A later mediated settlement also fell through, and the owners’ lawyer withdrew [1].

The trial court then granted the association’s summary judgment motion “as the case is moot,” based on its counsel’s statements that the association was satisfied with the repairs and alterations, and later awarded the association fees and costs [1].

What the Court Held

The majority opinion is brief. An order that merely grants summary judgment, without entering judgment or dismissing the case, is not a final, appealable order [1]. Because the fee order was entered before any final order disposing of the lawsuit, it was premature and was reversed in its entirety [1].

Judge Gross wrote separately, noting that his concurrence is not binding, in the hope of curtailing further litigation [1]. Among his observations:

• Voluntary dismissal was a more direct path. A determination on the merits is not required for prevailing-party fees, and courts look to the substance of the outcome rather than procedural maneuvers [1].
• Mootness was doubtful. The association’s damages claim for fines, and the owners’ defense that the fines were improperly imposed, remained live after the landscaping was finished [1].
• Fee entitlement under the settlement turned on breach. The settlement’s fee provision depended on a finding that the owners breached it, which was never adjudicated [1].
• “Uncompromisingly” obtaining relief matters. He questioned whether the association had obtained all the relief it sought, given that it declared the case moot about a year after the repairs were done [1].

Lessons for Pre-Suit Mediation Agreements

Section 720.311 requires a demand for pre-suit mediation before an association or owner files suit over covenant enforcement and use of a parcel, among other disputes [2]. The statute carves out two categories that matter here: the collection of any assessment, fine or other financial obligation, and any action to enforce a prior mediation settlement agreement [2]. It also provides that when an issue settled at pre-suit mediation later becomes the subject of an enforcement action, the prevailing party may seek all costs and fees incurred in the pre-suit mediation process [2].

That framework puts weight on the drafting done at the end of a mediation session. Practitioners may want to address:

• Fines. State whether fines are waived outright, held in abeyance or revived on breach, and how they will be computed.
• Cure and notice. Build in a written notice of default and a cure period before either side can declare a breach.
• Completion. Define how compliance is confirmed, by whom, and by what date, so “satisfied with the repairs” has an agreed meaning.
• Endgame. Provide for a stipulated dismissal or agreed judgment on completion, so neither side is left litigating fees after the work is done.

Tony Roca, a Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Civil Mediator, mediates homeowners’ association and condominium disputes, including pre-suit mediation required under section 720.311. Counsel and boards can check his live availability and book a mediation.

Sources

1. Rigoli v. The Preserve at Bay Hill Estates Homeowners Association, Inc., No. 4D2025-1083, Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal
2. Section 720.311, Florida Statutes (2025): Dispute resolution, The Florida Senate

General information as of April 6, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.

Whether a condominium unit can be financed often decides whether it can be sold, and at what price. On March 18, 2026, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac announced coordinated changes to the way lenders review condominium projects, issued in alignment with each other and in consultation with their regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency [1][2]. Several changes remove restrictions that applied only to Florida. Others tighten the reserve rules that many Florida buildings already struggle to meet.

What Changed for Florida Buildings

Both agencies said they were responding to industry feedback and market conditions, including rising insurance premiums [1][2]. For Florida, three changes stand out.

• New projects. Fannie Mae retired its requirement that new or newly converted Florida projects with attached units be submitted to its Project Eligibility Review Service. These projects can now be reviewed under the lender-delegated Full Review process, like new projects elsewhere [1]. Freddie Mac likewise no longer requires these Florida projects to carry an “Approved by Fannie Mae” status [2].
• Limited Review ends. Fannie Mae is retiring its Limited Review process, and Freddie Mac is retiring its comparable Streamlined Review, for loan applications dated on or after August 3, 2026 [1][2]. Fannie Mae noted that this effectively retires the remaining geographic restrictions that apply to Florida, which stay in effect until that date [1]. After August 3, established projects must go through a full review or, where eligible, a waiver of review [1].
• Investor limits. Both agencies retired the 50% cap on investor-owned units in established projects [1][2].

Small buildings also get relief. Projects of ten or fewer units can qualify for a waiver of project review, if the building does not have an “Unavailable” status in Fannie Mae’s Condo Project Manager and meets insurance requirements; buildings of five to ten units must not be part of a master association [1].

Tighter Reserve Rules

The agencies tied the reserve changes to a pattern they observed after adopting critical repair rules in 2023: buildings with underfunded reserves tend to be the ones needing critical repairs, and their owners face “substantial financial hardship” from unexpected special assessments or higher dues, which can lead to mortgage default or foreclosure [1][2].

Two changes follow. First, for loan applications dated on or after August 3, 2026, a building that relies on a reserve study must budget the highest recommended reserve allocation in that study, and the “baseline funding” method, which lets the reserve balance approach but never fall below zero, no longer qualifies [1][2]. Second, for applications dated on or after January 4, 2027, the minimum reserve allocation for capital expenditures and deferred maintenance rises from 10% to 15% of the annual budgeted assessment income [1][2].

What This Means for Unit Owners

The changes cut both ways for Florida owners. A building that could not be financed because of Florida-only review rules may now qualify, which can widen the pool of buyers. But a full review will look harder at the budget, and an association that underfunds reserves may find buyers’ lenders unable to close until the budget is raised. Raising reserves to 15% of assessment income generally means higher monthly dues. Buildings that already need critical repairs still face the “Unavailable” status that blocks agency financing [1].

For an owner already stretched by a special assessment, a higher monthly payment and a harder sale can arrive at the same time. Unpaid assessments can lead to an association lien and foreclosure, and a mortgage default can follow. Owners in that position have options worth understanding early, including whether a Chapter 13 plan could allow them to catch up on assessment or mortgage arrears over time, or whether a sale or a Chapter 7 filing makes more sense.

Unit owners in South Florida facing assessments, liens or mortgage trouble can request a confidential consultation with The Roca Law Firm, in English or Spanish.

