For many Florida families, the homeowners insurance renewal notice has been one of the most stressful pieces of mail of the year. On October 29, 2026, the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR) announced that more than 824,300 homeowners will see rate decreases on new policies or renewals from filings that took effect in October, with decreases of up to 12.1 percent [1]. OIR said additional decreases are pending for November, December and January and will reach roughly 450,000 more policyholders [1][2]. The news is welcome, but what it means for any one household depends on the details of the policy and the rest of the budget.

Which companies cut rates

OIR highlighted the following October filings, listing the policy type, the average change, the approximate number of consumers and the effective date [1]:

• Cypress P&C (HO3, HO6): minus 12.1 percent, about 64,300 consumers, October 1
• Manatee Insurance Exchange (HO6): minus 3.5 percent, about 3,850 consumers, October 1
• Kin Insurance (HO3): minus 3.4 percent, about 99,800 consumers, October 8
• Castle Key Indemnity (HO6): minus 12 percent, about 51,580 consumers, October 11
• Castle Key Insurance (HO6): minus 10.3 percent, about 4,700 consumers, October 11
• Universal P&C (HO3, HO4, HO6, HO8): minus 5 percent, about 512,000 consumers, October 16
• Security First (HO6): minus 7.3 percent, about 17,300 consumers, October 20
• Mangrove Insurance (HO3): minus 5.6 percent, about 4,000 consumers, October 27
• Olympus Insurance (HO3, HO6): minus 0.1 percent, about 66,800 consumers, October 31

Seven of the nine filings include HO6 policies, the coverage condominium unit owners buy for their own units [1]. OIR also noted August filings already in effect from American Integrity Insurance Company, including a 0.3 percent decrease for about 184,000 consumers and a 12.3 percent decrease for about 8,900, and an 8 percent decrease from Florida Family Home Insurance Company for about 20,700 consumers [1].

Since January 2024, OIR said, 48 companies have filed for rate decreases and 53 have requested no change [1][2]. State officials credit the Legislature’s tort reforms for the shift, and Chief Financial Officer Blaise Ingoglia described the decreases as evidence of changes in the market since those reforms [1][2].

What an average decrease does and does not mean

A filed rate change describes a company’s overall change, not every policy. An individual premium can still move differently based on the home’s age, roof, location, coverage limits and deductibles. A smaller rate can also be offset if coverage amounts rise at renewal. For that reason, the most useful step is to compare the new declarations page line by line with last year’s, rather than relying on the headline number.

A few practical checks for Florida homeowners at renewal:

• Compare the premium, the hurricane deductible and the dwelling coverage limit with the prior year.
• Ask the agent whether the carrier is one of the companies with an approved decrease, and when it applies to the policy [1].
• For condo owners, review the HO6 policy alongside any increase in association dues or special assessments, since both affect the monthly cost of owning the unit.
• For homeowners with a mortgage, confirm whether the lender’s escrow analysis will adjust the monthly payment after the new premium is paid.

Insurance savings and household debt

For a household that fell behind during several years of rising premiums, a lower renewal may free up a modest amount each month. That room can go toward catching up on a mortgage, property taxes or credit cards that absorbed past increases. If the gap is too large to close through savings alone, it may be time to look at the whole picture, including whether a Chapter 13 repayment plan or a Chapter 7 filing would help protect a home and reset the budget.

Anyone in South Florida weighing their options can request a confidential consultation with The Roca Law Firm, in English or Spanish.

Sources

1. Commissioner Mike Yaworsky and Chief Financial Officer Blaise Ingoglia Highlight Major Rate Decreases for Homeowners Effective This Month, Florida Office of Insurance Regulation
2. Insurance rates to decrease for over 800K Florida homeowners, officials say, WFLA

General information as of October 30, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.

Update, October 19, 2026: The Florida Supreme Court declined to adopt the proposed Rule 1.700 video requirement on October 16, 2026. See the follow-up article.

On May 14, 2026, the Florida Supreme Court issued a short rules opinion that will change a paragraph nearly every Florida litigator uses. In Case No. SC2025-0725, the Court adopted amendments to Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.540, which governs requests for accommodations by persons with disabilities, and declined, for now, a proposed amendment to Rule 2.530, the communication technology rule [1]. The Rule 2.540 changes take effect July 1, 2026, at 12:01 a.m., and a motion for rehearing will not alter that date [1].

