Condo Crisis: Communities approved for safety inspections can't count on state grants yet
Their roof is aging and members have been battered with multiple years of gargantuan insurance increases, so a Pembroke Pines condominium association made sure they were among the first in an avalanche of applications for state condo-hardening grants.
My Safe Florida Condominium Pilot Project proved so popular in November that the window of opportunity to grab one lasted only six days. But now, with the Florida Legislature approving a new round of condo improvement grants, Dawn Munera, president of Pierpointe V Condo III, has learned her board's efforts are coming up short despite quickly getting in line.
Just as hurricane season is bearing down, starting June 1, the new legislation cuts out condo buildings that, like her association's 36-year-old buildings, are just two stories. The new legislation requires the buildings to have at least three habitable stories to be eligible for the state money.
'This (grant money) could have given them (residents) just enough relief not to have another assessment, at least for a year,' said Munera, explaining that their special assessments have been needed for several years of 50% increases in insurance costs.
The collapse of Champlain Towers South nearly four years ago caused the deaths of 98 people and injured 11 others prompted the state Legislature to adopt a law creating new standards for condo buildings three stories or higher. It has left many Floridians wrestling with the option of paying significant association fees, selling their unit or going into foreclosure.
Once Gov. Ron DeSantis signs the bill the House and the Senate both unanimously passed this past session, 52 associations among the 165 that were approved to be in the grant program last year will have buildings ineligible for portion of the program that doles out money after the inspection because of their height.
After the inspection determines an association has qualifying improvements that would increase its resistance to storms, it pays each association up to $175,000. For every $1 the association spends on improving windows, doors and roofs that the association holds in common, the state grant gives the association $2.
The money, for which $30 million was allocated for last year, was aimed at improving condos' storm-worthiness and thus lowering their insurance costs. A bill analysis indicates that last year's allocation will be rolled over for another year.
Munera says her association delayed the replacement of one of its roofs, anticipating the inspection and then the state grant.
'It's so crazy to me, because we followed up with them (the Department of Financial Services, administering the grant) for six months, getting all this information,' Munera said. 'They told us, 'Oh, you're on our short list.' We went back and forth.'
State Rep. Vicki Lopez, R-Miami, said getting information back from the first set of inspections during the program's pilot year produced some insights. And, in the program's second pilot year, legislators decided to focus the grants on those associations that must meet the new condo guidelines passed after the 2021 Surfside disaster, Lopez said.
Spurred by reports of the physical deterioration and membership money squabbles before the 40-year-old, 12-story building's collapse, laws tightened the rules that condo boards must comply with or face fines. Condo associations with buildings of at least three habitable stories must undergo a study of building deficiencies and whether they have sufficient reserves to cover building repairs.
'The revisions that we made were necessary to ensure that they aligned with the condo bill,' Lopez said. 'It was all such a new program that we didn't really understand what we needed to do to clarify in terms of criteria (for eligibility) until they started the inspection phase.'
That rationale is cold comfort to Munera, though. Her association also faces the increased expense that taller condo buildings must meet because of Surfside's fallout. Two-story condos in Pembroke Pines must also comply with reserve and building deficiency studies, like the state's new condo rules. The ones that got in line last year should be grandfathered in, she said.
Florida's condo crisis: In 3 Palm Beach County communities, big issues = high assessments
'We were so diligent, right?' she said. 'We should be rewarded for that — we were on top of it. But instead, we're being punished and kicked out.'
Others among the 165 associations green-lighted for participating in the first year's pilot may also find they are ineligible for the condo grant money. Another provision in the law would require some to rejigger the division of individual and common property if they're going to remain eligible for the grant, for example, Lopez said.
'In the case where the exterior doors and windows are the responsibilities of the individual unit owners … they wouldn't be able to get a grant, because you'd have to ensure that every single person in that building upgrades their own exterior doors and windows in order to get the insurance credit,' Lopez said.
'These are all the things that we found out when we were first initially trying to implement the program through inspections,' Lopez added.
In addition to the requirements, other new provisions in the law say that:
Only those improvements that result in an insurance discount are eligible.
Mitigation improvements must be made to all openings, including exterior doors, garage doors, windows and skylights, if doing so is necessary for the building to qualify for an insurance discount.
All condos approved for grants must have completed their milestone inspections and reserve studies that the Surfside condo rules lay out.
Still, Lopez pointed out, all those who were initially approved to be in the program did get something — even if the new provisions make them ineligible for the improvement grants.
'They got a free inspection,' she said.
For now, Munera hangs onto the shred of home that the new legislation the House and Senate passed somehow doesn't become law — which is possible if DeSantis vetoes it.
"That would be awesome," she said.
