Turnover Traps for Community Associations: Investigate First, Release Claims Later
April 14, 2026 —
Nicholas B. Vargo - Ball Janik LLPTurnover of a community association from developer control to owner control is a uniquely vulnerable moment. Developers are increasingly presenting Florida condominium and homeowners’ associations with “standard” settlement or release agreements at turnover, often being framed as routine steps to finalize the transition of control. In reality, these agreements can have sweeping consequences, including the release of construction-defect claims before the association has conducted any meaningful independent evaluation.
The developer has years of project knowledge and access to plans, subcontractors, and internal records. The newly elected board is just beginning to organize, obtain documents, and understand the property’s condition. Many defects, especially those involving roofing, waterproofing, windows, or structural components, are latent and not yet visible. Signing a release at this stage means the association is making a binding decision under conditions of uncertainty, without full information, to release all future potential claims.
Over the last few years, there has been a rise in reports of developers offering a packaged deal: they agree to complete certain repairs, often minor punch-list or cosmetic items, and to “forgive” an alleged financial deficit (often around $50,000) supposedly owed by the association from the developer-control period. In exchange, the association is asked to sign a broad release covering all claims, including known and unknown construction defects. To a new HOA board that received their community with limited operating and reserve funds, they are left with a difficult decision to either accept the developer’s offer or assess their owners to pay this alleged debt.
These agreements are occasionally presented through community management companies, which may describe them as “standard” or "routine.” Whether due to misunderstanding or influence from the developer, management companies can unintentionally reinforce the idea that signing is expected. Any recommendation provided to HOAs about whether to sign these releases could open community management to liability down the road. The best practice for both associations and community managers is to refer any agreements to be reviewed by general counsel for the association.
The following two case studies illustrate the real-world consequences:
Case Study One: A newly transitioned board relies on its management company to negotiate with the developer-builder to resolve irrigation issues, pond concerns, and signage deficiencies, along with forgiving an asserted financial shortfall. In exchange, the board signs a broad release covering all claims, including latent defects.
Within a year, several punch-list items remain incomplete, and more serious issues arise. When the association demands completion, the developer delays, prompting the association to seek advice on how to enforce the settlement agreement. The association hires counsel to hold the developer responsible for both the previously agreed-upon items and newly identified construction defects. However, when the association brings claims against the developer, the developer points to the release of all potential construction defects in the community. Thus, the only remaining remedy is limited to enforcement of the specific punch-list terms. The community, still relatively new, has no viable claims against the developer-builder for the construction defects. With warranties expired and the release, the association must fund repairs through special assessments, despite defects that would otherwise have been actionable.
Case Study Two: A community is presented with a similar agreement as above. The management company encourages execution, suggesting it is standard and even telling the board to “name your price.” The developer also pressures the newly elected board to sign.
Instead of signing, the board consults with their attorney. Counsel advises the board not to sign the release and recommends further investigation. Engineers are retained and identify early indicators of broader issues, including stucco cracking, water intrusion, and irrigation deficiencies. Based on this information, the association declines to sign the release. Subsequent evaluation reveals potentially significant construction-defect claims, allowing the community to pursue recovery that would have been lost under the proposed agreement.
These scenarios underscore a fundamental point: signing a release at turnover is not an administrative formality—it is a major legal decision. Board members act in a fiduciary capacity on behalf of their community, and their decisions can bind all current and future owners. At turnover, an association’s right is to investigate and pursue claims. Preserving that right until a full and independent evaluation is completed is not adversarial—it is responsible governance.
Accordingly, associations should retain independent evaluations of the property and consult qualified legal counsel before signing any “standard” agreements, especially ones involving a release of future claims.
Nicholas B. Vargo is a partner in Ball Janik LLP’s Construction Practice Group. He may be reached at nvargo@balljanik.com.
Bona Fide Dispute Defeats Violation of Prompt Payment Act
June 15, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMost, if not all, jurisdictions, including the federal government, have what is known as a “Prompt Payment Act.” The objective is to ensure prompt payment. If prompt payment is not made, the Prompt Payment Act provides for interest penalties, as well as potentially other costs such as attorney’s fees.