Sources

1. Lender Letter LL-2026-03: Updates to Project Standards & Property Insurance Requirements, Fannie Mae
2. Bulletin 2026-C: Selling and Servicing Updates, Freddie Mac

General information as of March 24, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.

Update, March 16, 2026: HB 657 passed the House 108 to 2 but died in the Senate Rules Committee on March 13, 2026, when the session ended, so presuit mediation under section 720.311 remains in place. See the bill history on flsenate.gov and the update on SB 1498.

A bill filed for Florida’s 2026 legislative session would give homeowners a statutory path to dissolve their homeowners association and would rework how community association disputes are resolved. House Bill 657, filed December 4, 2025, by Rep. Porras, would create the “Homeowners’ Association Dissolution and Accountability Act,” remove presuit mediation requirements, and authorize circuit courts to create community association court programs [1][2][3]. On December 16, 2025, the bill was referred to four House committees, starting with the Housing, Agriculture and Tourism Subcommittee [2].

The dissolution process

As filed, the bill would create section 720.319, Florida Statutes [3]. The process would start with a petition for a plan of termination signed by at least 20% of the association’s voting members, after which the board would have 60 days to hold a members’ meeting [3]. If the board fails to call the meeting, any member could ask a court to compel compliance [3]. A plan would need approval from at least two-thirds of the total voting interests, and no voting interest could be suspended for the termination vote [3]. If members reject a plan, another could not be considered for 18 months [3].

An approved plan would go to the community association court program, or another court, for review of its procedural sufficiency [3]. The board would continue to wind up the association’s affairs, pay debts and distribute remaining assets [3]. Officers or directors who fail to call a required meeting, spend association funds campaigning on the plan, or conceal relevant records could face civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation, removal from office and personal liability for the petitioners’ legal fees [3].

Rep. Porras told News4JAX the goal is to shift power back to homeowners, while a real estate broker interviewed for the story said a 20% petition threshold seemed too low [1].

Presuit mediation and a new court program

For mediators and association counsel, the dispute resolution changes may matter more day to day. Under current law, section 720.311 requires a written demand for presuit mediation before an association and an owner litigate covenant enforcement disputes, disputes over changes to a parcel or common areas, amendments to governing documents, board and committee meetings, membership meetings other than elections, and official records access [4]. Collection of assessments and fines is excluded [4].

HB 657, as filed, would remove those presuit mediation requirements from section 720.311 and from the condominium statute, section 718.1255 [3]. For condominiums, a party would have to petition the Division for nonbinding arbitration or request referral to mediation before going to court [3]. HOA arbitrations would be conducted by a Department arbitrator or a private arbitrator certified by the Department [3].

The bill would also create section 720.32, encouraging each judicial circuit to establish a community association court program with jurisdiction over disputes arising under Chapters 718, 719 and 720 [3]. Those programs could enforce owners’ statutory rights, impose civil penalties, issue injunctions and award fees [3]. As filed, the bill would also require HOAs formed after July 1, 2026, to state in their governing documents that they are governed by the Florida Condominium Act, and require existing HOAs to vote on that amendment by January 1, 2027 [3]. The effective date would be July 1, 2026 [3].

What to watch

As of December 9, News4JAX reported no Senate companion bill [1]. Filed bills often change substantially in committee, and many never become law. Until the Legislature acts, current section 720.311 still governs, and a party that skips a required presuit mediation demand risks procedural problems in court [4].

For now, boards and owners in a covenant, architectural or records dispute should continue to follow the existing demand and mediator selection process [4]. Associations may also want to brief their boards on the bill, because its termination provisions would carry personal exposure for officers and directors if enacted as filed [3].

Tony Roca mediates HOA and condominium disputes, including the presuit mediation required for many HOA disputes under section 720.311, Florida Statutes. Counsel, managers and owners can check his live availability and book a mediation online.

Sources

1. New proposal lets Florida homeowners abolish their HOAs. Here's how it would work, WJXT News4JAX
2. House Bill 657 (2026): Community Associations, The Florida Senate
3. HB 657 (2026), Filed Version, Florida House of Representatives (via The Florida Senate)
4. Section 720.311, Florida Statutes (2025): Dispute resolution, The Florida Senate

General information as of March 16, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.

Update, March 16, 2026: HB 657 passed the House 108 to 2 but died in the Senate Rules Committee on March 13, 2026, when the session ended, so presuit mediation under section 720.311 remains in place. See the bill history on flsenate.gov and the update on SB 1498.

The House version of this year’s major community association bill would change how homeowners’ association and condominium disputes are resolved. On February 26, 2026, the Florida House Commerce Committee took up HB 657, a bill that would eliminate presuit mediation requirements for community associations and authorize each circuit court to create a community association court program [2]. The Commerce Committee staff analysis, dated March 3, 2026, describes the fourth committee substitute, which had earlier been approved by the Housing, Agriculture & Tourism Subcommittee (16 to 0), the Civil Justice & Claims Subcommittee (14 to 1) and the Budget Committee (24 to 0) [1].

Presuit mediation today

Under current law, certain disputes between an HOA and a parcel owner must go to presuit mediation before they are filed in court [1]. The covered categories include covenant enforcement fights, such as conflicts about how a parcel or the common areas are used or altered, along with amendments to the governing documents, meetings of the board, its committees or the membership (election and recall disputes excepted), and owners’ access to official records [1]. The proceedings follow the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and are privileged and confidential to the same extent as court-ordered mediation [1].

The statute also has teeth. A party who fails to respond to a mediation demand, agree on a mediator, pay fees on time or appear without the mediator’s approval allows the other side to proceed in court and seek the costs and fees of the mediation, and a party who refuses to participate is barred from recovering fees and costs in later litigation over the dispute [1].

