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.
Colorado Legislature Considers Series of Bills Aimed at Boosting Affordable Housing Construction in Colorado — What Homebuilders Need to Know
April 08, 2026 —
Amanda E. McKinlay - Snell & WilmerOn January 21, 2026, lawmakers introduced a series of bills with the goals of addressing affordable housing issues and incentivizing construction in Colorado.
House Bill 26-1001 (known as the “Housing Opportunities Made Easier ‘HOME’ Act”) concerns the promotion for residential developments on “qualifying properties” that do not contain exempt parcels through the bypassing of often time-consuming local planning processes. Under HB26-1001, a “qualifying property is any real property that contains no more than five acres of land and is owned by: (i) a nonprofit organization with a demonstrated history of providing affordable housing; (ii) a nonprofit organization that provides public transit; (iii) a nonprofit organization that has entered into an agreement with another nonprofit organization with a demonstrated history of providing affordable housing, provided that the agreement requires the nonprofit organization with a demonstrated history of providing affordable housing to develop a residential development on the property; (iv) a school district; (v) a state college or university; (vi) a housing authority; or (vii) a local or regional transit district or a regional transportation authority serving one or more counties.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Amanda E. McKinlay, Snell & WilmerMs. McKinlay may be contacted at
amckinlay@swlaw.com
Sometimes a General Damages Assessment is Enough. . .
July 06, 2026 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsIt has been a while since I last posted here at
Construction Law Musings. Life, law practice, and “blogger’s block” have taken their toll on the posting schedule. Hopefully this will be one of several upcoming posts now that the litigation schedule has lightened a bit over the summer.
Today’s post is about damages. Specifically damage to a homeowner’s roof and her legal damages therefor. That last is of course a sentence that only a
construction attorney (or other litigator) could possibly craft and have it make sense. Now, on with the case. . .In
Hardesty Construction, Inc. v. Weedon, the facts are as follows:
Ms. Weedon had hail damage to the roof of her home. She hired Hardesty Construction to repair and replace the roof. After the first roof was installed and failed inspection, a second roof was installed. The issue was that the first roof had a warranty and the second roof, installed similarly to the first (and allegedly with the same construction issues according to Ms. Weedon’s expert), was not provided with the promised warranty. As one may expect, Weedon sued Hardesty and Hardesty Construction for fraudulent inducement and breach of contract. At trial, Weedon testified, without objection, that her home was worth $40,000 less because of Hardesty Construction’s work, which was based partially on quotes Weedon received to fix the roof. The Circuit Court granted Hardesty Construction’s motion to strike Weedon’s fraudulent inducement claim, but not her other claims. A jury awarded Weedon $30,253.30 on her breach of contract claim. Hardesty Construction appealed, arguing the Circuit Court erred in (a) allowing the jury to consider Weedon’s valuation testimony because it was not based on her personal knowledge and (b) denying its motion to strike based on insufficient evidence as to damages. Weedon assigned cross-error in the Circuit Court’s decision to grant the motion to strike her fraudulent inducement claim against Samual Hardesty.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
New York Orders Moratorium on Large Data Center Permits
July 27, 2026 —
Levi W. Barrett - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Levi W. Barrett, Co-Managing Partner of Peckar & Abramson’s New Jersey office, Co-Chair of the firm’s
Construction Contracts & Risk Management team, and Executive Committee Member, was recently quoted in “New York Orders Moratorium on Large Data Center Permits,” an article written by
Engineering News-Record (ENR). The article examines New York Governor Kathy Hochul’s executive order temporarily halting state environmental permit reviews for certain large-scale data center projects while regulators develop a comprehensive framework to address the sector’s energy demands, water consumption, environmental impacts, and effects on local communities. It also explores the broader implications of the moratorium for developers, contractors, investors, and other stakeholders, as well as the ongoing debate between economic development, AI-driven infrastructure growth, and environmental and utility ratepayer concerns.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Levi W. Barrett, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Mr. Barrett may be contacted at
lbarrett@pecklaw.com
Micromobility in Smart Cities: Keeping the Wheels in Motion
May 26, 2026 —
James P. Bobotek - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogMobility is the lifeblood of any city. How people are able to travel in, out and within a metropolitan area is vital to its citizens, businesses, supply chains and social services. And as U.S. cities have expanded in size and population density, the strategies for addressing mobility have evolved. Many have taken different approaches to public transit, and each city boasts a dense tapestry of roadways, walking paths and various parking options. But as cities continue to reexamine infrastructure strategies through smart city technology, a new field of transportation has emerged—micromobility.
