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.
Texas Adopts New Procedural Rules for Summary Judgment Motions: What You Need To Know
July 13, 2026 —
Conor G. Bateman & Marsha Cotton - Snell & WilmerOn March 1, 2026, sweeping amendments to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a took effect, fundamentally changing how Texas courts handle summary judgment motions — from filing and briefing through disposition. Whether representing a plaintiff or defendant, Texas litigants and attorneys must understand these new rules and their impact on case strategy and timelines. These procedural changes carry particular significance for construction litigants.
Background: The Prior Rule
Texas summary judgment practice has long diverged from the federal model. The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure recognize two types of summary judgment motions: (1) the traditional motion for summary judgment, and (2) the “no-evidence” motion for summary judgment. The no-evidence motion — unique to Texas — may be filed only after adequate time for discovery has passed. No bright-line rule governs that determination; it depends on the unique circumstances of each case.
Reprinted courtesy of
Conor G. Bateman, Snell & Wilmer and
Marsha Cotton, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Bateman may be contacted at cbateman@swlaw.com
Ms. Cotton may be contacted at mcotton@swlaw.com
Read the full story...
Dispute Erupts Into Public Over Castro Theater Rehab Project Costs
September 08, 2026 —
Richard Korman - Engineering News-RecordAs it was about to start an arbitration of final payments on a complex theater renovation, the entertainment company that leases San Francisco's landmark Castro Theatre has filed a state court trademark violation lawsuit seeking to bar the contractor from publicizing as a success its work for the owner on that and other projects.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Richard Korman, Engineering News-RecordMr. Korman may be contacted at
kormanr@enr.com
Chambers USA Recognizes GRSM as 2026 Industry Leader
June 29, 2026 —
Gordon Rees Scully MansukhaniGordon Rees Scully Mansukhani has once again been recognized by Chambers USA, a prestigious directory of the country’s top law firms. In addition to the firm’s practice recognitions, eight partners, David Capell, Nancy Erfle, Matthew Foy, Ashlee Grant, Craig Heryford, Andrew Port, Todd Regan, and Angela Richie, were recognized among the nation’s top lawyers in their respective fields.
Chambers USA recognized the firm in the following eight categories:
USA – Nationwide – Insurance: Dispute Resolution: Insurer, Band 4
The firm is widely sought after by national insurance sector clients facing a wide array of coverage disputes as well as bad faith claims. The firm has additional capabilities in class actions and appellate litigation. Its broad base of experience includes professional liability, construction, and bankruptcy-related issues. This is the third year the firm has received this recognition.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Seattle Team Obtains Summary Judgment in Real Estate Broker Professional Liability Action
July 20, 2026 —
Lewis BrisboisSeattle Partner Kathleen A. Nelson and Associate Synova M. L. Edwards prevailed on a hotly contested motion for summary judgment in Whatcom County, Washington court in a real estate broker professional liability action.
The plaintiff filed an action against Lewis Brisbois' clients, a real estate agent and brokerage firm, among several others, including the title company, purchasers and others related to the sale of real property following his complicated and long running divorce action. These claims primarily arose out of the clients’ reliance on an order signed by the court in the underlying divorce action. The order allowed the clients to execute the purchase and sale agreement, as the plaintiff was non-cooperative.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
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...
The ROI of Estimating Accuracy in Preconstruction
September 15, 2026 —
Aaron Kivett - Construction ExecutivePrecision is the foundation of profitability in construction. Even minor quantity or pricing mistakes can swing bids anywhere from 5-15%, leading to project delays, unprofitable jobs or margin erosion through change orders. And worse, these losses can damage client trust and jeopardize long-term relationships that drive repeat business and future bids. Consistently
estimating accurately builds confidence, speeds up bidding and positions your company to win more profitable projects.
Estimating accuracy is where profit is either protected or lost. In construction, you make your biggest financial decisions before a project ever starts. Once a bid is won, most of the project’s cost structure is locked in. If the estimate is wrong, no amount of execution can fully fix those mistakes. That makes estimating accuracy a business issue, not just an operations issue.
Reprinted courtesy of
Aaron Kivett, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the full story...
Fourth Circuit Extends Coverage to Contractor
May 14, 2026 —
Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogThe Fourth Circuit in APAC-Atlantic, Inc. v. Owners Insurance Co., No. 24-1969, 2026 WL 458402 (4th Cir. Feb. 18, 2026) recently endorsed broad coverage for additional insureds, interpreting “arising out of” broadly under North Carolina law to extend coverage to a repaving company under its subcontractor’s liability insurance policy. The court held that an additional insured’s liability “arising out of” a named insured’s work in an additional-insured endorsement means liability “relating to” or “causally connected to” the named insured’s operations, rather than liability defined more narrowly as “caused by” or “the fault of” the named insured.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