But the thing is, it’s not as simple as untimely payment to support the recourse and interest penalties the applicable Prompt Payment Act affords. And the teeth associated with the applicable Prompt Payment Act are not as sharp as perhaps the party claiming untimely payment prefers.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
White and Williams LLP is Proud to Host the 20th Anniversary Virginia Barton Wallace Award and Reception
May 05, 2026 —
White and Williams LLPWhite and Williams LLP is proud to host the 20th Anniversary Virginia Barton Wallace (VBW) Award and Reception, which will celebrate this year’s honoree,
The Rendell Center for Civics & Civic Engagement. This award was created to celebrate the remarkable career of Virginia “Ginny” Barton Wallace, the first woman to be elected to partnership not only at White and Williams but also at any law firm in Philadelphia. The VBW Award is presented to a woman or organization that embodies the same qualities that Ginny possessed: leadership, drive, exemplary work ethic, overall excellence in her field, or an ability to inspire other women to succeed.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
White and Williams LLP
Actual Controversy Without Actual Exhaustion: California Supreme Court Allows Declaratory Relief and Bad Faith Claims Against Excess Insurers
August 24, 2026 —
Kyle A. Rudolph - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.California courts were previously split on the issue of whether an insured may bring declaratory relief claims against excess insurers prior to the exhaustion of underlying insurance. Some California courts held that the actual exhaustion of underlying insurance was necessary, whereas other courts allowed for these types of claims to proceed.[
1]
Recently, the California Supreme Court addressed this split of authority and, in doing so, handed down a significant win for policyholders. In Fox Paine & Company, LLC, et al. v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company et al., the Court held that insureds may proceed with bringing forth viable declaratory relief and bad faith claims against excess insurers prior to the exhaustion of underlying insurance.[
2] A summary of the Court’s opinion is provided below.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kyle A. Rudolph, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Rudolph may be contacted at
KRudolph@sdvlaw.com
Thank You All for 10 Years Straight of VA Super Lawyers
May 05, 2026 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsIt is with humility and a sense of accomplishment that I announce that I have been selected for the tenth straight year to the
Virginia Super Lawyers in the Construction Litigation category for 2026. Add this to my recent election to the
Virginia Legal Elite in Construction and I’ve had a pretty good year. As always, I am thrilled to be included on these peer-elected lists. Your confidence in my work is very gratifying.
So without further ado, thank you to my peers and those on the panel at Virginia Super Lawyers for the great honor. I feel quite proud to be part of the
5% of Virginia attorneys that made this list for 2026.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Insurer’s Federal Suit Dismissed in Favor of Insured’s State Suit
April 14, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe federal district court granted the insured’s motion to dismiss the insurer’s federal suit for declaratory judgment because the insured filed a more complete action in state court. Church Mut. Ins. Co. v. Elmwood Baptist Church, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 259762 (S.D. W.V. Dec. 16, 2025).
Elmwood purchased a property policy from Church Mutual Insurance Company. After the roof of Elmwood’s property collapsed, the parties disputed the amount Church Mutual owed to Elmwood.
Church Mutual filed suit in federal district court asking for a declaration that the policy was “void ab initio,’ or, alternatively, that Church had fully compensated Elmwood for its loss.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
IEEPA Tariff Refunds: CBP Launches CAPE Process
April 27, 2026 —
David J. Creagan, Guido Antolini, Bruce W. MacLennan & Gary P. Biehn - White and Williams LLPOn April 20, 2026, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) launched the first phase of the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) tool in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) portal to administer refunds of duties imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) through a streamlined electronic filing process.
Background
In February 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court held that certain tariffs imposed under IEEPA were unlawful. Subsequent proceedings before the U.S. Court of International Trade required CBP to develop a scalable refund process applicable not only to litigants but also to non-plaintiffs. According to CBP and court filings, approximately 330,000 importers paid or deposited an estimated $166 billion in IEEPA duties across more than 53 million entries. In response, CBP developed CAPE as an electronic, consolidated refund mechanism within ACE.
Reprinted courtesy of
David J. Creagan, White and Williams LLP,
Guido Antolini, White and Williams LLP,
Bruce W. MacLennan, White and Williams LLP and
Gary P. Biehn, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Creagan may be contacted at creagand@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Antolini may be contacted at antolinig@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. MacLennan may be contacted at maclennanb@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Biehn may be contacted at biehng@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the full story...
Contract Interpretation – Determining What the Contract Requires
March 24, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA good ole dispute on contract interpretation in government contracting. Contract interpretation disputes happen all the time in every jurisdiction under the sun. Think about that. Now, what’s the best way to avoid a contract interpretation dispute? Naturally, invest in the contract language and fully understand the scope of work. Make all of this clear. But, of course, this isn’t foolproof meaning you could still be doing this and you could still find yourself in a contract interpretation dispute. Although, if you are doing this, and being proactive, the contract interpretation disputes should be minimal and more streamlined.
In Liberty Technical Services, LLC v. Department of Veterans Affairs, CBCA 8385, 2026 WL 407656 (CBCA 2026), the dispute centered on whether the government owed the contractor for certain, necessary equipment (largely controllers, but also tanks and pumps) not specified in the contract. The government countered that this should be a non-issue because the contractor always acknowledged it was responsible for furnishing the unspecified, necessary equipment, and the contractor did actually provide the equipment without direction from the government. Each party claimed the contract was unambiguous when construed in context.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