What changes in the ADA notice

The Florida Bar’s Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration Committee proposed both amendments, the Bar’s Board of Governors unanimously recommended them, and no comments were filed after publication [1]. The Court adopted the Rule 2.540 amendments as proposed [1]. Three changes matter most to practitioners:

• Scope. Amended Rule 2.540(c)(1) requires the ADA statement on every notice of a court proceeding, whether a judge issues it as an order or an attorney or party files it, and on all process compelling appearance, “including but not limited to a summons,” must include the ADA statement [1]. The prior text referred to notices of proceedings “to be held in a public facility” [1].
• Font. The statement must still appear in bold face, 14-point type, but in Bookman Old Style or Arial rather than Times New Roman or Courier [1].
• Contact. The model language now directs readers to the “ADA Coordinator,” with the applicable address and telephone number, instead of a named individual [1].

The required text otherwise keeps its familiar structure: a person who needs an accommodation should make contact at least 7 days before the scheduled appearance, or immediately if less time remains, and hearing or voice impaired persons may call 711 [1]. The opinion also modernizes the rule’s wording, replacing “shall” with “must” in several provisions, including those on service animals [1].

Why mediation practitioners should review their templates

The amended rule speaks to notices of court proceedings filed by attorneys or parties [1]. Offices that generate hearing notices and similar papers from templates may find that the ADA paragraph has carried forward unchanged for years. After July 1, a template with Times New Roman text or a named court employee will not match the rule’s current wording [1].

Counsel, paralegals and mediators who prepare notices in court-referred cases may want to review their templates before July 1, confirm the correct ADA Coordinator contact for each circuit, and update the font. Whether a particular mediation notice falls within the rule is a question for each practitioner to evaluate against the text of Rule 2.540(c)(1) [1], but using compliant language throughout avoids having to decide document by document.

The Rule 2.530 proposal goes to the civil rules committee

The second half of the opinion is shorter but signals where the remote practice debate is heading. The Court declined to adopt the proposed Rule 2.530 amendment “at this time” and referred the matter to the Civil Procedure Rules Committee, asking it to consider proposing an amendment on the use of audio-visual communication technology during a deposition in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310 [1]. The opinion does not adopt any new deposition requirement, so current practice continues while the committee takes up the question [1][2].

The referral arrives while a related question is pending for mediation. In March, the Court published a Civil Procedure Rules Committee proposal to amend Rule 1.700 so that, when a judge orders or the parties stipulate to communication technology for a mediation or arbitration, the technology must include both audio and video [3]. Comments on that proposal were due May 1, 2026 [3]. The earlier article on the Rule 1.700 proposal covers it in more detail.

Taken together, the Court appears to be handling video requirements rule by rule, through the committee that drafts each rule, rather than through the general communication technology rule [1][3]. Practitioners who conduct depositions and mediations by Zoom should watch for a Rule 1.310 proposal from the committee.

Counsel looking for a Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Civil and Family Mediator can check Tony Roca’s live availability and book a mediation by Zoom statewide.

Sources

1. In re: Amendments to Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.530 and 2.540, No. SC2025-0725, Supreme Court of Florida
2. In re: Amendments to Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.530 and 2.540 (2026), FindLaw
3. Proposed amendments to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.700 (Rules Common to Mediation and Arbitration), The Florida Bar News

General information as of October 19, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.

One of South Florida’s most closely watched condominium disputes has ended at the negotiating table. Two Roads Development settled with the holdout owners at Biscayne 21, the bayfront Edgewater building it bought into in 2022, and the deal closed on Monday, August 31, 2026 [1]. A source told The Real Deal that the developer paid about $50 million for the remaining units, and the resolution still needs court approval [1]. For counsel who handle association, redevelopment and real property disputes, the case is a useful study in how a contested termination can become far more expensive than the gap that started it.

How the dispute started

Biscayne 21 is a 192-unit building at 2121 North Bayshore Drive [1]. In 2022, an affiliate of Two Roads paid about $150 million for a majority of the units, financed in part by a senior loan from Bank OZK [1]. After buying units in bulk, the developer used its voting power to take control of the association board [3].

The 1974 declaration required the unanimous agreement of unit owners to terminate the condominium, and it required 100 percent approval for any amendment altering owners’ voting rights [3]. In August 2022 the developer-controlled board amended the declaration to replace unanimity with the 80 percent statutory threshold, then approved a plan of termination over the objection of the remaining owners and conveyed the property, including their units, to the developer in December 2022 [3]. Ten owners sued in 2023 [1].