What the bill would do

According to the staff analysis, the bill would:

• Eliminate presuit mediation requirements for community associations [1].
• Authorize community association court programs. A circuit court could create a program, presided over by at least one designated judge, with jurisdiction over disputes under the Condominium Act, Cooperative Act and Homeowners’ Association Act [1]. The program is described as an optional, voluntary process and an alternative to mediation or arbitration [1]. It could enforce owners’ statutory rights, compel compliance by associations and boards, order dissolution of an association, appoint a termination trustee, impose civil penalties, issue injunctions and award fees and costs [1].
• Add judgeships. The bill would create two judgeships in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit (Miami-Dade) and one each in the Thirteenth and Seventeenth Circuits to implement the programs [1].
• Allow HOA termination. Owners holding at least 50% of the voting interests could petition for a plan of termination, which would need approval by two-thirds of the total voting interests and acceptance by the court within 45 days [1].
• Create a duty of loyalty. HOA directors, officers and committee members would owe a duty of loyalty, would have to disclose conflicts in writing and could not participate in the related discussion or vote [1].
• Address “Kaufman” language. New associations would have to include language subjecting them to current and future statutes, and existing associations would have to vote on whether to add it [1].

To carry out the bill, the House’s proposed budget would fund twelve positions with $1,000,000 in general revenue plus $1,210,396 drawn from the State Courts Revenue Trust Fund, contingent on passage [1].

What it could mean for association disputes

If enacted, the bill would remove a mandatory step that now brings many HOA disputes to the table before suit. Nothing in the analysis describes a prohibition on mediation, and the court program itself is framed as an alternative that parties may choose [1]. Voluntary mediation before or after filing would remain an option. The question for boards, managers and owners is whether a new court program, available only where a circuit creates one, will resolve disputes faster or at lower cost than the current process [1].

The bill was still moving through the House when the analysis was published, and its final form in both chambers remained uncertain [1].

Tony Roca, a Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Civil Mediator, mediates HOA and condominium disputes, including presuit mediation under section 720.311, Florida Statutes. Boards, managers, owners and their counsel can check his live availability and book a mediation by Zoom statewide.

Sources

1. Bill Analysis, CS/CS/CS/CS/HB 657 (Community Associations), Commerce Committee, Florida House of Representatives
2. Commerce Committee, February 26, 2026, Meeting Bill Summary Report, Florida House of Representatives

General information as of March 16, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.

Construction defect litigation by Florida condominium associations is not slowing down. A Commercial Observer report published March 11, 2026, describes a wave of suits against developers and contractors, driven by the volume of new towers, buyers with the means to litigate, and heightened attention to board members’ duties after the Champlain Towers South collapse in Surfside [1]. One Miami lawyer quoted in the report expects the cases to “continue to spike for the next several years” [1].

For association boards, developers, contractors and the lawyers who represent them, the trend raises a practical question: how many of these disputes need to reach a courtroom at all?

What Associations Are Alleging

The report catalogs the familiar categories. Water intrusion is the most common, and one lawyer described it as “hard to defend” [1]. Sources of water intrusion cited in the report include underground parking garages with inadequate waterproofing, stucco that cracks because it was applied improperly, and balcony slabs that tilt and push stormwater into units [1]. At one Boca Raton building, water was reported to seep into the underground garage even on sunny days [1].

The cases also involve larger buildings. The report notes that the Missoni Baia association in Miami’s Edgewater neighborhood has sued its developer and others over 76 alleged defects in a 249-unit, 60-story tower, including cracked floor slabs, defective fire alarms and water intrusion [1]. Lawyers interviewed for the report pointed to Florida-specific stressors as well: corrosive salt air, a high water table, a shortage of skilled labor and some developers new to the market [1].

Timing matters. According to the report, Florida law gives owners seven years to sue developers and contractors for defective construction under the statute of repose, and latent defects can surface slowly [1].

The Statutory Path Before Suit

Florida law builds a pre-suit process into these claims. Chapter 558 requires a claimant, before going to court, to give written notice of the claim to each contractor, subcontractor, supplier or design professional involved [2]. For an association representing more than 20 parcels, the notice must be served at least 120 days before filing, rather than the 60 days that applies to other claimants [2]. The notice must describe each alleged defect in reasonable detail and identify its location, based on at least a visual inspection, although the claimant is not required to perform destructive testing to give notice [2].

The party served then has 50 days, in a case involving an association of more than 20 parcels, to perform a reasonable inspection of the property, and destructive testing may follow by mutual agreement under conditions the statute spells out [2]. Two points tend to drive strategy. A Chapter 558 notice does not toll any statute of repose under Chapter 95 [2]. And a claimant who refuses reasonable destructive testing gives up damages that could have been avoided had the testing been allowed and a feasible remedy promptly implemented [2].

For condominiums, section 718.301 adds a further requirement. In any association claim against a developer alleging a defect in design, structural elements, construction or systems that require a licensed professional, the statute requires the defect to be “examined and certified by an appropriately licensed Florida engineer, design professional, contractor” or other licensed individual or entity [3]. As the report notes, defects are often found during this post-turnover inspection and notice process [1].

Why These Disputes Suit Mediation

Construction defect cases share features that make them strong candidates for early mediation. They involve many parties: the developer, the general contractor, design professionals and often a dozen or more subcontractors, each with its own insurer. The facts are technical and expensive to prove, with competing engineering reports and, frequently, destructive testing. And the association’s board has duties to owners who may be living with leaks, closed amenities or rising insurance costs while the case proceeds.

The Chapter 558 window is a natural point for a structured negotiation. By then the association has a certified defect report, the responding parties have inspected, and insurers have been put on notice. A mediator can help the parties separate repair-now items from disputed scope, sequence repairs so owners see progress, and allocate contributions among contractors and carriers before litigation costs eat into the money available for repairs. Because a 558 notice does not stop the repose clock [2], counsel should calendar that deadline independently while talks continue.

