1200 Park Central Blvd. South, Pompano Beach, FL 33064
9121 North Military Trail, Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
855 E SR 434., Suite 2209, Winter Springs (Orlando area), FL 32708
1211 North Westshore Blvd., Suite 409 Tampa, FL 33607
Offices in Miami-Dade (by appointment)
Reach any office: 800.974.0680

1200 Park Central Blvd. S., Pompano Bch, FL 33064
9121 N. Military Trail, Ste. 200, Palm Bch Gdns, FL 33410
855 E SR 434., Suite 2209, Winter Springs (Orlando area), FL 32708
1211 N. Westshore Blvd., Ste. 409, Tampa, FL 33607
Offices in Miami-Dade (by appointment)
Reach any office: 800.974.0680

Appellate Court Decision Addresses Failure to Properly Handle Official Record Inspection Requests

Written by Andrew B. Black, Esq. BCS, Kaye Bender Rembaum, P.L.

It is not uncommon for a board of directors to be faced with requests from owners involving accessing the official records of the association. Florida law, as set forth in the applicable statutes for condominium, homeowner, and cooperative associations, provides detailed requirements for the maintenance and inspection of the official records (as well as which records are exempt from such inspections). Among other key provisions, the law requires the official records to be maintained in an organized manner that allows for an easy inspection by an owner. Importantly, upon receipt of a proper request, the records must be made available to the requesting owner within ten (10) working days from receiving the request. If a timely response to the request is not provided, the statutes create a rebuttable presumption that the failure to comply was willful, which can result in sanctions and monetary damages for the owner. Further, repeated and knowing violations of the statutes can even lead to misdemeanor charges in certain situations. Accordingly, it is vital that the board has a clear understanding regarding its official record inspection responsibilities under the applicable statutes to avoid such a bad result for the association.

In a recent decision of the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal, in Alberto M. Ruiz De Gamboa v. Newth Gardens Condominium Association, Inc., Case No. 4D2024-0217, June 4, 2025 (“Newth Gardens”), the Court reviewed the actions taken by the Board of Directors of Newth Gardens Condominium Association, Inc. (the “Association”) in handling a written request by an owner to have access to its official records. The Association was found by the appellate court to have willfully denied access to the records.

The relevant facts of the case are that the President of the Association claimed that, upon receipt of the request by the owner, he had a letter timely mailed to the owner setting an appointment for the inspection. However, the owner claimed the scheduling letter was never received by him. At trial, the President testified that he “probably gave [the association’s response] to one of [his] staff members to mail”. Prior to commencing legal action, the owner sent a second letter to the Association informing the Board he had not received any response to the original request, allowing the Association to cure any issues by now making the records available. However, the Association did not offer the owner any further responses. The owner brought the matter to arbitration with the Division of Condominium, who ruled in favor of the owner. The Association appealed that ruling to the Circuit Court, which decided that the Association letter was likely lost in the mail and that it was not willful in its denial of access. The owner appealed to the 4th DCA, which resulted in this opinion.

The Appellate Court decided that there was not any competent and substantial evidence presented at the trial by the Association (such as an affidavit swearing that the original scheduling letter was mailed, or other evidence of regular business practices that a staff member mailed the letters for the President). Consequently, there is a presumption that the Association willfully failed to comply, and that such presumption could have been rebutted by the Association. However, since the Appellate Court decided that no credible rebuttal was offered at trial by the Association, as the failure to provide the requested records for inspection within 10-working days occurred, and, that the additional non-response by the Association when the owner tried again doomed any argument made by the Association that its actions were not willful, the Court ruled in favor of the owner and reversed the decision of the Trial court.

The key takeaways for board members are to carefully track each and every request it receives by an owner to inspect the official records and to document internally the 10-business day deadline to comply and a clear designation as to who will reply to the request on behalf of the association. Further, the statutes allow a board to adopt reasonable rules regarding the frequency, time, location, notice, and manner of record inspections and copying. As such, if your community does not already have these rules, you should contact your legal counsel to assist in drafting these policies. For instance, requiring record inspection requests to be sent via certified mail, return receipt requested and/or to reasonably limit the number of requests per 30-day period have been ruled as reasonable and can help streamline the record inspection process and avoid repetitive requests. Additionally, legal counsel should be contacted to confirm the recent requirements for communities of certain sizes to maintain an association website where several official records must be posted and available to owners, as well as having your association counsel confirm any “checklist” requirements that must be provided to condominium unit owners.

Without careful attention being paid to these record inspection requests, and without such clarity in your community policies, the association can find itself facing the possibility of having to rebut a presumption that its failures were willful, which can create potential significant damages and sanctions. The unnecessary costs to the association of such an occurrence can be avoided with proper planning. Legal counsel familiar with the applicable community association statutes (Chapters 718 for condominiums, 719 for cooperatives, and 720 for homeowner associations) should be involved to assist with these matters.

The Consequences of Failing to Maintain the Official Records

Rembaum’s Association Roundup | Jeffrey A. Rembaum, Esq., BCS | Visit HERE

The following scenario happens all too often. A member makes a written records request to inspect the official records of the association and proceeds to provide a laundry list of documents that the member wants to inspect. In response, the association may arrange to have the member come to the property management office to inspect the records or, if the laundry list is not extensive, provide the requested records to the member by making copies or providing them electronically. Sometimes, however, associations do not always maintain official records in accordance with the requirements of Chapters 718 and 720, Fla. Stat., and an association may argue that it gave the member what it could, so that is all that really matters, right? Wrong! If your association operates this way, you are in for a surprise.

In the case of William Pecchia and Kathleen Porter v. Wayside Estates Home Owners Association, Inc., 388 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024), litigation initially arose between the homeowners (Pecchia and Porter) and the association due to the belief by Pecchia that the association was failing to maintain the common area and that the association was not enforcing violations. Pecchia observed that over the years the association lowered annual assessments and seemed to spend less money on maintenance despite observable deteriorating conditions to the property. [Read the Rest]

Should Emails Between Board Members & Managers Be Considered Official Records Subject to Members Inspection?

Rembaum’s Association Roundup | In today’s instant world, email allows us to express our thoughts anytime, anywhere. So often, emails serve as a substitute for making phone calls. If a phone call is made from a board member to a manager, absent a deposition of either party or a contemporaneous note documenting the conversation, the content of the communication remains private. But, if the board member sends an email rather than calling the manager, that email is considered a written record of the association and is required to be produced as a part of a member’s official record request, with limited exception as discussed below.

With the sheer volume of emails received by a manager from owners, board members, purchasers, contractors, and lawyers, etc., there is no practical method of separating the emails which must remain confidential. This includes emails with respect to attorney-client privileged matters, personnel matters, information obtained in connection with a sale or lease, social security numbers, and medical information, etc., and separating these emails cannot occur without the manager or [Read the rest]