What the Third District decided

The trial court denied a temporary injunction, reasoning that changing the termination threshold did not affect voting rights [3]. On rehearing in July 2025, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed. It held that an amendment changing the termination vote from 100 percent to 80 percent impacts the voting rights of the unit owners, because the original requirement gave each owner an effective veto [3]. The court also found that the declaration’s general reference to the Condominium Act “as amended” was not Kaufman language that would automatically pull later statutory changes into the declaration [3]. It remanded for entry of a temporary injunction and certified a question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court [3], which declined to hear the case in October 2025 [1].

From there, the pressure shifted to the developer. In January 2026, a Miami-Dade circuit judge ordered the building restored to a habitable condition, including utilities such as air conditioning, water and electricity [1]. The developer then sued the holdouts in February seeking equitable relief that included terminating the association [1]. Meanwhile, the owners had lost access to their units when the building became uninhabitable in 2023 and had not been paid until the settlement closed [1].

The cost of the gap

The most striking detail for anyone who resolves disputes for a living came from one of the holdouts. Robert H. Murphy, an attorney and unit owner, told The Real Deal that in early 2021 he asked for roughly a third more than he was offered, and that two owners never received a response [2]. In his view, the developer could have avoided the litigation by paying him and a neighbor a combined $600,000 to $700,000 above the bulk sale price [2]. The developer’s position is different: Taylor Collins of Two Roads called the settlement a relief and urged the Legislature to create “a clear, fair and predictable process” for terminating condominium associations [1][2].

Whatever the merits, the arithmetic is hard to ignore. The developer carried millions of dollars in interest on its buyout financing while the case ran [1], buyers of the planned project sued over their deposits [2], and the holdouts had no access to their units from 2023 until the deal closed [1]. Their attorney, Glen Waldman, said the settlement gives his clients a better quality of life, noting they still faced years of litigation [2].

Several lessons carry over to other buyout and termination disputes:

• Read the declaration before setting strategy. Biscayne 21 turned on specific unanimity and voting rights language and on the absence of Kaufman language [3].
• Engage holdouts early and in a structured setting. The reported price gap in 2021 was a small fraction of the eventual cost to both sides [1][2].
• Treat an appellate ruling as a resolution point. Once the Third District ruled and the Supreme Court declined review, the leverage was clear, yet the parties still spent most of another year in litigation [1].

Termination fights involve owners’ homes, lenders and construction timelines at once, which makes a neutral forum valuable well before the courthouse becomes the only option. Counsel looking for a Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Civil Mediator for a condominium or association dispute can check Tony Roca’s live availability and book a mediation.

Sources

1. Two Roads settles with holdout condo owners, ending Biscayne 21 legal saga, The Real Deal
2. Inside the long fight over Two Roads' Biscayne 21 condo buyout, The Real Deal
3. Avila v. Biscayne 21 Condominium, Inc., No. 3D23-1616 (opinion on motion for rehearing), Florida Third District Court of Appeal (via Justia)

General information as of September 3, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.

Homeowners association dues can feel like a smaller bill than a mortgage or a car loan, but a new Florida appellate decision shows how serious unpaid assessments can become. On August 7, 2026, Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal held in Haught v. Eagle Palms Homeowners Association, Inc. that an association can both foreclose its lien for unpaid assessments and also recover a money judgment for those same assessments [1][2]. The court affirmed a judgment of $30,502.44 against a later owner and his company [1].

What happened

Eagle Palms is a townhome subdivision in Riverview [1]. In 2014, the association obtained a foreclosure judgment against the owners of one townhome who had stopped paying assessments [1]. Those owners filed bankruptcy, which postponed the foreclosure sale, but the sale eventually took place in August 2015 [1].

Before that sale, Barry Haught paid the owners $1,000 for the property and took a quitclaim deed into a land trust [1]. He and his partners rented out the townhome and, despite collecting rent, paid no past due or current assessments [1]. The association sued in 2016 for the unpaid assessments and later added fraud-based claims [1].

At trial, the defendants pointed to the association’s declaration, which said the association “may bring an action at law against the Owner personally obligated to pay the same, or foreclose the lien against the Lot” [1]. They argued that the word “or” limited the association to one remedy, and that because it had already foreclosed, it could not also sue for damages [1].

What the court decided

The Second District disagreed. Section 720.3085(1)(c), Florida Statutes, provides that an association may foreclose a lien for assessments “and may also bring an action to recover a money judgment for the unpaid assessments without waiving any claim of lien” [1]. That language has been in the statute since 2007 [1].