Tony Roca, a Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Civil Mediator, mediates condominium and homeowners’ association disputes, including multi-party construction matters, by Zoom statewide. Counsel can check his live availability and book a mediation.

Sources

1. In Florida, Lawsuits Abound Over Allegedly Shoddy Condo Construction, Commercial Observer
2. Section 558.004, Florida Statutes (2025): Notice and opportunity to repair, The Florida Senate
3. Section 718.301, Florida Statutes (2025): Transfer of association control; claims of defect by association, The Florida Senate

General information as of March 11, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.

Lot rent increases are among the most contested issues in Florida mobile home communities, and the associations that challenge them often want to proceed together. On February 11, 2026, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal held that two mobile homeowners’ associations could not combine their members’ claims into a single class action under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.222 [1]. The court reversed a St. Lucie County class certification order but stressed that the trial court may still consolidate related claims [1].

The dispute

The plaintiffs were two distinct homeowners’ associations, each representing its own members, located on neighboring land owned by the same park owner, Wynne Building Corporation [1]. Each association brought three counts: declaratory relief over an allegedly unreasonable lot rent increase for 2021-22, declaratory relief over an increase for 2022-23, and damages tied to those increases [1]. The complaint alleged that the affected homeowners had a right to proceed as a class under Rule 1.222 and section 723.037, Florida Statutes [1]. The trial court certified all six counts as a single class, finding that the rent increases concerned matters of common interest to all of the park’s homeowners [1].

Rule 1.222 allows a mobile homeowners’ association to bring actions in its name on behalf of all homeowners concerning matters of common interest, without meeting the usual class action requirements of Rule 1.220 [1].

The Fourth District’s holding

Writing for the majority, Judge Lott read the rule’s language, “a mobile homeowners’ association” and “the association,” to contemplate one association suing on behalf of its own members [1]. Allowing several associations to band together in one action common to members across associations, the court said, is “an interpretation the text will not bear” [1].

The court relied on its decision in Condominium Owners Organization of Century Village East, Inc. v. Century Village East, Inc., where an umbrella organization for 251 condominium associations could not bring a single action under the analogous condominium rule, Rule 1.221 [1]. The court again rejected a “class action of class actions” [1].

The majority made clear that the ruling is procedural. On remand, the trial court must decide whether each association may maintain each of its counts as a Rule 1.222 class action for its own members [1]. If so, it has broad discretion to consolidate those actions and may find that all counts should be heard in a single consolidated trial [1]. The court expressly did not decide whether other mechanisms, such as Rule 1.220, might allow multiple associations to proceed in one class [1].

Judge Ciklin dissented. In his view, the rule does not prohibit multiple associations from proceeding together, the singular in a rule ordinarily includes the plural, and any error was harmless because the claims would proceed before the same court [1].

Practical points for counsel and associations

The decision affects how community association class claims are framed, not whether they can be brought. Several practical points follow:

• Plead by association. Each association should plead its own counts on behalf of its own members, with a commonality showing tied to that membership [1].
• Ask for consolidation separately. Where claims overlap, a motion to consolidate distinct class actions remains available [1].
• The same logic likely applies to condominiums. The court read Rule 1.222 consistently with its decisions under Rule 1.221 for condominium associations [1].

Lot rent disputes also remain a legislative topic. HB 703, filed in December 2025 for the 2026 session, would revise the factors used to determine lot rent increases and the proof required to support them [2].

Procedural appeals like this one add time and cost without resolving the underlying rent question, a concern the dissent raised directly [1]. For park owners and associations, that is often the point at which a structured negotiation becomes worth considering.

Tony Roca, a Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Civil Mediator, mediates HOA, condominium and community association disputes, including presuit mediation required for many HOA disputes under section 720.311, Florida Statutes. Counsel can check his live availability and book a mediation by Zoom statewide.

Sources

1. Wynne Building Corporation v. Spanish Lakes Country Club Village Homeowner's Association, Inc., No. 4D2025-2169, Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal (via CourtListener)
2. HB 703 (2026): Mobile Home Park Lot Tenancies, The Florida Senate

General information as of February 17, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.

Hurricane hardening is one of the costs driving condominium special assessments in Florida, and a state grant program meant to help has so far been available only near the coast. On January 29, 2026, the Florida House Housing, Agriculture & Tourism Subcommittee approved a committee substitute for HB 1497, which would open the My Safe Florida Condominium Pilot Program to condominiums anywhere in the state while limiting it to lower-income buildings [2]. The vote was 15 to 0, according to the staff analysis released the next day [1].

How the program works now

The Legislature created the program within the Department of Financial Services in 2024 with a nonrecurring appropriation of $30 million [1]. It provides free inspections and grant funding for wind mitigation improvements, which may also lower wind insurance premiums [1]. Participation is currently limited to condominiums within 15 miles of a coastline [1].

Grants require a match of $1 from the association for every $2 from the state, and the total award may not exceed $175,000 per association [1]. Eligible improvements include opening protection (exterior doors, garage doors, windows and skylights) and roof improvements [1]. Buildings must be three or more stories, and an association may not apply unless it has complied with milestone inspection and structural integrity reserve requirements [1]. The windows must also be common elements under the declaration [1].

Demand has outpaced the money. The first application portal opened on November 14, 2024, and closed within five days due to funding capacity [1]. A second round that opened on August 18, 2025, closed within one hour [1]. As of January 2026, about 700 initial inspections had been completed across 206 associations, and 42 associations had been fully approved for grants [1].

What CS/HB 1497 would change

According to the House staff analysis, the bill would:

• Remove the coastal limit. Associations statewide could participate, not just those within 15 miles of a coastline [1].
• Add an income test. Only associations in which at least 80% of occupied units are owned or occupied by households earning at or below 80% of the area median income, as published by HUD for the county, would qualify [1].
• Require income verification. The department would adopt rules for verifying household income, such as owner self-certification, tax returns or income statements, and could require periodic recertification [1]. Mixed-income buildings could participate if they meet the threshold [1].
• Focus grants on common elements. Grant funds could be awarded only for improvements to the common elements, and associations would have to complete all recommended opening protection improvements to the common elements as a condition of the grant [1].

