Florida’s Condo Safety Reforms Protect Buildings—But Leave Homeowners Exposed

Florida’s post-Surfside condominium laws were passed for a very good reason: aging buildings need to be inspected, repaired, and kept safe. Few people would argue with that.

But the way the law is structured also gives condominium boards enormous practical power over decisions that can cost individual homeowners thousands—or even tens of thousands—of dollars.

Under Florida law, qualifying condominium buildings must undergo milestone structural inspections. See Fla. Stat. § 553.899. The condominium association—not each individual unit owner—is responsible for arranging the inspection. Section 718.112 places that responsibility on the association and makes the association responsible for the associated costs.

But when the law says “the association” pays, the money ultimately comes from the owners.

Those costs may be funded through reserves, regular assessments, special assessments, loans, or other association financing mechanisms. Depending on the size of the building and the repairs identified, an individual owner can suddenly be presented with an assessment for thousands—or potentially tens of thousands—of dollars.

And if the owner disagrees, that does not necessarily mean the owner can simply refuse to pay.

The Owner May Disagree—and Still Lose the Home

The board has substantial control over who performs the required work. The association selects the engineer, architect, or other professional involved in the inspection and related work. Architectural and engineering services are also expressly exempt from the competitive-bidding requirements that otherwise apply to certain association contracts. See Fla. Stat. § 718.3026(2)(a).

An owner may therefore believe the board hired the wrong engineer, paid too much, authorized an unnecessarily broad scope of work, or failed to adequately police conflicts of interest.

None of that automatically suspends the assessment.

Section 718.116(1)(a), Florida Statutes, makes a unit owner liable for assessments that come due while the person owns the unit. If those assessments are not paid, the association can record a lien. Under § 718.116(6), that lien can ultimately be foreclosed.

That is the part homeowners should pay close attention to.

This is not just a dispute over a bill. It is a statutory collection system backed by the homeowner’s property.

Florida cases show how severe the consequences can become. In Ward v. The 3900 Condominium Association, Inc., 670 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), the underlying assessment dispute involved only $1,175 in unpaid assessments. The association obtained a foreclosure judgment that included $13,100 in attorney’s fees over an assessment dispute involving only $1,175. The Fourth District later ordered that fee award reduced because the association had failed to properly apply a partial payment, but it did not specify the final reduced amount.

That case should give every owner pause.

A dispute that begins over roughly one thousand dollars can turn into a five-figure foreclosure judgment because attorney’s fees, interest, and costs become part of the litigation. The amount originally disputed may become almost secondary to the cost of fighting over it.

Ward therefore illustrates one of the most important practical risks in the entire statutory framework: an owner may genuinely believe an assessment is wrong, but challenging it can become financially dangerous in its own right.

And then there is Nehrke v. Leisureville Community Association, Inc., No. 4D2024-2086 (Fla. 4th DCA June 11, 2025).

There, the association obtained a foreclosure judgment after the homeowner failed to pay assessments. The amount due exceeded $16,000. The matter ultimately progressed all the way to a foreclosure auction, and the property was sold to a third-party purchaser that the homeowner claimed was "grossly inadequate" and only 20-30% of the property's value.

Thought the Fourth District Court of Appeals reversed because the trial court failed to conduct the required hearing on his timely objection, the larger point remains: the home actually reached the foreclosure-sale stage and would have extinguished 70-80% of the homeowner's equity in his own property.

That matters because it shows that association foreclosure is not merely a collection threat printed in a demand letter. It can culminate in the forced sale of the owner’s home and wipe out hundreds of thousands of dollars (or more) of a homeowner's net worth.

Taken together, Ward and Nehrke show both sides of the danger.

Ward shows how a relatively small assessment can snowball into a much larger judgment through fees and costs.

Nehrke shows where that process can ultimately end: at the courthouse sale.

Neither case arose from the newer structural-recertification regime. But the new structural-recertification regime must be viewed in light of the existing statutory framework.

Florida already has a powerful foreclosure mechanism for unpaid assessments. The newer structural-inspection requirements now have the potential to generate assessments far larger than the ordinary dues disputes involved in many older cases.

The enforcement machinery was already in place. What has changed is the potential size of the bill.

If roughly $1,175 in disputed assessments can lead to a five-figure foreclosure judgment, what happens when the assessment is $10,000, $25,000, or $50,000?

For a retiree, a working family, or anyone living on a fixed income, that may not simply be a financial inconvenience. It may determine whether they can remain in their home. It may result in their home being sold at a fraction of its worth, potentially wiping out hundreds of thousands of dollars in equity.

Florida Has Added Protections—But They Have Limits

Florida has attempted to address some of these concerns through transparency and conflict-of-interest laws.

Section 718.3027 requires officers and directors to disclose “any activity that may reasonably be construed to be a conflict of interest.” It also creates a rebuttable presumption of a conflict in certain situations involving directors, officers, their relatives, and companies doing business with the association.

That is meaningful protection, but important questions remain.

What does “may reasonably be construed to be a conflict of interest” actually mean?

• Does it include an undisclosed quid pro quo where a board member steers work to a vendor in exchange for some other benefit?

• What about a romantic partner who is not a spouse?

• A close friend?

• A longtime business associate?

• A former colleague?

• A person who regularly refers business to a board member?

Those relationships can create financial or personal incentives every bit as powerful as a family relationship, but they do not necessarily fit neatly within the statute’s defined category of “relative.”

The broader language may ultimately reach some or all of those situations. But the statutory scheme is too recent for Florida’s appellate courts to have substantively defined its outer boundaries. For now, boards, homeowners, lawyers, and trial courts are left with significant unanswered questions about exactly what relationships and arrangements must be disclosed.

There is another practical limitation: transparency only works when the relationship is known.

Section 718.111(12) gives owners important rights to inspect association records, including contracts, bids, meeting minutes, inspection reports, reserve studies, and other official records.

But records do not necessarily reveal personal relationships.

A contract file may not disclose that the vendor is dating a board member. Meeting minutes may not reveal that a contractor is a close friend. A bid package may not disclose an informal referral arrangement, side business relationship, promise of future employment, or private quid pro quo.

In other words, access to records is not the same thing as access to the full story.

The Imbalance Is What Should Concern Homeowners

The concern is not that every board is corrupt or every engineer is overcharging. Most are not.

The concern is the structure of the system.

• A relatively small group of board members can select the professionals.

• Those professionals can identify work that may cost substantial sums.

• The association can assess those costs against the owners.

• An owner who disagrees may have limited practical ability to stop the expenditure before the bill comes due.

• If the owner contests the assessment, the cost of that dispute can multiply dramatically—as Ward demonstrates.

• And if the owner ultimately cannot or will not pay, the case can end with the forced sale of the home—as Nehrke demonstrates.

That is an enormous amount of leverage.

Florida has done a great deal to ensure that unsafe condominium buildings are identified and repaired. That was necessary.

But when government mandates create potentially enormous private expenditures, the protections governing who selects the vendors, how they are selected, what conflicts must be disclosed, and how owners can challenge questionable spending should be equally strong.

Structural safety matters.

So does protecting homeowners from losing their homes over assessments they may genuinely believe were unnecessary, excessive, or improperly generated.

Florida should be able to do both.