Designed for short-distance travel using lightweight vehicles (bikes, e-bikes, e-scooters, etc.), the industry’s global net worth has grown exponentially in recent years to the tune of hundreds of billions, with one forecast predicting it could reach
$340 billion by 2030. Micromobility also finds itself at the forefront of various smart city technological improvements. Geofencing has been implemented in
U.S. cities to determine where micromobility vehicles can operate, control speed limits, and park utilizing the vehicles’ GPS location. Internet of Things (IoT) technologies (satellite-based location receivers, cloud communication, internet links, etc.) have
improved vehicle lifespans by keeping track of when vehicles require service and prevent vandalism and theft. Data collected from vehicles’ location tracking is routinely used for
urban planning and smart city development.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James P. Bobotek, PillsburyMr. Bobotek may be contacted at
james.bobotek@pillsburylaw.com
At the Intersection of Indemnity and Prevailing Wages
March 17, 2026 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogIn a case that I’m frankly surprised I don’t see more of, the 2nd District Court of Appeal of California examined an indemnity claim by a subcontractor against a general contractor and public entity who mistakenly believed that a construction project did not require the payment of prevailing wages.
The Nabors Case
In
Nabors Corporate Services, Inc. v. City of Long Beach, 108 Cal.App 540 (2025), subcontractor Nabors Corporate Services, Inc. sued general contractor Tidelands Oil Production Company and the City of Long Beach after it was found liable in a class action lawsuit for failing to pay prevailing wages to its employees. Nabors’ contract with Tidelands did not require the payment of prevailing wages and neither Tidelands nor the City believed that the project, which involved “oil well plug and abandonment” work, required the payment of prevailing wages.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Supreme Court Strikes Down IEEPA Tariffs: The Refund Process Will Be Messy
March 10, 2026 —
Brett W. Johnson, Derek Flint, T. Troy Galan & Thomas Williams - Snell & WilmerOn February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, and the consolidated case Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs unilaterally.1 The decision invalidates both the “reciprocal” tariffs and the drug-trafficking tariffs imposed under IEEPA.
For importers, the immediate question is whether, how, and when refunds can actually be obtained. On that issue, the U.S. Supreme Court provided no roadmap. To the contrary, the dissent warned that the United States “may be required to refund billions of dollars,” that the process is likely to be a “mess,” and that the majority opinion “says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Brett W. Johnson, Snell & Wilmer,
Derek Flint, Snell & Wilmer,
T. Troy Galan, Snell & Wilmer and
Thomas Williams, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Johnson may be contacted at bwjohnson@swlaw.com
Mr. Flint may be contacted at dflint@swlaw.com
Mr. Galan may be contacted at tgalan@swlaw.com
Mr. Williams may be contacted at twilliams@swlaw.com>
Read the full story...
Moving in Before Substantial Completion? The Risks of Early Owner Occupancy
March 24, 2026 —
Sydney Koby - ConsensusDocsIntroduction
On many construction projects, particularly large projects facing schedule pressure, owners may begin occupying or using portions of the project before the work reaches substantial completion. This is often due to operational needs, phased turnover, or market demands that drive owners to take possession of all or part of a project while construction activities are ongoing. While early occupancy may seem practical, it can blur the lines of responsibility between owner and contractor and can create significant legal and practical complications.
These disputes are especially common on large, complex projects where punch list work, system commissioning, and closeout activities overlap with owner use. Without clear documentation and carefully drafted contract provisions, early occupancy can undermine an owner’s ability to enforce completion requirements while simultaneously exposing the contractor to claims of delay, inefficiency, or interference.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sydney Koby, Jones WalkerMs. Koby may be contacted at
skoby@joneswalker.com