The court read the declaration as a whole. It noted that the declaration makes assessments both a continuing lien on the property and the personal obligation of the owner, and that the section on nonpayment is titled “Remedies,” in the plural [1]. Reading the single word “or” to cut off one remedy would make either the lien or the personal obligation meaningless [1]. The court also noted that the declaration had been amended in 2010 to make a lot owner jointly and severally liable with the previous owner for unpaid assessments, consistent with the statute [1].

Why this matters for Florida homeowners

There are more than a few lessons here for families in South Florida communities governed by an HOA or condominium association:

• Foreclosure may not end the debt. Under this decision, an association that forecloses can still pursue a money judgment for unpaid assessments [1].
• Buyers can inherit the problem. The statute and the declaration in this case made a new owner jointly and severally liable with the prior owner for unpaid assessments [1]. Anyone buying a distressed property should get an estoppel certificate or payoff figure first.
• Interest and fees add up quickly. This declaration charged 18 percent annual interest on late assessments and allowed late fees [1]. A modest balance can grow into a five-figure judgment.
• Bankruptcy can pause, but timing matters. In this case, the prior owners’ bankruptcy postponed the foreclosure sale [1]. How association debt is treated in a Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 case depends on when the assessments came due and whether the owner keeps the home, so the details deserve careful review.

Falling behind on association dues often happens alongside other financial stress, such as rising insurance premiums, special assessments or job loss. Addressing the problem early, before an association files a lien foreclosure or a collection lawsuit, usually leaves more options open.

Anyone in South Florida facing association collection, a lien foreclosure or other mounting debt can request a confidential consultation with The Roca Law Firm, in English or Spanish.

Sources

1. Haught v. Eagle Palms Homeowners Association, Inc., No. 2D2025-1403, Florida Second District Court of Appeal (via FindLaw)
2. Florida Appeals Court Decisions Week of August 3 - 7, 2026, Carlton Fields (JD Supra)

General information as of August 10, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.

On July 9, 2026, the Florida Supreme Court held in Stewart v. Vindel that trial judges dividing marital property under section 61.075, Florida Statutes, may, in their discretion, add prejudgment interest when needed to reach an equitable result [1]. The Court approved the Third District’s decision in a Miami-Dade case and disapproved the First District’s contrary holding in Iarussi v. Iarussi, which had barred prejudgment interest in equitable distribution [1]. For family law practitioners and mediators, the ruling adds a new variable to cases where the marital estate is valued early and divided years later.

The case

Scott Stewart filed a petition for dissolution in 2018 [1]. Nine months later, the trial court entered an uncontested judgment dissolving the marriage but reserved ruling on equitable distribution, alimony, and attorney’s fees and costs [1]. The contested distribution issues were not fully resolved until 2022, and the trial court used the petition’s filing date as the valuation date for the marital assets [1].

The former wife asked for interest on her share of the assets from the petition date to the date of distribution [1]. The trial court refused, finding it would be inequitable to charge the former husband for delays largely caused by the pandemic [1]. The Third District held that this stated basis lacked evidentiary support and was inconsistent with the purpose of prejudgment interest, and it acknowledged tension with Iarussi [1].

The holding

Writing for the majority, Justice Grosshans focused on the text of section 61.075. The statute states that its distribution provisions supplement, rather than replace, the court’s other tools “to do equity between the parties” [1]. The Court reasoned that equity runs throughout the statute, including the factors for unequal distribution, interim distributions, the flexible valuation date and the provision on dissipation of assets [1]. Nothing in the statute prohibits prejudgment interest, and the Court described prejudgment interest as an equitable remedy in this setting [1].

The Court rejected the First District’s view that the statute’s express reference to interest on installment payments implied that prejudgment interest was excluded [1]. It also noted that the First District was the only district court to hold that prejudgment interest is never available in equitable distribution [1].

The Court was careful about limits. A party is not automatically entitled to prejudgment interest; there must be facts that justify it, such as a spouse being deprived of significant marital property while the case is pending [1]. Even then, the trial court retains discretion to decide whether interest is a fitting tool to do equity [1]. The case was remanded for the trial court to reconsider the request [1].

The vote was 4 to 1. Chief Justice Couriel and Justices Muñiz, Francis and Sasso concurred, Justice Labarga dissented, and Justice Tanenbaum did not participate [1]. The dissent would have held that because the Legislature provided for postjudgment interest and not prejudgment interest, courts should not supply the missing remedy [1].