Anne Geggis is the insurance reporter atThe Palm Beach Post, part of the USA TODAY Florida Network. You can reach her at ageggis@gannett.com. Help support our journalism. Subscribe today
This article originally appeared on Palm Beach Post: New Florida law puts condos approved for program in limbo
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Republican senators roll out DOGE budget proposals for Trump's 'big, beautiful bill'
EXCLUSIVE: A group of DOGE-minded lawmakers is rolling out a series of budget proposals to add to the Senate version of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act narrowly passed by the House. The effort, led by Senate DOGE Caucus Chairwoman Joni Ernst, will include several major proposals forged by Republicans from both chambers, seeking to help offset trillions in extant government spending. While a $9.4 billion rescissions package, a formal request from the executive branch to codify its DOGE cuts, is in the works, proponents of the Senate DOGE package say their total estimated savings would accentuate that and also surpass it in value. National Debt Tracker: American Taxpayers (You) Are Now On The Hook For $36,215,685,667.36 As Of 6/9/25 "We have a 'big, beautiful' opportunity to reduce reckless spending and save billions of dollars," Ernst told Fox News Digital Thursday. "Defunding welfare for politicians, stopping bogus payments and ending unemployment for millionaires are just the start of my commonsense solutions to continue rooting out waste, fraud and abuse. Washington has lived high on the hog for far too long, and now is the time to tighten the belt," the Senate DOGE chairwoman added. Read On The Fox News App Senate DOGE addendums to the Big Beautiful Bill Act during negotiations will include a plan from Ernst called the ELECT Act, which she said claws back hundreds of millions of dollars treated as "welfare for politicians." While $320 million from the fund was diverted to the Secret Service last year, the current $17 million sitting in the account is expected to rise to the $400 million it typically sat at by the end of the year, Fox News Digital has learned. 'America Has Doge Fever': States From Nj To Tx Draft Similar Initiatives As Federal Leaders Celebrate Partnered in that first piece of the DOGE package is also language stripping former presidents of certain perks like additional taxpayer-funded office space and non-security-related staff. More than a dozen Senate Republicans also signed onto that portion of the package. "The federal government must be held accountable for every tax dollar spent," said co-sponsor Mike Lee of Utah. House DOGE Caucus Chair Aaron Bean, R-Fla., also contributed to the package. The Senate version of his DOGE in Spending Act will be included in Senate negotiations. That portion requires any government expenditure to be accompanied by a tangible record to be provided to the Treasury after DOGE found $160 billion in taxpayer funds being distributed without an identification code or in a fraudulent manner. "The American people deserve a government that is efficient, accountable and fiscally responsible. That's why the House successfully advanced DOGE reforms through reconciliation that will safeguard America's financial future," Bean told Fox News Digital. "I encourage the Senate to build on the work we've done in the House to deliver lasting fiscal responsibility to the American people." Other pieces of the Senate's DOGE package include ending what proponents call "unemployment for millionaires," disqualifying people earning more than $1 million per year who lose their jobs from any unemployment support. More than $271 million had been disbursed to that bloc between 2021-2023, proponents said. Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., a former chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, is leading the Protecting Taxpayers' Wallet Act in the lower chamber. The bill's language, which ends taxpayer-funded union time when government workers negotiate their contracts while on the clock, will be included in the Senate DOGE package. Another portion will compel the sale of six unused or underutilized federal buildings in Washington, D.C., that lawmakers say would free up $400 million in savings annually. The final portion will "snap back inaccurate SNAP payments," Ernst said. The effort will work to identify errors, force collection of overpayments to SNAP recipients and hold states with high levels of their own payment inaccuracies accountable for their negligence. In 2023, approximately $11 billion in SNAP funds were overpaid, but the package's authors noted individual errors of $54 or less aren't included in the tally. Democrats have been critical of DOGE efforts and the separate rescissions package. Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., told Fox News Thursday a successful version of the latter hasn't passed since the first Bush administration. "Congress' role in setting spending would be done away with, so this first rescission should be defeated," he said. Fox News' Tyler Olson contributed to this article source: Republican senators roll out DOGE budget proposals for Trump's 'big, beautiful bill'
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Thousands of Florida homeowners scammed by MV Realty could soon get justice
A South Florida real estate brokerage accused of trapping thousands of Florida homeowners into fraudulent contracts is now cancelling those agreements in accordance with a February ruling from a Hillsborough County judge. More than 9,000 Floridians signed 'homeowner benefit agreements' with MV Realty, giving the company the exclusive rights to list their homes. Many did not realize that those contracts lasted 40 years and allowed MV Realty to place a lien on their homes if they listed with another brokerage. The only way to get out of it was to pay a fee equivalent to 3% of the property's value. After the Tampa Bay Times reported on the scheme in 2022, the Florida Attorney General sued MV Realty over its deceptive business practices. In February, Circuit Court Judge Darren D. Farfante ordered the company to terminate any existing homeowner benefit agreements within 14 days. That didn't happen. In court filings, the Attorney General said the company violated the judge's injunction by changing the language in some of its contracts instead of terminating them fully. But now, MV Realty is starting to cancel the agreements. Since March, it has filed paperwork to terminate more than 1,000 contracts in Hillsborough, Pinellas and Pasco counties. Charles Gallagher, a St. Petersburg attorney who has represented several clients in cases against MV Realty, said this is helping to correct a 'stain on the public record,' that's prevented homeowners from selling their properties and taking out loans. 'You're kind of kidnapped in a way until those documents of record are terminated,' he said. 'So this is a super positive outcome for homeowners.' Some homeowners have already paid a fee to MV Realty to get out of their contracts. Gallagher said the judge's ruling does not entitle them to a refund, but it does give them a strong legal argument if they wanted to sue MV Realty to get their money back. The Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation has suspended MV Realty's license, so it can no longer do business in the state. The Attorney General's lawsuit is still ongoing as MV Realty tries to convince the judge to dismiss two of the claims over deceptive advertising. Neither MV Realty nor the Attorney General's Office responded to requests for comment from the Times. Though the company is still continuing to operate unfettered in several other states, in Florida, 'I think this is the end of the line for them.' Gallagher said. 'I don't think they're going to be able to hurt homeowners again.'


