Community associations rely on their lien rights as their ultimate enforcement mechanism for the collection of delinquent assessments. However, regardless of the amount owed, recent rulings in a Miami-Dade case illustrate that associations’ failures to strictly comply with Florida’s pre-suit notice requirements may lead to having their foreclosure actions dismissed.

The decisions arose from a lawsuit filed by the Winston Towers 100 Association against Jorge Antonioli, the owner of a unit in the Sunny Isles Beach condominium. The association filed suit to foreclose its claim of lien in order to collect more than $45,000 in past-due assessments and maintenance fees, plus interest and attorney’s fees.

During the trial court proceedings in Miami-Dade Circuit Court, the association’s board secretary introduced evidence of the alleged delinquency and the notices purportedly sent to the owner prior to recording its claim of lien. Although the testimony asserted that notices had been mailed to the unit owner, the witness acknowledged a lack of familiarity with the association’s mailing procedures.

The owner denied being associated with the post office boxes to which the notices were sent, denied living at the addresses where the notices were mailed, and claimed he had not resided at those locations for a considerable time.

The trial court ultimately entered a final judgment in Antonioli’s favor, finding that the association had failed to meet its burden to foreclose on its claim of lien. The court found credible the unit owner’s testimony that he had never received the required pre-suit notice and did not understand the payment records presented. It also concluded that the association failed to establish the amounts owed.

In support of its ruling, the trial court cited a 2021 appellate decision holding that a homeowners association must submit relevant budgets and statutory notices when pursuing foreclosures, as well as Florida law requiring that homeowners association claims of lien must include the description of the parcel, name of the owner, name and address of the association, the amount due, and the applicable due date.

The association appealed to the Third District Court of Appeal. It argued that reversal was warranted because the trial court relied on statutory provisions applicable to HOAs rather than condominium associations, but the appellate panel rejected that argument. The judges concluded that the principles governing presuit notice requirements apply equally to condominium associations, noting that the statutory language on HOA notices is materially similar to that contained in the Condominium Act.

The Third DCA also rejected the association’s argument that the owner, who represented himself at trial, failed to properly plead the lack of pre-suit notice as a defense. The panel’s unanimous opinion concluded that while the owner’s pleadings were not models of clarity, they sufficiently informed the association that he was asserting noncompliance with the statutory notice requirements.

The applicable Florida law at the time this action commenced provided that no lien could be recorded until 30 days (now 45 days) after a notice of intent to record a claim of lien had been delivered by registered certified mail, return receipt requested, and by first-class mail to the owner at their last known address as reflected in the records of the association, as well as at the unit’s address if different.

The appellate court found that the association sent notices to two addresses that were not the address of the unit at issue. Although the owner testified that he had lived at one of these addresses at one point, no evidence established when he had done so. He testified that he had no connection to the other address, and the association did not elicit testimony establishing that either address was listed as his last known address in its records.

Because the association failed to establish that the notice was sent to the proper address or that it otherwise complied with the statutory requirements, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the foreclosure.

However, the Third District reversed the portion of the trial court’s ruling finding that the association failed to establish the amount of the delinquency. The appellate court held that the association’s failure to satisfy the notice requirements for foreclosure did not preclude its claim for recovery of the debt it was owed.

The case has now been remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. While the association’s foreclosure of its claim of lien remains dismissed, it has established it is rightfully owed a significant sum by the owner. It will now presumably re-initiate enforcement efforts while strictly complying with the statutory notice provisions, but if and when that happens remains uncertain as the litigation continues to unfold.

As this case clearly demonstrates, condominium associations pursuing delinquent assessments through lien foreclosures must strictly adhere to the statutory requirements governing notices of intent to record a claim of lien. Any shortcomings in compliance could result in dismissal, increased litigation costs, and significant delays in achieving a final resolution.