What it changes at the mediation table

The decision matters most where there is a long gap between the valuation date and the actual division of assets [2]. Practical points for counsel and parties preparing for family mediation:

• Identify who has controlled the assets. The Court’s example of when interest may be appropriate is a spouse deprived of significant marital property during the case [1]. Facts about access and control now carry more weight.
• Quantify the exposure. Commentators have noted that interest across a multi-year delay can materially change an award on a substantial estate [2]. Both sides should run the numbers before mediation rather than during it.
• Remember it is discretionary. Because an award is not automatic, the risk cuts both ways, which is often the kind of uncertainty that encourages settlement [1].
• Address interest expressly in the agreement. A marital settlement agreement that is silent on prejudgment interest invites later disputes. Clear language on valuation dates, timing and any interest component reduces that risk.

Tony Roca is a Florida Supreme Court Certified Family Mediator. Counsel and parties can check his live availability and book a mediation by Zoom statewide, in English or Spanish.

Sources

1. Stewart v. Vindel, No. SC2024-0428, Supreme Court of Florida (via Justia)
2. FL Supreme Court OKs Prejudgment Interest in Divorce Asset Splits, Divorce.law

General information as of July 15, 2026, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.

Update, March 18, 2026: HB 863 died in the Senate Rules Committee on March 13, 2026, without a Senate vote (Florida Senate). Separately, a Leon County circuit judge ruled on March 10 that Citizens’ DOAH arbitration endorsement does not violate access to courts, equal protection or due process (Insurance Journal), so mandatory DOAH arbitration remains in place for now.

On February 4, 2026, the Florida House passed House Bill 863 by a vote of 105 to 3 [1]. The bill, sponsored by Representative Benarroch [3], would change how claim disputes between Citizens Property Insurance Corporation and its policyholders are resolved by making arbitration before the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) a choice for the policyholder instead of a requirement [2]. After the House vote, the bill went to the Senate, where it was referred to the Rules Committee [3]. Earlier, it cleared both of its House committees, Insurance & Banking and Commerce, by votes of 17 to 0 [2].

How the Citizens DOAH Program Works Today

Since 2023, Florida law has let Citizens force policyholders into binding DOAH arbitration of claim disputes, whether or not the policyholder agrees [2]. Starting October 1, 2023, Citizens was approved to add an endorsement titled “Alternative Dispute Resolution Division of Administrative Hearings” to all new and renewal non-commercial policies [2]. Because of its quasi-governmental status, Citizens is the only insurer allowed to arbitrate before DOAH [2]. Before 2023, Citizens disputes that were not resolved through informal negotiation, Department of Financial Services mediation or demand appraisal ended up as lawsuits in circuit court [2].

Private insurers work under different rules. A Florida property policy from any insurer other than Citizens may require mandatory binding arbitration only if the requirement appears in a separate endorsement, the premium reflects a credit for accepting it, the policyholder signs a form explaining the rights given up (including the right to a jury trial), the endorsement commits the insurer to the statutory mediation provisions, and the insurer offers an alternative without mandatory arbitration [2].

The program has real scale. In December 2024, Citizens and DOAH renewed their contract for $19.3 million to fund arbitration through 2027, enough for up to 320 claims per month [2]. As of October 2025, DOAH had 12 full-time administrative law judges working only on Citizens disputes [2].

What the Numbers Show

According to the House staff analysis, Citizens referred 1,662 cases to DOAH in 2025 as of October 14, and 1,204 had been fully resolved [2]. About 80 percent were resolved by voluntary settlement, including 49 percent in which the insured accepted a nominal amount of $500 or less [2]. Citizens reports an average resolution time of 93 days at DOAH, compared with 618 days in state court [2]. The analysis also cites news reports that Citizens won more than 90 percent of cases that reached a final DOAH hearing, compared with about 55 percent of traditional circuit court trials [2].

The program has also drawn litigation. A Thirteenth Circuit judge temporarily halted DOAH arbitration on August 1, 2025, and that case was voluntarily dismissed in December 2025 [2]. In November 2025, a Second Circuit judge ordered DOAH to resume more than 400 pending Citizens cases, and that order is on appeal to the First District Court of Appeal [2]. Two class actions challenging the endorsement were also pending [2].

What HB 863 Would Change

According to the staff analysis, the bill would:

• End mandatory DOAH arbitration. Citizens could no longer require binding arbitration before DOAH without the policyholder’s consent [2].
• Make it an election. Citizens could adopt policy forms that let the insured accept or decline DOAH arbitration when the policy is issued or renewed, and the choice could not be changed during the policy term [2].
• Require a bold disclosure. The notice must appear in at least 12-point bold type immediately before the policyholder’s signature, with “accept” and “decline” boxes [2].
• Repeal the contracting provision. The bill would strike the statutory language that lets Citizens enter into a contract with DOAH for handling claim disputes [2].

