Key Takeaways
- A Florida court ruled that limiting condo owners to one records request per month is unlawful.
- The court said such a limit, without taking into account the size or burden of the request, potentially violates owners' rights to access.
- The decision disrupts longstanding sentiment that such a limit was widely accepted as reasonable. Such rules are now legally vulnerable, could lead to litigation and should be reexamined.
Condominium associations have long had the power to adopt reasonable rules and regulations in order to govern their unit owners in an orderly fashion. However, a new ruling from a Florida court threatens to upend one long-standing type of such a rule, with implications for the tens of thousands of condominium associations in the state.
For more than 35 years, condominium associations have had this express authority to adopt rules placing reasonable restrictions on official records requests by unit owners. In relevant part, s. 718.111(12)(c)1., Florida Statutes, declares that the official records of condominium associations are open to inspection by condominium association members and their authorized representatives at all reasonable times. A rebuttable presumption that an association has willfully failed to comply with the statute is created if the condominium association does not provide records to a requesting member within 10 working days after receipt of the member's written request. See Fla. Stat. § 718.111(12)(c)1. However, condominium associations are allowed to "adopt reasonable rules regarding the frequency, time, location, notice, and manner of record inspections." Id.
Until recently, rules and regulations providing that a unit owner could not request official records more frequently than once per month had long been considered a reasonable restriction. Most requests for official records center around seeking information about an association's expenditures, cash flow or financial health, and many financial and accounting institutions only release new statements on a monthly basis. In addition, frequent and repeated requests for information can interfere with an association's day-to-day operations. Rules are often necessary to deter frivolous requests by members intending to drain the association's resources or misuse the information collected. Thus, it was always presumed that a once-per-month restriction was reasonable and would hold up to judicial scrutiny.
However, in the case of Newth Gardens Condominium Association, Inc. v. Ruiz de Gamboa, a Palm Beach County judge struck down an association's prohibition on a unit owner seeking official records from the association more frequently than once per month.
Specifically, in Newth Gardens, a unit owner who frequently requested records from his condominium association sued the association for what he believed to be an untimely and insufficient response to several records requests. For one of the requests, the association raised as a defense that the request was barred because it was made less than one month after the unit owner's prior request, and the association had promulgated a rule that prohibited repeated requests from the same unit owner with such frequency. In ruling against the association, the trial judge wrote:
[T]he Court finds that to the extent that Association promulgated a rule limiting the number of requests to one per month, such a rule is not enforceable because it is so restrictive that it substantially erodes the unit owner's right to access. The Association's rule makes no distinction between a request that may take minutes to fulfill and one that may take much longer. There is no evidence or proof that Defendant's requests were overly burdensome or unduly taxed the resources of the Association.
Newth Gardens Condominium Association, Inc. v. Ruiz de Gamboa, Case No. 50-2019-CA-9347-XXXX-MB (15th Jud. Cir. Ct. Nov. 1, 2023) (internal marks omitted). The association appealed the ruling and argued on appeal that the trial court was incorrect, that the once-per-month limit was both reasonable and widely adopted, and that such a rule did not unduly erode the right to access. In a recently issued opinion that provides no analysis, the Fourth District Court of Appeal (DCA) agreed with the trial court, finding that this portion of the trial court's analysis would be "affirm[ed] without discussion." Ruiz de Gamboa v. Newth Gardens Condominium Association, Inc., Case No. 4D2024-0217 (Fla. 4th DCA Jun. 4, 2025).
The Fourth DCA's affirmance of this portion of the trial court's final judgment – particularly without any discussion – is surprising. The association in this case had adopted a rule that limited the frequency of requests to once per month. This frequency and similar general request restrictions are commonly adopted by condominium associations and, traditionally, have been presumed by condominium associations to be reasonable. Given the court's new guidance, condominium associations should seriously consider replacing general rules that do not consider the anticipated ease of fulfilling a given request or the resources of the condominium association available to fulfill the request. A more nuanced rule can be drafted that takes into account unique factors such as the size of the request, the condominium association's records retention methods and the number of management and staff serving the condominium association. Such a nuanced rule may reduce the likelihood of a court finding the rule to be "so restrictive that it substantially erodes the unit owner's right to access."
BakerHostetler has decades of combined experience drafting condominium association rules and assisting condominium associations in navigating the procedures for adopting new rules. Our Commercial Litigation team also frequently represents both condominium associations and unit owners in condominium and community association arbitration and litigation. Contact us if you need assistance or would like to find out more about our services.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
