Community Update

A New Year’s Guide to Florida’s Holiday Fireworks Statute

By: Joseph Markovich

As New Year’s Day approaches, many Floridians are planning celebrations that may include fireworks. Readers may find it helpful to know that the legal landscape around fireworks has evolved over time, shifting from a period when most fireworks were restricted except under specific circumstances to the current more permissive stance. As a result of these changes, questions often arise about what qualifies as a “firework,” which items remain subject to permitting, and how the state’s provisions interact with local enforcement or private community covenants.

Click here to read more!

New Laws for Condominium Meetings Held Via Video Conferencing

By: Allison L. Hertz and Bryony G. Swift

The condominium omnibus bill, which was adopted during the 2025 legislative session, amends Florida Statute 718.112 to explicitly allow condominium association meetings to be held by video conference. “Video conference” is defined in the statute to mean any real time audio and video meeting between two or more people via audio and video enabled devices. The law adds new notice requirements for all meetings held by video conference, as well as requirements for recording these meetings and requirements for retention of recordings as official records of the association. Each meeting held by video conference must also include a physical location for those attendees who choose to attend in person.

Click here to read more!

Recording Rules and Rule Changes in the Public Records

By: Joseph Arena

Most condominium and homeowners’ associations have the right to adopt and to amend rules and regulations. The community declaration, articles of incorporations, and/or by-laws will often describe an association’s authority and procedures for adopting rules and regulations. Also, the Florida Statutes expressly give associations’ boards of directors the right to adopt rules and regulations concerning a few specific matters.

Click here to read more!

Hollywood Towers Condominium Association, Inc. v. Hampton
40 So.3d 784 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)

By: Allison L. Hertz

The test that Florida courts use to determine the proper exercise of the business judgment rule is set forth in THIS CASE. The business judgment rule is a court doctrine that gives deference to decisions made by associations’ boards of directors.

In THIS CASE, the Association sued a unit owner to obtain a court order requiring the unit owner to provide access to her unit so the Association could perform repair work on the concrete floor of the balcony. The concrete floor of the balcony was a common element the Association was obligated to maintain.

The Association’s engineer inspected the balcony and found it had corrosion requiring repair. The engineer’s report concluded that demolition should be undertaken from inside the unit to remove the concrete four inches beyond the point at which the corrosion stops. In response, the owner’s engineer determined that there was no need to do any interior demolition work in the unit and that exterior restoration work was sufficient to make the balcony structurally sound.

The trial court denied the Association’s request for relief because “there is [a] clear question not only as to whether the [excavation] and rebar work is necessary, but whether the failure to perform it will cause immediate harm.” The Association appealed.

The appellate court examined the standard by which the trial court should review a decision of a condominium association’s board of directors. The Association argued the business judgment rule requires courts to defer to an association’s board of directors unless there is proof of fraud, self-dealing, dishonesty or incompetency in arriving at the decision. The unit owner argued the business judgment rule applies only in lawsuits against directors for personal liability, and that the trial court was required to determine whether the repair work on the interior of her unit was necessary.

Next, the appellate court noted that the business judgment rule has been applied by courts throughout Florida to decisions made by associations. It also stated that a court’s review of association decisions was limited to two issues: (1) did the association have the contractual or statutory authority to perform the act and (2) if that authority exists, were the board’s actions reasonable. However, the appellate court noted that no court in Florida had set out a test to use when reviewing association decisions.

The court adopted a test from California and held, “Where a duly constituted community association board, upon reasonable investigation, in good faith and with regard for the best interests of the community association and its members, exercises discretion within the scope of its authority under relevant statutes, covenants and restrictions to select among means for discharging an obligation to maintain and repair a development’s common areas, courts should defer to the board’s authority and presumed expertise.” In short, courts must defer to an association’s decision if it is within the association’s authority and it is reasonable.

So why does THIS CASE matter? Business decisions made by an association’s board of directors will generally be protected under the business judgment rule doctrine. Florida courts will not second-guess a decision or action of an association’s board of directors if the association has the authority to perform the action and if the decision or action is reasonable, and not arbitrary, capricious, or in bad faith. If you want to ensure the actions taken by your association and its directors will be protected, it is essential to contact your association’s counsel to make sure that your association has the authority to act and that it can substantiate that the action to be taken is reasonable.