The bill would take effect July 1, 2026 [2]. Staff noted a possible fiscal impact on circuit courts if policyholders decline arbitration [2].

Why It Matters for Claim Resolution

If HB 863 becomes law, every Citizens policyholder who declines arbitration would keep the court route that existed before 2023, along with DFS mediation and appraisal [2]. That would likely shift more Citizens disputes back toward negotiated settlement during litigation, where the timing of mediation and the quality of each side’s damages evidence carry more weight. The DOAH figures also show how often these disputes settle, and for how little, when one forum is mandatory [2]. Adjusters, policyholder counsel and defense counsel should watch the Senate, since its Rules Committee will decide whether the House’s approach goes any further [3].

Counsel and adjusters looking for a certified mediator for a property insurance dispute can check Tony Roca’s live availability and book a mediation by Zoom statewide.

Sources

1. HB 863 Passage, Third Reading, Vote Seq. 464, The Florida House of Representatives
2. House of Representatives Bill Analysis, HB 863 (Arbitration for Disputes with Citizens Property Insurance Corporation), Florida House of Representatives, Commerce Committee
3. HB 863: Arbitration for Disputes with Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, The Florida Senate
4. Judge Sides With Florida Citizens in Another Win for DOAH Arbitration Plan, Insurance Journal

General information as of March 18, 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 6003 passed the House 88 to 17 on January 15, 2026, but died in the Senate Rules Committee on March 13, 2026, when the session ended. The medical negligence exception in section 768.21(8) remains in effect. See the bill history on flsenate.gov.

Florida’s debate over the so-called “free kill” provision of the Wrongful Death Act is back for the 2026 session. On November 19, 2025, the House Judiciary Committee voted 15 to 1 to approve HB 6003, sponsored by Rep. Dana Trabulsy and Rep. Johanna López, sending the bill to the House floor ahead of the session that begins January 13 [1]. For counsel, adjusters and parties who resolve medical negligence and nursing home claims, the bill is worth tracking now, because it would change who can recover and what a death case is worth.

What HB 6003 Would Change

Under current law, section 768.21, Florida Statutes, contains a medical negligence exception that bars two groups from recovering noneconomic wrongful death damages in medical negligence cases: children of the decedent who are 25 or older, and parents of a deceased child who was 25 or older at the time of death [2]. HB 6003 would remove that exception [2].

If enacted, adult children of a decedent with no surviving spouse could recover for lost parental companionship, instruction and guidance and for their own mental pain and suffering in medical negligence cases [2]. Parents of an adult child with no other survivors could recover for their mental pain and suffering [2]. The bill also makes conforming changes to provisions in chapters 400 and 429 that govern nursing home and assisted living facility claims, and it would take effect July 1, 2026 [2][3].

The House staff analysis describes the fiscal effect as indeterminate, noting that the bill may increase the number of medical malpractice lawsuits and the liability in those suits, while increasing potential recoveries for the affected family members [2].

A Familiar Fight

This is not the first attempt. A similar bill, HB 6017, passed both chambers in 2025 and was vetoed by Gov. Ron DeSantis on May 29, 2025 [2]. Earlier versions passed the House in 2021 and 2022 and died in the Senate [1][2]. HB 6003 was filed on September 24, 2025, cleared the Civil Justice and Claims Subcommittee 16 to 2 on October 15, and completed its House committee stops in Judiciary [1][3].

The opposition has not changed. Physicians, hospitals and insurers warned that the measure would raise health care costs and malpractice premiums and discourage doctors from practicing in Florida, and the governor has called for caps on damage awards [1]. Testifying for the Florida Justice Reform Institute, a lawyer who represents doctors argued that several other states impose similar limits and that caps would still allow victims to be made whole [1]. Supporters argued that the restrictions never controlled malpractice premiums as lawmakers promised in 1990 [1]. As of the committee vote, the bill had no Senate sponsor [1].

What It Means at the Mediation Table

Until the Legislature acts, current law controls, and pending claims involving adult decedents without a spouse or minor children will continue to be valued without noneconomic damages for adult children or parents [2]. Even so, the bill’s progress is a variable that careful negotiators will account for:

• Claim valuation. Noneconomic damages are often the largest component of a wrongful death recovery. A change in who may claim them would change the range of reasonable outcomes for an entire category of cases [2].
• Effective date questions. The bill as filed carries a July 1, 2026 effective date [3]. Counsel evaluating whether to resolve a claim before or after that date should analyze how any enacted version would apply to claims that arose earlier, rather than assume either answer.
• Nursing home and assisted living claims. Because the bill also touches chapters 400 and 429 [2], long-term care defendants and their carriers have their own reasons to watch the session.
• Uncertainty as a settlement factor. With a past veto, a governor favoring caps and no Senate sponsor at the time of the vote [1], neither side can count on the outcome. Parties who quantify that uncertainty openly, rather than argue past it, tend to make better use of a mediation session.

