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.
The Best Lawyers in America® - Ball Janik Attorneys Earn Multiple Recognitions
September 01, 2026 —
Ball Janik LLPOrlando, FL, August 20, 2026 – Ball Janik LLP is pleased to announce that 24 of its attorneys have been recognized in the 2027 editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America. The 33rd Best Lawyers edition recognitions are based on peer review and highlight attorneys across a range of practice areas. This recognition underscores the broad experience Ball Janik's attorneys bring to the firm's construction defect practice.
"We're proud to be recognized by Best Lawyers again this year," said James C. Prichard, Managing Partner of Ball Janik LLP. "These honors reflect the expertise and depth of our team, our continued growth across Florida, and our commitment to providing strong counsel to clients in complex construction, insurance recovery, and litigation matters."
Ball Janik attorneys recognized in the 2027 edition of The Best Lawyers in America® include:
Keegan A. Berry — Construction Law
Brian T. Crevasse — Construction Law; Litigation - Construction
Todd Demetriades — Litigation - Construction
Joseph R. Fitos — Construction Law; Litigation - Construction
Megan A. Picataggio — Construction Law
Jon E. Lemole — Construction Law; Litigation - Construction
Salvatore G. Scro — Construction Law
Nicholas B. Vargo — Construction Law; Litigation - Construction
Kelly M. Corcoran — Construction Law
Gabriel Z. Coelho — Construction Law
Evan J. Small — Construction Law; Litigation - Construction
Franchesco Soto — Construction Law; Litigation - Construction
Phillip E. Joseph — Litigation - Construction; Real Estate Law
James C. Prichard — Construction Law
Ball Janik attorneys recognized in the 2027 edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America include:
Nicholas Passantino — Litigation - Construction
Amanda L. Gonzalez — Construction Law; Litigation - Construction
Morgan N. Lester — Litigation - Construction
Chris S. Tribbey — Construction Law
Kyle Bugden — Construction Law; Litigation - Construction
Brian Tannenbaum — Construction Law
Kayla Mosquera — Insurance Law
Natasha L. Biela — Commercial Litigation
Elijah C. Waring, Jr. — Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
Greg K. Demers — Construction Law
About Ball Janik LLP
Ball Janik LLP is a Florida-based law firm offering construction defect, construction law, insurance recovery, and commercial litigation counsel, to its local and national clients. The firm was founded in 1982 and has expanded its capabilities, professionals, and geographic footprint. What started as a small firm focused on real property, land use, and litigation (known then as Ball Janik & Novack) has grown to a team of 70-plus attorneys and paralegals in five offices in Florida, with centuries of combined experience and capabilities. The firm has been recognized by Chambers USA, including for its construction law capabilities in Florida, U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers®, The Best Lawyers in America©, Super Lawyers, and Corporate International. Read more at www.balljanik.com.
Arizona Supreme Court Clarifies Parties’ Post-Default Conduct Cannot Validate Void Default Orders
August 24, 2026 —
Joseph Kanefield, Ryan P. Hogan & Lilly M. Geiler - Snell & WilmerAfter filing a lawsuit, the first step is always serving process on the opposing party. While that preliminary step sounds basic enough, in McMahan v. Grasshopper, the Arizona Supreme Court recently provided a helpful refresher on the nuances of the service requirement and its importance in litigation for plaintiffs and defendants alike.1
Background
McMahan arose from a hit-and-run where a tractor-trailer collided with safety barricades and injured a construction worker. The construction worker sued the tractor-trailer company, and he attempted to serve the company by leaving a copy of the complaint with the assistant to the company’s statutory agent who forwarded the complaint to the company. The assistant, however, was not authorized to accept service on the company’s behalf. Before the company appeared in the action, the construction worker successfully obtained an entry of default.
