.

Case Law Alerts

In Effort to Reform Florida Condo and HOA Laws, Governor Desantis Signs Two New Bills

October 1, 2024

Governor Ron Desantis recently signed two new bills in an effort to reform both condo and HOA laws in Florida. These both went into effect on July 1, 2024. The following is a summary of some of the revisions to the HOA laws (Florida Chapter 720).
    
Effective January 1, 2025, associations with 100 or more parcels need to post certain documents on its website or make documents available through an app that can be downloaded on a mobile device. These include, but are not limited to: articles of incorporation and amendments; recorded bylaws and amendments, current rules, financial reports, and current insurance policies.

Florida Chapter 720 also imposes stricter punishment on those who violate the section. For example, any director or member of the board who knowingly, willingly, and repeatedly violates 720.303(5)(a) Inspection and Copying of Records, with an intent to cause harm to the association or one of its members now commits a misdemeanor of the second degree as punishable by 775.082 and 775.083. 

Additionally, it is a misdemeanor in the first degree to knowingly, willingly, and intentionally deface or destroy accounting records during the time they are supposed to be maintained, or knowingly or intentionally fail to create financial records with the intent of causing harm to the association or one or more of its directors. 

Finally, it is a felony of the third degree to willfully and knowingly refuse to release or produce association records with intent to avoid or escape detection, arrest, trial, or punishment for the commission of a crime or to assist another person with such avoidance of escape.

It is also a first degree misdemeanor to: knowingly aid, abet, advise a person in commission of a fraudulent voting activity related to association elections; agree/conspire with at least one other person to commit a fraudulent voting activity related to association elections; and have knowledge of a fraudulent voting activity related to association elections and give aid to the offender with the intent that the offender avoid or escape detection, arrest, trial or punishment.

Newly elected or appointed directors have additional education requirements as well. For instance, they must complete the department-approved education for newly elected or appointed directors within 90 days of the election. This needs to be repeated at least every four years. Finally, directors of associations with fewer than 2,500 parcels need to complete at least four hours of continuing education annually while directors of associations with 2,500 parcels or more must complete eight hours annually. 

Importantly, these new guidelines also restrict the modifications that are within associations’ purview to regulate. For example, an association cannot place limits or requirements on the interior of a structure that is not visible from the parcel’s frontage or an adjacent parcel, an adjacent common area, or a community golf course. If an association denies a request or application for construction of a structure of improvement, written notice must be sent stating with specificity the rule the association or committee relied upon. 

An association can also no longer prevent an owner/tenant/guest/invitee from parking their personal vehicle, including a pickup truck, in the property owner’s driveway or any other area where the property owner or guest, etc. has a right to park as governed by state, county, municipal regulations. This restriction stays in place regardless of official insignia or a visible designation from parking a work vehicle that is not a commercial motor vehicle. Additionally, an association cannot restrict an owner from hiring/inviting a contractor or worker just because they are not on the association’s preferred vendors list or solely because they do not have a professional or occupational license.  


Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.