The 2026 session will show whether this version fares differently. Until then, the existing statute governs every case on the docket.

Counsel looking for a certified mediator for a medical negligence, wrongful death or other circuit civil matter can check Tony Roca’s live availability and book a mediation by Zoom statewide.

Sources

1. Medical negligence bill advances, The Florida Bar News
2. House of Representatives Bill Analysis, HB 6003, Recovery of Damages for Medical Negligence Resulting in Death (Judiciary Committee, Post-Meeting), Florida House of Representatives
3. HB 6003: Recovery of Damages for Medical Negligence Resulting in Death, 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: CS/SB 1498 died in the Appropriations Committee on Agriculture, Environment, and General Government on March 13, 2026, and the related House bill, HB 657, died in the Senate Rules Committee the same day. Neither bill became law in the 2026 session, so the proposals described here, including the codification of Avatar v. Gundel, were not enacted.

Community association law is again on the agenda in Tallahassee. Senate Bill 1498, filed January 8, 2026, by Senator Bradley [2], was approved as a committee substitute by the Senate Regulated Industries Committee on February 3 by a vote of 7 to 0 [2]. The staff analysis released the same day describes a bill that touches condominium meetings, records, voting and, most notably, developer-controlled amenity fees in homeowners’ associations [1]. Each of those topics is a regular source of disputes that reach mediation.

What the Committee Substitute Would Do

According to the Senate staff analysis, CS/SB 1498 would:

• Narrow video recording requirements. Only condominium association meetings that are open to unit owners would need to be recorded when conducted by video conference and kept as an official record. Current law requires all video conference meetings to be recorded [1].
• Conform structural integrity reserve study language. The bill removes a building height requirement from developer turnover inspection reports and conforms reserve study provisions to buildings that are “three habitable stories or higher” [1].
• Clarify electronic voting. Electronic voting provisions would apply to ballots delivered by e-mail, independent website, application or internet web portal [1].
• Expand HOA records access. The official records of a homeowners’ association would be open to inspection by any member, and any person the member authorizes as a representative, at all reasonable times [1].
• Add cooperation with law enforcement. Condominium and homeowners’ associations would have to provide records requested by law enforcement and prosecuting agencies in response to a subpoena or written request, and a director, board member or community association manager who willfully and knowingly fails to do so would commit a second-degree misdemeanor [1].

The bill would take effect July 1, 2026 [1].

Codifying Avatar v. Gundel

The provisions most likely to change negotiating dynamics involve developer amenities. In Avatar Properties, Inc. v. Gundel (Fla. 6th DCA 2023), a developer required homeowners to pay club assessments that included both actual expenses and a membership fee that generated profit for the developer, and homeowners could face foreclosure for nonpayment [1]. The court held that chapter 720 applied and that owners may be charged only their proportionate share of real costs, and assessments cannot be used as a profit source for the developer [1]. The staff analysis notes that some uncertainty remains because these contractual arrangements vary across the state [1].

CS/SB 1498 would address that uncertainty by:

• declaring provisions that require members to pay for mandatory membership in a club controlled by the developer or another non-association owner to be against public policy [1];
• limiting assessments payable to the developer to the member’s proportional share of expenses in the association’s approved annual budget [1];
• confirming that both the association and individual members have standing to bring suit against a developer or any other common area owner [1]; and
• requiring annual financial reports from owners of common areas and recreational facilities, delivered to each parcel owner [1].

Why This Matters for Association Disputes

Unlike condominiums, homeowners’ associations are not regulated by a state agency [1]. Chapter 720 expresses a legislative goal of giving HOAs and their members a faster route for resolving election and recall disputes, along with presuit mediation for other covenant enforcement disputes under section 720.311 [1]. State regulators’ authority over HOAs is limited to arbitration of recall election disputes [1]. In practice, that leaves much of the work of resolving HOA conflicts to the parties, their counsel and mediators.

If enacted, clearer statutory rules on records access and amenity assessments would give parties firmer reference points. Records disputes often turn on what an owner was entitled to see and when. Amenity fee disputes often turn on how expenses are calculated. A statute that answers those questions can narrow the issues and make settlement ranges easier to evaluate.

