Associate Attorney
Mineo v. Do (4th DCA 2026)
Two Broward County homeowners believed that their neighbor’s RV was parked in a way that violated the community’s governing documents and brought down property values, and so decided to sue under Florida’s HOA statute. The trial court ruled against them, and the Fourth District Court of Appeals agreed—and their reasoning matters for anyone who litigates against, or lives in, a community governed by a homeowners’ association.
The Wrong Statute
Florida Statute § 720.305 gives individual HOA members the right to sue other members for violating the association’s governing documents. On its face, the Appellants’ case looked like a straightforward, textbook use of the statute: a neighbor was violating the rules, and so the impacted homeowners sued.
Unfortunately, there was a problem—the harm the Appellants alleged was that the entire community was being negatively impacted as to property values. This moved the harm from one that was personal and concrete to one that could be claimed by the whole neighborhood, and this distinction was critical to the courts’ decisions because it transformed it to a derivative claim, with specific statutory requirements that must be satisfied before filing suit.
Individual Claims v. Derivative Claims
There are two kinds of HOA lawsuits: those brought as an individual claim, and those that are brought as a derivative claim. In an individual claim, the harm suffered by the plaintiff is specific to the plaintiff alone. Conversely, in a derivative claim the harm is suffered by the community as a whole.
This is a critical distinction. An individual claim is governed by Florida Statute § 720.305, and no special pre-suit steps are required before filing. Derivative claims are brought under Florida Statute § 617.07401, which governs derivative actions for members of non-profits (which an HOA is). § 617.07401 requires that a written demand be made on the board, and then 90 days must elapse without action by the board before suit can be filed.
As a derivative suit, the Appellants were required to comply with these requirements. They did not, and it was fatal to their case.
Why “Property Values” Wasn’t a Personal Injury
The presence of the RV didn’t impact one neighbor more than any other, rather the Appellants alleged that it affected the entire community in the same way. The court differentiated this harm from the facts in Roebuck v. Sills, where a neighbor installed pool equipment underneath the plaintiff’s bedroom window. The plaintiff in Roebuck suffered a personal intrusion not experienced by anyone else in the community. And therein lies the difference. The more diffuse and neighborhood-wide the complaint, the less personal and concrete, and therefore more likely that a court will classify it as derivative.
Realities in Practice
When you are confronted with whether to file a claim under § 720.305 or under § 617.07401, you must consider the type of injury alleged, because pre-suit compliance can make or break the case. The first question to ask is: Was the harm unique to me (or my client)? Or did the community suffer as a whole? If the answer to the second question is yes, then it is likely a derivative claim, and pre-suit procedures must be followed. And remember, the nature of the injury, and not the remedy being sought, is what the court will consider in determining what statute governs, and, therefore, so must you.
* * * * * * * * * *
THIS BLOG IS INTENDED FOR GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY. IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE. THE READER SHOULD CONSULT WITH KNOWLEDGEABLE LEGAL COUNSEL TO DETERMINE HOW APPLICABLE LAWS APPLY TO SPECIFIC FACTS AND SITUATIONS. BLOG POSTS ARE BASED ON THE MOST CURRENT INFORMATION AT THE TIME THEY ARE WRITTEN. SINCE IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE LAWS OR OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES MAY HAVE CHANGED SINCE PUBLICATION, PLEASE CALL US TO DISCUSS ANY ACTION YOU MAY BE CONSIDERING AS A RESULT OF READING THIS BLOG.