Florida Pecchia v. Wayside Estates (2024): No Substantial Compliance on HOA Records

Quick Answer

In Pecchia v. Wayside Estates Homeowners Association, Inc., Florida's Fifth District Court of Appeal held on June 7, 2024 that the HOA records provisions of section 720.303(4) and (5) "do not provide for substantial compliance." The association "shall" keep the listed records and make them available within ten business days of a written request, and that language "is mandatory in nature." The court said bank statements, insurance policies and the ten-day deadline were all covered, and that the failure to meet the deadline created a rebuttable presumption of willfulness.

The case was decided under the 2019 version of the statute, so boards should confirm current text before relying on specific subsection numbers.

At a Glance

The Dispute

Wayside is described as a "small, ten-home, self-managed homeowners' association" in Seminole County. Two owners, Pecchia and Porter, worried the association was not maintaining its fences and storm water pond or enforcing the covenants. They believed the association had lowered assessments and spent less on maintenance while conditions worsened.

In November 2019, through counsel, they sent a certified-mail request under section 720.303(5) for official records, including two years of insurance policies and records of maintenance spending. Wayside signed for the letter on November 4, 2019, which put the ten-business-day deadline at November 19, 2019. No response came by then. In December 2019 Wayside provided photocopies of some documents. Many required records were still missing, the owners renewed the request on January 13, 2020, and after months of negotiation they sued for an injunction, statutory damages and fees.

After a bench trial, the circuit court denied the injunction as moot. It found Wayside had "provided sufficient documents," and ruled that bank statements and canceled checks were not covered because the statute requires only "accounting records." It also treated the missed ten-day deadline as not a violation because enough documents were eventually produced. The trial court did not address the missing insurance policies.

What the Court Held

No substantial compliance

The court called the issues ones of statutory interpretation and read the text closely. It stressed the repeated use of "shall" in subsections (4) and (5) and held that "shall" is mandatory. It said the association "is not afforded discretion in determining which documents to maintain" or to provide, "nor is the ten-day period discretionary." It added that the penalty provisions that follow "reinforce" the mandatory nature of the duty. It also cited Dwork v. Executive Estates of Boynton Beach Homeowners' Ass'n (Fla. 4th DCA 2017), a case about 13 versus 14 days of fine hearing notice, for the point that substantial compliance is not authorized where the statute is mandatory.

The deadline

It was "undisputed at trial" that Wayside did not make the records available within ten days. Its record keeper testified she did not comply and was unaware of the deadline. The court held that Wayside's late and partial production did not satisfy the statute and that "at a minimum, the trial court should have found that Wayside willfully violated these timing requirements and imposed the statutory penalty."

Presumption of willfulness and damages

The court described the 2019 statute this way: failure to provide access within ten business days of a certified-mail request creates "a rebuttable presumption that the association 'willfully failed to comply,'" and the owner is then entitled to "actual damages or minimum damages," the minimum being $50 per calendar day for up to ten days (a total of $500), counted from the eleventh business day. The panel said the record did not show Wayside rebutted the presumption, so the owners "would be entitled to the damages provided by section 720.303(5)(b)." The court noted that whether the failure was willful had not been raised below or addressed by the trial court.

Insurance policies

Because section 720.303(4)(h) lists "all of the association's insurance policies," which must be kept for at least seven years, the court held the missing 2017 and 2018 policies had to be made available. The case was not moot and "the trial court should have entered an injunction requiring Wayside to provide the requested insurance policies."

Bank statements

The court held bank statements fall within the required financial and accounting records. Under the 2019 text, those records include "financial statements" and "[a]ny other records that identify, measure, record, or communicate financial information." The owners were entitled to inspect them and the trial court should have ordered them produced. The court did not order production of canceled checks because the owners did not show other missing checks existed.

Fees and what was left open

The court dismissed as premature the part of the appeal about the association's prevailing-party attorney fees, because the trial court had decided entitlement but not amount. It reversed the trial court's finding that Wayside complied with the records requirements and remanded for further proceedings. The court affirmed the rest "without further discussion."

Why It Matters for Associations

• Deadlines are not soft. Under the statute as the court read it, partial production after the deadline did not cure the late response.
• Financial records may include bank statements. The court read the list of financial and accounting records broadly.
• Insurance policies are on the list. A board should know where current and past policies are kept.
• Small, self-managed associations get no special treatment. Wayside had ten homes and no manager, and the court applied the statute as written.
• Our reading: the "no substantial compliance" reasoning is built on the words "shall" and the penalty structure, so owners and boards may see it cited for other mandatory HOA deadlines. Whether other courts extend it is an open question.
• Caution on current text. The court applied the 2019 version. Section 720.303 may have been amended since, including its record lists and timing. We did not re-read the current records subsections for this page. Confirm with counsel.

Related Florida Law

• Section 720.303: HOA records, budgets and financial reporting
• Ruiz De Gamboa v. Newth Gardens (2025): a later records case
• Dwork v. Executive Estates (2017): fine notice must be strictly followed
• HB 1203 (2024): HOA reform
• Florida HOA laws complete guide

Board Checklist

• Calendar the statutory response period from the date the board or its designee receives a written request, and track certified mail receipts.
• Keep an index of required official records, including bank statements, insurance policies and financial reports, and where each is stored.
• Do not treat a late partial response as cured; ask counsel before closing out a late request.
• Designate one person to receive and log records requests and make sure the whole board knows the process.
• Check the current text of section 720.303 for retention periods and subsection numbers, since the court cited the 2019 version.
• Ask counsel about the exposure for late production under the current statute, including damages and fee provisions.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did Pecchia v. Wayside Estates decide?

That under section 720.303(4) and (5) as written in 2019, an HOA must maintain the listed records and make them available within ten business days, with no substantial compliance exception, and that bank statements and insurance policies were covered.

Which court decided it, and when?

Florida's Fifth District Court of Appeal, on June 7, 2024, in case number 5D2023-0963.

Does this apply to condominiums?

The case interpreted the HOA statute, section 720.303. Condominium records are governed by section 718.111(12). Whether a court would apply the same reasoning there is not decided by this case.

What are the minimum damages the court described?

Under the 2019 text the court quoted, $50 per calendar day for up to ten days, beginning the eleventh business day after the request, after a failure to provide access within ten business days. Confirm the current amounts with counsel.

Did the owners win everything?

No. The court reversed on the records compliance ruling, but it affirmed the trial court's rulings on the maintenance and enforcement issues "without further discussion," and it dismissed the fee appeal as premature.

Can an association safely ignore a request that seems burdensome?

Nothing in the opinion says so. The court said these obligations are "clearly mandatory." Ask counsel how to respond to a specific request.

Where This Comes From

We read the full text of the Fifth District Court of Appeal's opinion in No. 5D2023-0963 as posted by Justia. We did not verify an official reporter citation or any later rehearing, review or citing history, and we did not re-read the current text of section 720.303 for this page. The case page is at law.justia.com.

How APM Helps

Association Property Managers provides remote HOA and condo management for associations in Florida, starting at a flat $99/month per community with no per-door fees or long-term contracts. See remote management in Florida, browse every Florida state-law guide, or request a free proposal, delivered within three business days. Laws and licensing rules differ by state, and we confirm the requirements for Florida when we build your proposal.

Legal disclaimer: This article is general information, not legal advice. Laws change and associations differ. Confirm the current statute text and how it applies to your governing documents with a licensed Florida attorney before acting.