Reprinted courtesy of
Joseph Kanefield, Snell & Wilmer,
Ryan P. Hogan, Snell & Wilmer and
Lilly M. Geiler, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Kanefield may be contacted at jkanefield@swlaw.com
Mr. Hogan may be contacted at rhogan@swlaw.com
Ms. Geiler may be contacted at lgeiler@swlaw.com
Read the full story...
Denis Serkin and Michael S. Zicherman Co-Edit/Author Lexology Panoramic: Construction 2027
August 03, 2026 —
Denis Serkin & Michael S. Zicherman - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.P&A partners
Denis Serkin and
Michael S. Zicherman served as co-editors and authors of Lexology’s Panoramic: Construction 2027 – US and Global guide. Formerly Getting the Deal Through, Lexology Panoramic provides members of the construction industry and construction-related legal and business providers with side-by-side comparison of key industry issues in 19 jurisdictions worldwide.
Reprinted courtesy of
Denis Serkin, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Michael S. Zicherman, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Serkin may be contacted at dserkin@pecklaw.com
Mr. Zicherman may be contacted at mzicherman@pecklaw.com
Read the full story...
GRSM Secures Illinois Appellate Victory for Architectural Firm in Implied Warranty Dispute
May 14, 2026 —
Gordon Rees Scully MansukhaniGordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Partner Jonathan Federman, Partner Thomas Cronin, and Senior Counsel Garrett Lee recently secured a victory in the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth District, on behalf of the firm’s client, an architectural firm, in a liability dispute.
The case arose following an entity’s purchase of a 111-unit building for use as an investment or rental property. The plaintiff made claims against the architect of the building, alleging that there were design defects that breached an implied warranty, as well as a negligence claim.
GRSM argued that an architect could not be liable for implied warranties, particularly for an implied warranty which no Illinois court has ever recognized. GRSM further argued that Illinois law bars an architect from liability for negligence arising from a duty pursuant to contract under the economic loss doctrine.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
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
Lost in Translation: AEC Tech’s Missing Role
May 12, 2026 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessI once visited a construction site where the contractor’s headquarters had commissioned a tech company to build an on-site quality-inspection application. The developer had admitted to the site engineer that they had never set foot on a construction site before. The engineer showed me what he was actually using: his own phone camera and an Excel sheet. The new app did not map to how work actually happened on site.
This is not an isolated story. The vendor builds something technically coherent but operationally disconnected. The client, somewhere up the chain, had fallen in love with the idea of the solution before anyone had built an honest business case for it.
The result is a tool that gets demonstrated at a board meeting but isn’t used in the field.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
California Poised for the Most Significant Residential Construction Defect Reforms in Decades
September 01, 2026 —
Thomas D. Fama & Andrew J. Mallon - Wood Smith Henning BermanThe California Legislature is considering legislation that would dramatically alter the landscape of residential construction defect litigation. Assembly Bill 1903, currently pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee, proposes extensive amendments to California's Right to Repair Act (Civil Code sections 895-945.5) that would substantially strengthen procedural protections for builders while narrowing the scope of recoverable construction defect claims.
If enacted, the legislation would affect virtually every stage of a construction defect dispute- from the initial notice of claim through litigation and settlement- and would introduce an entirely new certification process for newly constructed condominium projects. This article details some of the most significant proposed changes.
Higher Burden for Construction Defect Plaintiffs
Perhaps the most consequential change is the bill's modification of the proof required to establish liability. current law generally requires a claimant to demonstrate the residence fails to satisfy one of the statutory performance standards established under the Right to Repair Act. AB1903 would instead require claimants to establish three separate elements:
- A violation of an applicable statutory performance standard;
- The violation caused appreciable, present, non-speculative physical damage to another building component; and
- The violation resulted from the original construction.
Reprinted courtesy of
Thomas D. Fama, Wood Smith Henning Berman and
Andrew J. Mallon, Wood Smith Henning Berman
Mr. Fama may be contacted at tfama@wshblaw.com
Mr. Mallon may be contacted at amallon@wshblaw.com
Read the full story...