As of the committee vote, the bill was pending in the Appropriations Committee on Agriculture, Environment, and General Government [2], so its final form remains uncertain. Associations, owners and managers should follow its progress and review governing documents and budgets with these proposals in mind.

Counsel, association boards and owners looking for a certified mediator for a condominium or HOA dispute can check Tony Roca’s live availability and book a mediation by Zoom statewide.

Sources

1. Bill Analysis and Fiscal Impact Statement, CS/SB 1498 (Community Associations), The Florida Senate, Committee on Regulated Industries
2. CS/SB 1498: Community Associations, The Florida Senate
3. CS/SB 1498 (2026): Community Associations, Bill History, 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.

Married couples in Florida often hear that money held jointly with a spouse is protected from creditors of only one spouse. On December 11, 2025, the Florida Supreme Court clarified an important detail of that protection in Loumpos v. Bank One, holding that a joint spousal bank account can be owned as a tenancy by the entireties even if only one spouse originally opened it [1]. For anyone facing a judgment, a garnishment or a possible bankruptcy, the decision is worth understanding.

What Happened in the Case

A creditor obtained a default judgment against a woman who later married [2]. After the marriage, her husband opened a bank account solely in his name [2]. Some months later, both spouses signed new signature cards designating the account as owned as a “tenancy by the entireties” [2]. Only the husband’s wages were deposited into the account [2].

When the judgment creditor tried to garnish the account, the wife claimed it was exempt because the debt was hers alone [2]. The trial court rejected the exemption, reasoning that because one spouse opened the account first, two of the traditional requirements for an entireties account were missing [2]. The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed and certified conflict with the Fourth District’s decision in Versace v. Uruven, LLC, which had found a similar account exempt [1].

The Six Unities and the 2008 Statute

Under the common law, a tenancy by the entireties generally requires six “unities,” including the unities of time and title, meaning the spouses’ interests began at the same time and in the same instrument [1]. Under longstanding Florida law, only the creditors of both the husband and wife, jointly, may reach entireties property [1].

The Court explained that its 2001 decision in Beal Bank, SSB v. Almand & Associates did not eliminate the time and title requirements [1]. Instead, the Court looked to a 2008 amendment to section 655.79(1), Florida Statutes. It concluded that the amendment established a presumption in favor of a tenancy by the entireties for spousal accounts that is not defeated by the absence of the unities of time and title [1]. The statute allows a creditor to rebut that presumption in limited ways: by showing fraud or undue influence, or by clear and convincing evidence that the spouses intended something else [1].

The holding is direct: under section 655.79, a bank account shared by spouses can qualify as a tenancy by the entireties even when only one spouse opened it at the start [1]. The Court quashed the Second District’s decision and approved Versace to the extent it is consistent with the opinion [1]. As issued, the opinion was not final until the time to file a rehearing motion expired and any such motion was resolved [1].

Why This Matters in South Florida

The question had divided courts, including the bankruptcy court in Miami. The Supreme Court’s opinion noted that the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida, in In re Benzaquen (2016), had concluded that the 2008 statutory language did not change the six-unity requirement [1]. The Supreme Court’s reading of the statute now resolves the issue as a matter of Florida law.

For married individuals dealing with debt, a few practical points follow:

• Account paperwork matters. The outcome turned on signature cards that expressly designated tenancy by the entireties ownership [2]. Spouses should know how each account is titled.
• The protection is not unlimited. Entireties protection applies against creditors of one spouse, not creditors of both spouses jointly [1]. Joint credit cards, co-signed loans and other shared obligations are a different matter.
• Timing and intent can be challenged. Because the statutory presumption can be overcome by proof of fraud or clear and convincing evidence of contrary intent [1], last-minute changes made to avoid a creditor may draw scrutiny.

Where Bankruptcy Fits

How property is owned often affects what a person keeps when debts are resolved, whether through negotiation, a garnishment hearing or a Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 case. An individual facing a judgment from a single-spouse debt should review how household accounts and assets are titled before making decisions, and should not move money between accounts without advice.

Anyone in South Florida facing a garnishment or weighing bankruptcy can request a confidential consultation with The Roca Law Firm, in English or Spanish.

Sources

1. Loumpos v. Bank One, No. SC2024-1256, Supreme Court of Florida
2. Loumpos v. Bank One (Fla. 2025), Justia

General information as of December 16, 2025, not legal advice. Originally published at LexBrief Insights by Tony Roca, The Roca Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida.