Associate Attorney
In Trivium Circle LLC v. Bustamantes Cabrera & Rodriguez, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D2245 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025), a unit owner sued individual directors of a condominium association for breach of fiduciary duty and related misconduct. The trial court compelled arbitration under § 718.1255, Florida’s pre-suit arbitration scheme for certain condo disputes. The Fourth DCA reversed.
Why the reversal? Because § 718.1255 narrowly defines “disputes” that must go to arbitration (e.g., use of or compliance with governing documents, meeting/election procedures, records inspections, and assessment issues). The statute expressly excludes claims for breach of fiduciary duty, damages, or failure to maintain common elements. Tort-like claims against directors don’t fit the statutory funnel.
Part of what drove the Fourth DCA’s decision was that the condo association’s governing documents attempted to require arbitration for all disputes with the Division, effectively attempting to expand the Division’s limited jurisdiction beyond what § 718.1255 allows. The court implicitly rejected that attempt, recognizing that the Division simply isn’t equipped to adjudicate fiduciary-duty or tort-type claims, which are outside its statutory authority.
The court also rejected the “partial arbitrability” workaround. Even if some count(s) (e.g., election procedures) might be arbitrable, where the predominant claims are non-arbitrable (fiduciary-duty damages), courts shouldn’t force the entire case into the Division’s arbitration process. Instead, the proper approach is to bifurcate: arbitrable issues like election challenges, record inspections, or assessment disputes proceed through the Division, while non-arbitrable claims must be filed separately in trial court.
Practice pointers:
- Sort claims by statute early. Election/records/assessment fights → § 718.1255 arbitration; fiduciary-duty/damages → circuit court.
- Bifurcate smartly. If your complaint mixes arbitrable and non-arbitrable issues, consider separate proceedings rather than risking a blanket compel.
- Don’t overread governing docs. Bylaws can’t expand Division jurisdiction beyond § 718.1255’s limits.
Takeaway: Condo arbitration under § 718.1255 isn’t a catch-all. Director fiduciary-duty claims seeking damages belong in court, even when other association issues might be arbitrable.
We map condo/HOA disputes to the right forum from day one—minimizing detours and jurisdiction fights. Need help splitting arbitrable counts from court-only claims? Contact our team for a clean roadmap.
* * * * * * * * * *
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.