Community Update

HB 797 Revises and Renames Chapter 617 of the Florida Statutes with a Focus on Transparency

By: Bryony G. Swift

Florida House Bill 797 (2026) introduces several governance reforms designed to increase accountability within nonprofit corporations, including community associations. Among the most noteworthy changes are the creation of new officer standards of conduct, judicial removal procedures for directors, and modifications affecting registered agents and corporate filings.

Click here to read more!

Tick Tock: Your Associations’ Right to Sue Has an Expiration Date

By: S. David Cooper

As a board member, there may come a time when the Association has to decide whether to sue a contractor, a vendor, or even an owner. Before weighing the strengths of the claim, the Board should first answer a simpler question: is the Association still legally allowed to sue? That question catches many boards off guard because Florida law does not use a single deadline. Several different legal doctrines can quietly cut off a claim, and being unaware of these deadlines can cost the Association a case it otherwise would have won.

Click here to read more!

Things That Are Material Alterations That Might Surprise You

By: Mary R. Hawk

In this video, Mary Hawk explains what community associations should know before making alterations to common elements. She breaks down what might be considered a material alteration under Florida law, the voting requirements that may apply, and why governing documents play an important role. Mary also shares surprising examples of changes that courts have found to be material alterations, from repainting hallway walls and changing outdoor furniture cushions to adding a pool heater. Watch the full video to learn when a project may require unit owner approval before moving forward.

Click here to watch!

Grossman Holdings Ltd. v. Hourihan, 414 So.2d 1037 (Fla. 1982)

By: Joseph Markovich

The proper measure of damages when a contractor constructs a residence contrary to the parties’ agreement is the issue addressed by THIS CASE. The purchasers contracted with a developer for a home to be built substantially in accordance with the model and plans displayed at the developer’s office. Those materials showed a home with a southeast exposure. After the purchasers entered the contract, the developer displayed a revised drawing that reversed the home’s orientation. Although the purchasers objected before construction began, the developer built the mirror-image home.

The trial court found that the developer had breached the contract but declined to award damages, reasoning that reconstruction would be economically wasteful and that the home had increased in value. The Third District Court of Appeal agreed that a breach occurred but concluded that the purchasers could recover the amount required to reconstruct the home to conform to the plans and specifications. The Florida Supreme Court disagreed with that measure of damages and adopted subsection 346(1)(a) of the Restatement (First) of Contracts (1932) as the law in Florida regarding damages for breaching a construction contract.

Under that framework, the ordinary measure of damages for defective or unfinished construction is the reasonable cost of completion or correction in accordance with the contract, provided correction is possible and does not cause unreasonable economic waste. If correction would require unreasonable economic waste, however, the proper measure is the difference between the value of the construction promised and the value of the work actually received. The Court rejected the distinction drawn by the Third District between homes and commercial buildings: the economic-waste analysis can apply to residential construction as well as nonresidential construction.

While THIS CASE involved a lawsuit by a property owner against a contractor for nonconforming residential construction, subsequent decisions have applied its holding to construction defect claims with varying results. The applicable measure of damages may depend on several factors, including the contract requirements, the nature and extent of the nonconforming work, the appropriate valuation date, the reasonable cost of correction, and, where reconstruction may constitute unreasonable economic waste, the resulting diminution in value. Early involvement of qualified legal counsel can assist in evaluating the governing contract, project records, and other evidence necessary to support the appropriate measure of damages.