The changes would apply only to applications submitted on or after July 1, 2026 [1]. Because the program depends on annual appropriations, an expansion would matter only if the Legislature funds it [1].

What this means for unit owners

For owners in older, lower-income buildings away from the coast, the bill could open a source of help that does not exist for them today. For owners in coastal buildings that do not meet the new income test, the bill would narrow eligibility for future applications [1]. Either way, the association would still have to fund one dollar for every two state dollars, and grants are capped at $175,000 per association [1]. In practice, an association’s share is money that ultimately comes from the owners.

Owners who are already behind on assessments should watch these developments but not count on a grant to solve the problem. Funding has been limited, the application windows have closed quickly, and the bill was still in committee as of this writing [1][2].

Condo owners in South Florida who are struggling with special assessments, association liens or other debt can request a confidential consultation with The Roca Law Firm to review their options.

Sources

1. Bill Analysis, CS/HB 1497 (My Safe Florida Condominium Pilot Program), Housing, Agriculture & Tourism Subcommittee, Florida House of Representatives
2. Housing, Agriculture & Tourism Subcommittee, January 29, 2026, Meeting Bill Summary Report, Florida House of Representatives

General information as of February 2, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.

Attorney’s fees often become the largest number in a condominium dispute, and a January 21, 2026, decision from Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal shows how procedural choices can lock in a fee award before the rest of the case is resolved. In Whitehall at Bal Harbour Condominium Association, Inc. v. Raviv, the court affirmed a judgment awarding fees and costs to a unit owner on one count while other counts remained pending, holding that the association waived its timing objection by raising it for the first time on rehearing [1].

What happened

Unit owner Yaffa Raviv sued the Whitehall association in September 2018 and amended her complaint in April 2021, alleging negligence, seeking injunctive relief and alleging breach of contract [1]. The parties entered an agreed order naming Raviv the prevailing party on the injunctive relief count, with the negligence and contract counts left for later [1]. They then entered a second agreed order granting Raviv entitlement to fees and costs on that count and reserving the amount for an evidentiary hearing [1].

Raviv’s motion asked the court to enter a judgment in her favor for $214,950 in attorney’s fees and $27,909.67 in costs, plus post-judgment interest [1]. The association objected only to some of the costs and to the amount of fees, not to entry of a judgment [1]. The trial court held a five-hour evidentiary hearing, the parties stipulated to taxable costs, and the court entered a final judgment for fees and costs on August 30, 2024 [1].

Ten days later, the association moved for rehearing and to vacate, arguing for the first time that a fee order should be entered only at the end of the case, after all counts are resolved [1]. The trial court declined to consider the new argument [1].

The Third District’s reasoning

The appellate court reviewed the award for abuse of discretion and found none [1]. Judge Fernandez’s opinion made three points:

• Waiver by acquiescence. Agreeing to prevailing party status and fee entitlement is not necessarily an agreement to entry of a final fee judgment. But the association fully participated in the fee proceedings, including the five-hour hearing and negotiations over the amount, without a procedural objection, and so waived it [1].
• No new arguments on rehearing. A trial court does not abuse its discretion by refusing to consider an argument on rehearing that could have been raised earlier, and the association knew Raviv was asking for a judgment [1].
• Voidable, not void. Because the claimed defect was procedural, the judgment would at most have been voidable. A judgment is void only for lack of subject matter or personal jurisdiction or a denial of notice and an opportunity to be heard [1].

Why this matters at the mediation table

The decision is short, but its practical lesson is familiar to anyone who has negotiated a condominium case. Fees on a single count, here more than $214,000 requested, can exceed the value of the underlying dispute [1]. Once entitlement is conceded and an amount is fixed, the leverage in the remaining counts changes.

Several takeaways for association counsel, boards and owners’ counsel:

• Agreed orders carry weight. Stipulating to prevailing party status or entitlement can be efficient, but each stipulation should say plainly whether and when a judgment may enter.
• Raise timing objections early. The association’s argument might have been heard if made before the evidentiary hearing [1].
• Evaluate fees together with the merits. A global resolution can address fees on resolved counts alongside the open counts, rather than litigating them in stages.

The Legislature was also weighing how community association disputes reach court. A House staff analysis released January 22, 2026, described HB 657, which would create community association court programs in the circuit courts with authority to award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs [2]. The same analysis explains that current law requires presuit mediation for many homeowners’ association disputes, and that a party who refuses to participate in mediation is barred from recovering fees and costs in later litigation on the dispute [2]. Whatever the forum, fees remain a central settlement variable.

Tony Roca, a Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Civil Mediator, mediates condominium and HOA disputes, including presuit mediation under section 720.311, Florida Statutes. Counsel and associations can check his live availability and book a mediation by Zoom statewide.

Sources

1. Whitehall at Bal Harbour Condominium Association, Inc. v. Yaffa Raviv, No. 3D24-2031, Florida Third District Court of Appeal (via CourtListener)
2. Bill Analysis, CS/HB 657 (Community Associations), Housing, Agriculture & Tourism Subcommittee, Florida House of Representatives

General information as of January 28, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.

The latest South Florida housing figures carry mixed news for condominium owners. According to December 2025 statistics released on January 16, 2026, by the MIAMI Association of Realtors, existing condo sales rose year over year in both Miami-Dade and Broward counties [1][2]. At the same time, median condo prices fell, condos took longer to sell, and the supply of listings remained high enough to signal a buyer’s market [1][2]. For owners already stretched by rising association fees or special assessments, those details matter more than the headline sales count.

What the December numbers show

In Miami-Dade, existing condo sales increased 7.91% from December 2024, from 935 to 1,009 closings, and condo sales have risen year over year in three of the last four months [1]. The median price of an existing Miami-Dade condo, however, fell 2.33%, from $430,000 to $420,000 [1].

