Florida Ruiz De Gamboa v. Newth Gardens (4th DCA 2025): Condo Records Request Proof of Mailing

Quick Answer

In Ruiz De Gamboa v. Newth Gardens Condominium Association, Inc., No. 4D2024-0217 (Fla. 4th DCA June 4, 2025), Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal held that a condominium association that could not prove it actually mailed a response to a records request did not rebut the statutory presumption that it "willfully failed to comply." A drafted letter, plus a manager's guess that staff "probably" mailed it, was not enough.

The court applied the 2018 text of section 718.111(12). The wording of that section has been revised since, so read the current statute before applying the case.

At a Glance

The Dispute

In April 2018 a unit owner asked his condominium association to make certain records available for inspection. The association's president said he drafted and sent a letter setting an inspection appointment. The owner said he never received it. About a month later the owner sent a certified pre-arbitration notice saying the association was "twenty-four working days past its deadline" and that no record had been made available. He got no answer to that notice either.

The owner then filed a petition for mandatory non-binding arbitration. The arbitrator sided with him, and the association sought a trial de novo. At trial the president testified that he drafted the letter "towards the end of the day," had not personally mailed it, and "probably gave" it to a staff member. He said the association had no set procedure for corresponding with owners: "Some were by email, some were by mail." He offered no evidence that anyone properly addressed and mailed the envelope.

The trial judge found both men credible and presumed the letter had been placed in the mail. He concluded it was "lost in the mail and undelivered through no fault of the association," found no willfulness, and did not apply a presumption of willful noncompliance. The owner's rehearing motion was denied, and he appealed. The association cross-appealed the separate June 2018 requests.

What the Court Held

The statute in 2018

The court quoted the then-current statute. Records "shall be made available to a unit owner . . . within 5 working days after receipt of a written request," and section 718.111(12)(c)1. said: "The failure of an association to provide the records within 10 working days after receipt of a written request creates a rebuttable presumption that the association willfully failed to comply with this paragraph." An owner denied access is entitled to "actual damages or minimum damages."

Drafting a letter is not proof of mailing

Relying on Alessio v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (Fla. 4th DCA 2019), the court said that "[e]vidence that a document was drafted is insufficient, standing alone, to establish that it was in fact mailed." Mailing "must be proven by producing additional evidence such as proof of regular business practices, an affidavit swearing that the letter was mailed, or a return receipt." A witness describing a general practice "must have personal knowledge of the company's general practice in mailing letters." The president's "speculative ('probably') testimony" did not meet that standard.

So the trial court's finding that the letter was mailed lacked competent substantial evidence. The court said the trial court "should have begun its analysis with a presumption of the association's willful failure to comply," which would have shifted to the association the burden of proving, with competent substantial evidence, that it timely gave the owner an opportunity to inspect.

Ridge Groves distinguished

The association cited Ridge Groves Condominium Ass'n v. Misserville (Fla. 2d DCA 2016), where records were copied and set aside in the office awaiting the owner's promised call. The court found it "inapposite": there the owner said he would call, and here the owner had not, and the association had planned to send a letter, not to wait for a call.

Why the failure was "willful"

The court added that the owner's pre-suit notice gave the association "an opportunity for a 'do-over'" and a chance to limit damages and fees. Because the association did not respond to that notice, its silence "dooms any argument that the non-mailing of the association's response was inadvertent." In the court's words, the failure to respond "converts unintended miscommunication to 'willful failure.'" It cited HNTB Corp. v. Milstead (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) for the idea that a voluntary act is "willful" in law when it involves "some degree of conscious wrong" or "at least culpable carelessness."

Result and limits

The court reversed the judgment for the association on the April 2018 request and affirmed on the June 2018 requests. The opinion does not state damages; the case was not remanded with instructions we can summarize from the text we read. It applied the 2018 statute, so we do not read it as deciding how the current subsections apply.

Why It Matters for Associations

• Proof of delivery is the association's burden. After the 10-working-day period, the statute presumes willful noncompliance, and Ruiz De Gamboa shows a court will expect evidence of actual delivery.
• Keep a mailing log. The court pointed to "regular business practices," an affidavit, or a return receipt. Our reading: email with a delivery record, certified mail receipts or a logged mailing routine is the kind of evidence that fits.
• Answer a non-receipt notice. The court treated silence after an owner said "I never got it" as the point where a mistake looked willful.
• Do not rely on one witness's recollection. A "probably" does not rebut the presumption.
• Current law differs. The current statute has a checklist presumption of compliance and website posting rules. See our section 718.111 page. We did not test how the court would apply those pieces.

Related Florida Law

• Section 718.111: official records, insurance and reporting
• Pecchia v. Wayside Estates HOA (5th DCA 2024): HOA records
• Section 720.303: HOA records, budgets and reporting
• HB 1021 (2024): condominium reform
• Florida HOA laws complete guide

Board Checklist

• Log every written records request with the date and time received.
• Send the response by a method that leaves proof: email with delivery record, certified mail, or hand delivery with a signed receipt.
• Assign one person to own requests so that "who mailed it" is never a guess.
• If an owner says a response never arrived, answer promptly and make the records available.
• Confirm the current deadline and checklist wording in section 718.111(12) with counsel, because the case applied the 2018 text.
• Keep copies of the checklist of records provided and the proof of delivery with the request file.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did Ruiz De Gamboa v. Newth Gardens decide?

That an association which failed to prove it mailed its response to a records request did not rebut the presumption of willful noncompliance in section 718.111(12) (2018).

Is a drafted letter enough to show it was mailed?

Not by itself. The court said mailing must be shown by something more, such as proof of regular business practices, an affidavit, or a return receipt.

Why did the court call the failure willful?

Because the association had the owner's pre-suit notice that he had received nothing and did not respond. The court said that silence turned an unintended miscommunication into a willful failure.

Does this case apply to HOAs?

It interpreted the condominium statute. Section 720.303 has similar presumption wording, but we cannot say how a court would apply this case to an HOA without counsel review.

Did the court award damages?

The part of the opinion we read reverses the judgment on the April 2018 request but does not state an amount.

Is the decision final?

The version we read says it was "not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing." We did not verify later history.

Where This Comes From

We read the full text of the Fourth District's opinion in No. 4D2024-0217 (June 4, 2025). We did not verify a reporter citation, post-opinion history or the current text of section 718.111(12) for this page. The opinion is posted at Justia.

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.