Broward showed a sharper price drop. Existing condo sales there rose 5.24%, from 936 to 985, but the median condo price fell 9.27%, from $283,250 to $257,000 [2]. Broward condo dollar volume fell 2.92% to $345 million [2].

Inventory is the number to watch. Miami-Dade condo listings rose 6.74% year over year to 12,015, which equals 13.2 months of supply [1]. Broward condo listings rose 2.39% to 10,484, or 11 months of supply [2]. The association describes six to nine months as a balanced market, so both counties were in buyer’s market territory for existing condos [1][2]. By contrast, Miami-Dade single-family homes had 6.2 months of supply, and Broward single-family homes had 4.8 months [1][2].

Condos also took longer to sell. In Miami-Dade, the median time from listing to contract for condos rose to 72 days from 58, and the median time to sale rose to 109 days from 96 [1]. Sellers received a median of 93% of the original list price for existing Miami-Dade condos and 92% in Broward [1][2].

Financing limits remain a drag

The association pointed to financing as a factor holding the condo market back. Drawing on U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development figures, the report said a mere 21 buildings in the three-county region of Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach had Federal Housing Administration loan approval, against a total of 2,397 condo buildings [1]. The report also noted that Florida requires a 25% down payment for a limited review when a condo building lacks sufficient reserves, compared with 10% elsewhere [1]. Cash buyers accounted for 50.9% of Miami-Dade existing condo sales and 55.2% in Broward [1][2].

When fewer buyers can finance a purchase, sellers have less leverage. That can make it harder for an owner to sell quickly at a price that covers a mortgage, unpaid assessments and closing costs.

What this means for owners under financial pressure

Many South Florida condo owners have faced higher monthly fees and special assessments in recent years. A softer resale market can narrow the options for an owner who falls behind. Selling may still be the right move, but the December data suggest it may take longer and bring less than expected, particularly in Broward, where the median price fell by more than 9% in a year [2].

Owners in this position should keep a few points in mind:

• Delinquent assessments grow. Late charges, interest and collection costs can add up while a unit sits on the market.
• Equity can shrink. A lower sale price leaves less room to pay the mortgage, the association and any other liens at closing.
• Timing matters. Decisions made before a lien foreclosure is filed usually leave more options than decisions made after.

Bankruptcy is not the answer for every owner, but it is one legal tool that can pause collection activity and, in Chapter 13, allow a homeowner to catch up on past-due amounts over time. Whether it makes sense depends on the owner’s income, equity and other debts.

South Florida condo owners worried about assessments, association liens or mortgage arrears can request a confidential consultation with The Roca Law Firm, in English or Spanish.

Sources

1. South Florida Real Estate Posts Second-Most $10M & Up Home Sales in History, MIAMI Association of Realtors
2. Broward County Total Home Sales, Condo Transactions Increase, MIAMI Association of Realtors

General information as of January 23, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.

The year ended the way it began for many Florida condo owners: with fewer buyers, softer prices and large repair bills. A Homes.com report published December 31, 2025, found that condo sales fell 8.2% nationwide in 2025, but dropped more steeply in three of Florida’s four largest markets: 12.9% in Miami, 17% in Tampa and 13.3% in Orlando [1].

The numbers

Prices followed. Nationally, condo prices rose 0.4%, but they fell 2.6% in Miami, 7.5% in Orlando and 11.4% in Tampa, according to Homes.com [1]. Jacksonville was an outlier on volume, with condo sales up 25.5%, yet its median condo price still fell 19%, or $56,125, to $238,750 [1].

Lisa McNatt, director of analytics for Homes.com, said condo pricing remained under pressure across Florida as of November 2025 and pointed to elevated ownership costs, including insurance and assessment fees, especially in coastal areas [1]. The report cited Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation figures putting the state’s condo inventory at over 1.5 million units governed by roughly 27,000 associations, and it said up to 70% of those units may fall under the safety law [1].

Why older buildings are hit hardest

The report ties much of the decline to the condominium safety law passed after the 2021 Champlain Towers South collapse, which requires inspections for buildings of certain ages, heights and coastal locations and requires associations to bring reserves up to adequate levels [1]. Under section 553.899, Florida Statutes, a residential condominium building three or more habitable stories tall must undergo a milestone inspection by December 31 of the year it turns 30, and every 10 years after that [2]. Buildings that turned 30 between July 1, 2022, and December 31, 2024, face an initial deadline of December 31, 2025 [2]. Local officials may require the inspection at 25 years for buildings near salt water [2].

Those inspections have produced major assessments, some over $100,000 per unit, according to John Cadden of the Orlando-based Condominium Advisory Group [1]. Fear of those bills has pushed owners to list units and kept buyers away [1]. Cadden said many associations long avoided raising dues, leaving reserves short and maintenance deferred, and that older buildings outside top locations are not rebounding [1]. New construction continues, including foreign buyer demand in South Florida, which widens the gap between new and older buildings [1].

The squeeze on individual owners

For an owner in an older building, the combination can be difficult: a special assessment arrives just as the unit’s market value falls. Selling may not raise enough to cover the mortgage plus the assessment, and staying means finding the money to pay.

Falling behind carries risk. Under section 718.116, a condominium association has a lien on each unit to secure payment of assessments [3]. Against a first mortgage of record, the lien is effective once a claim of lien is recorded [3]. An association can pursue that lien even when the owner is current on the mortgage.

Owners in this position have more options when they act early:

• Get the building’s milestone inspection report and the association’s reserve and repair plan, which tell owners what may still be coming [2].
• Ask whether the association offers installment plans or is financing the work through a loan, which spreads costs over time.
• Compare the unit’s realistic sale price against the mortgage balance and assessments owed, using current local data [1].
• Look at the full household budget, including insurance and other debt, before making a decision about the unit.

A falling market does not make every condo a bad place to live, and Cadden described condos as going through a period of adjustment rather than disappearing [1]. But for families already stretched, the next assessment can be the point where a manageable situation becomes a debt problem.

Condo owners in South Florida weighing how to handle an assessment, an association lien or other mounting debt can request a confidential consultation with The Roca Law Firm, in English or Spanish.

Sources

1. Florida's condo market has weathered a rough year, but the turbulence continues, Homes.com News
2. Section 553.899, Florida Statutes (2025): Mandatory structural inspections for condominium and cooperative buildings, The Florida Senate
3. Section 718.116, Florida Statutes (2025): Assessments; liability; lien and priority; interest; collection, The Florida Senate

General information as of December 31, 2025, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.

For South Florida condo owners squeezed by insurance costs, assessments and higher monthly dues, some relief may be on the way. On December 10, 2025, the Board of Governors of Citizens Property Insurance Corporation approved 2026 rate recommendations that would reduce average personal lines rates for the first time since 2015 [1]. The headline figure is a statewide average decrease of 2.6% for personal lines, with three out of five policyholders receiving an average premium reduction of 11.5%, or $359 [1].

The recommendations are not final. Citizens will file them with the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation, which will hold a public hearing, review the proposals, decide whether changes are needed, and issue orders setting 2026 rates, which would take effect June 1, 2026 [1].

Condo unit owner policies: mostly down

Condo owners in Citizens typically carry a unit owner policy, which the rate kit tracks as “HO6.” For multiperil HO6 policies, Citizens recommended a statewide average change of minus 8.3%, with the average premium falling from $1,420 to $1,302 across 49,835 policies [2]. Of those policies, 40,090 would see a decrease [2].

The tri-county numbers are similar [2]:

• Miami-Dade: 12,444 multiperil HO6 policies, average change of minus 10.3%, from $1,369 to $1,228.
• Broward: 15,372 policies, minus 8.2%, from $1,319 to $1,210.
• Palm Beach: 13,339 policies, minus 6.8%, from $1,624 to $1,514.

Wind-only unit owner policies: up

The picture is different for owners whose private carrier covers the unit but excludes wind, leaving Citizens to write a wind-only policy. For wind-only HO6 policies (listed as “HW6”), Citizens recommended a statewide average increase of 5.6%, from $2,066 to $2,181, across 17,401 policies [2]. In Miami-Dade the recommended change is plus 5.6%, from $2,466 to $2,605; in Broward, plus 8.4%, from $1,420 to $1,539; and in Palm Beach, plus 7.2%, from $2,172 to $2,328 [2].

Citizens attributes the overall decreases to legislative reforms and a recovering private market [1]. It expects its policy count to fall to 385,000 by the end of 2025, down 73% from a peak of 1.42 million in October 2023, and reports that 17 new insurers have entered the Florida market [1]. Its depopulation program transferred more than 546,000 policies to private companies in 2025 [1].

What this does and does not cover

The rate kit’s tables cover personal lines policies such as HO6 unit owner coverage [2]. They do not show what an association pays for the master policy on the building itself, which flows into each owner’s monthly assessment. A smaller unit owner premium helps, but it may be offset if the association’s own insurance, reserve contributions or special assessments keep rising.

That matters because assessments carry real consequences. Section 718.116 backs assessment payments with a lien the condominium association holds on every unit, and that lien becomes effective against a first mortgage of record once a claim of lien is recorded [3]. Owners who fall behind on assessments can face lien foreclosure, even if they are current on their mortgage.

A few practical steps for unit owners:

• Check whether the current policy is a multiperil HO6 or a wind-only policy, since the recommended changes point in opposite directions [2].
• Review the county estimates in the rate kit before renewal [2].
• Watch for the regulator’s final order, since the recommended figures may change [1].
• Look at the association’s budget to see how building insurance is affecting assessments.

Unit owners in South Florida who are falling behind on assessments, insurance or other debts can request a confidential consultation with The Roca Law Firm, in English or Spanish.

Sources

1. Citizens Recommends Rate Cuts for Most Policyholders, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation
2. 2026 Rate Kit, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation
3. Section 718.116, Florida Statutes (2025): Assessments; liability; lien and priority; interest; collection, The Florida Senate

General information as of December 10, 2025, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.

Architectural disputes are among the most common fights in Florida homeowners associations, and roofs are a frequent flashpoint. On November 19, 2025, Florida’s First District Court of Appeal reversed a summary judgment that required an Okaloosa County owner to remove and replace a new roof, holding that a genuine factual dispute existed over whether the roof was a prohibited “metal roof” [1]. The opinion, Lock Properties LLC v. Kelly Plantation Owners Association, Inc., is short, but it offers useful guidance for boards, association counsel and owners on how far a mandatory injunction can reach.

The dispute

Lock Properties, whose managing member is Henry Lock, replaced the roof on a house in the Kelly Plantation community without the association’s prior approval [1]. The new roof uses a steel underlayment covered with barrel roofing tiles made of stone [1]. The association’s documents require approval before a roof is installed and prohibit “[m]etal roofs” [1].

The association sued for a permanent injunction, alleging two violations: the roof was installed without approval, and it was a prohibited metal roof [1]. The owner conceded that he did not obtain approval but denied that the roof was a metal roof [1]. The county court granted summary judgment for the association, found the roof was a metal roof, and ordered it removed and replaced [1].

What the First District held

The court reversed on two grounds. First, everyone agreed the roof contained metal and was covered with stone tiles [1]. Whether a metal underlayment makes the whole system a “metal roof” was a genuine dispute of material fact, which made summary judgment inappropriate [1].

Second, the court addressed the injunction itself. An association enforcing a restrictive covenant need not prove irreparable injury or the lack of an adequate legal remedy [1]. Still, an association does not have unlimited authority to enforce covenants by mandatory injunction, and an owner may defend by showing that the association acted unreasonably or arbitrarily [1]. The association effectively conceded that forcing removal would be unreasonable if the roof is not a prohibited metal roof, explaining that if an owner installed an “indisputably compliant” roof without approval and then sought approval, the association could approve it and removal would be unnecessary [1]. The failure to seek approval alone could not support the remove-and-replace order [1]. The case returns to the trial court [1].

Lessons for boards and owners

The decision fits within the statutory framework that already governs architectural control. Section 720.3035 permits an association to review and approve improvements only to the extent the authority is specifically stated or reasonably inferred in the declaration or authorized guidelines, and requires the association to apply those standards reasonably and equitably to all owners [3]. Undefined terms such as “metal roof” invite exactly the kind of factual dispute that prevented summary judgment here [1].

The case also shows why these disputes are good candidates for early resolution. Under section 720.311, disputes between an association and an owner over changes to a parcel and other covenant enforcement disputes must be the subject of a written demand for presuit mediation before they are filed in court [2]. A motion for temporary injunctive relief may be filed without first mediating when emergency relief is required [2]. Presuit mediation is privileged and confidential to the same extent as court-ordered mediation [2].

Practical points for both sides:

• Define the restriction. A board can clarify ambiguous standards through its guidelines rather than litigating the meaning of a single word [3].
• Separate the approval violation from the substance. The court treated the missed approval as insufficient, by itself, to justify tearing off a roof [1].
• Consider an after-the-fact application. The association’s own concession points to a path in which a compliant roof is reviewed and approved [1].
• Use mediation before the expense escalates. An owner facing removal of a new roof and an association facing fee exposure on appeal both have reasons to talk early [2].

Tony Roca mediates HOA and condominium disputes, including the presuit mediation required for many HOA disputes under section 720.311, Florida Statutes. Boards, managers, owners and counsel can check his availability and book a mediation online, by Zoom statewide.

Sources

1. Lock Properties LLC v. Kelly Plantation Owners Association, Inc., No. 1D2024-0256, Florida First District Court of Appeal (via Justia)
2. Section 720.311, Florida Statutes (2025): Dispute resolution, The Florida Senate
3. Section 720.3035, Florida Statutes (2025): Architectural control covenants; parcel owner improvements; rights and privileges, The Florida Senate

General information as of November 26, 2025, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.

A condo sale in Pompano Beach nearly fell apart two days before closing because of a lien the seller did not know existed. As reported by WSVN 7News on November 5, 2025, the owner learned at the last minute that a $1,250 lien had been placed on her unit, and on every unit at the Cypress Club condominium [1]. The story is a small one in dollar terms, but it shows how a building’s safety and inspection problems can land on individual owners’ balance sheets, often without warning.

What happened at Cypress Club

According to the report, Cypress Club needed repairs to pass its 40-year recertification and did not complete them, and the City of Pompano Beach imposed fines and a lien on the condominium [1]. The seller said neither the board nor the management company told owners about it [1]. Her buyer was ready, but the closing could not go forward until the lien was paid, so she paid the $1,250 herself [1].

WSVN also reported that, according to the city, neither the board nor its attorney appeared at the hearing where the fine and lien were imposed [1]. The station’s legal analyst, Howard Finkelstein, said a board has a fiduciary duty to tell owners about matters that affect them, including a lien on their units, but that being kept in the dark does not mean the association must pay an owner’s share [1]. He also warned that future special assessments to complete the recertification work could cost owners far more than the lien itself [1].

Why recertification problems become owner problems

Florida law now requires structural inspections for many condominium buildings. Section 553.899, Florida Statutes, sets the schedule: residential condominium buildings with at least three habitable stories need a milestone inspection by December 31 of the year they turn 30, then again once each decade [3]. For a building whose 30th year fell between July 1, 2022, and December 31, 2024, the first inspection was due by December 31, 2025 [3]. For buildings close to salt water, local officials can lower the starting age to 25 [3]. If an inspection finds substantial structural deterioration, a phase two inspection follows, and the engineer or architect must file a progress report with a timeline within 180 days after the phase one report [3].

When required work is not done, the consequences do not stay at the board level. Fines and liens imposed on a building can follow the units, and the cost of the repairs is typically spread across owners through assessments. Under section 718.116, the association holds a lien on every unit that secures the assessments owed on it [2]. Where a first mortgage has been recorded, the association’s lien becomes effective against that mortgage only after the association records a claim of lien [2].

What owners can do now

For owners thinking about selling, the closing process itself offers some protection. A condominium association must issue an estoppel certificate within 10 business days after a written or electronic request from an owner, a mortgagee, or a designee [2]. The certificate must list the regular assessment, an itemized list of assessments and other amounts owed, any open violation noticed to the owner, and contact information for the association’s insurance, among other items [2]. Requesting it early, rather than days before closing, gives a seller time to address surprises.

Owners who are not selling should still pay attention:

• Ask the board about the building’s milestone inspection status and any repair deadlines [3].
• Attend board meetings and read the minutes when recertification or code enforcement is on the agenda [1].
• Budget for the possibility of a special assessment if repairs are outstanding [1].
• Keep regular assessments current, since unpaid balances are secured by the association’s lien [2].

A $1,250 lien can be paid at a closing table. A five-figure special assessment, stacked on top of rising insurance and monthly dues, is a different matter for many South Florida families.

Unit owners facing a large assessment, an association lien or other mounting debt can request a confidential consultation with The Roca Law Firm, in English or Spanish.

Sources

1. Surprise lien on her condo, WSVN 7News (Help Me Howard)
2. Section 718.116, Florida Statutes (2025): Assessments; liability; lien and priority; interest; collection, The Florida Senate
3. Section 553.899, Florida Statutes (2025): Mandatory structural inspections for condominium and cooperative buildings, The Florida Senate

General information as of November 7, 2025, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.