New York Times
44 minutes ago
- New York Times
The college sports employment case that looms as the NCAA's next pivotal court battle
The final settlement of the House v. NCAA antitrust lawsuit is a huge relief to college sports. It's the start of a new economic model and a chance for college sports leaders to show legislators and the public they are capable of change. Here is what it is not: The end of their legal troubles. Throughout the final stretch of this case, many involved have pointed to the next big one coming down the pike. Johnson vs. NCAA, which has been moving through the courts for almost six years now, gets into one of the thorniest issues in college sports: employment. It could be a clarifying win for the NCAA, or it could be the case that hastens the big changes many have predicted — football breaking away from the rest of college sports, and a football Super League. Advertisement In February 2019, Ralph 'Trey' Johnson, a former running back at Villanova, sued the NCAA and nearly a dozen schools, claiming that athletes should be recognized as employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case has slowly wound through the system, growing to include other former athletes while NCAA efforts to have the case dismissed have been swatted away. Essentially, the Johnson side argues that the NCAA and its schools have gotten away for decades — and continue to do so, even in the age of name, image and likeness payments and revenue sharing — with having athletes take part in a relationship that has all the appearances of employment, without paying them an hourly wage. 'Athletes should have the same, limited student employee status as classmates selling popcorn at NCAA games,' said Paul McDonald, the lead lawyer for the Johnson side. The NCAA argues that the arrangement has worked for decades, benefits athletes and still works for them, especially with NIL, revenue sharing and cost-of-attendance payments added to the pile. But the organization also seems to acknowledge this as another challenge to the system, and hopes it can be solved through federal legislation rather than the courts. 'The NCAA is making changes to deliver more financial benefits to student-athletes but there are issues such as employment that can only be addressed by Congress,' the NCAA said in a statement to The Athletic this spring. 'The Association looks forward to working with student-athletes and lawmakers to set a stable, and sustainable future for all 500,000 student-athletes.' The case could go to trial as early as next year. There's always a chance the NCAA and the plaintiffs will settle, as in the House case, which leads to new rules and perhaps collective bargaining. But for now, both sides seem dug in. McDonald sees this as a civil rights and fairness issue, and asks why athletes aren't treated the same as student concession stand workers, teaching assistants or any student who does work for the university and is considered an employee. Those students are usually paid hourly, often minimum wage, because they are performing a job. McDonald argues athletes should have the same 'equal treatment' to classmates in work-study student employment, some of whom are also on academic scholarships that don't preclude them from earning a wage. Advertisement 'This would be easy to implement using NCAA-mandated timesheets, and affordable on hourly, minimum wage scales — particularly if colleges stop overpaying some coaches,' McDonald said. 'Colleges have never explained why they oppose this easy and equitable solution.' Johnson filed his case before the NIL and revenue sharing eras began, but McDonald argues that should have no impact: While NIL payments are based on an individual's popularity and revenue sharing rewards a sport's popularity, all athletes should be deemed employees because they are performing a job. For several reasons, colleges and universities are very much against employment. There's the culture of college athletics, the idea that these are students seeking a degree and also playing sports, rather than paid athletes. Some cynics say there's a measure of control involved too, especially with the coach-player dynamic. And of course, there's the money. Every employee has a salary and other costs attached, and paying them all hourly wages would wreck budgets. The SEC and a group of education associations filed an amicus brief in the Johnson case, warning that only 2 percent of NCAA member schools generate enough revenue to cover operating costs. 'If colleges and universities are forced to pay their student-athletes (as employees) it is inevitable that many schools will simply eliminate athletics teams, with non-revenue sports teams the most likely to be on the chopping block,' the brief read. The other possible result: The richest schools pulling away from the rest of the NCAA, as the disparity between the haves and have-nots widens. Every school, even the big brands, is adjusting costs and chasing more revenue to pay for revenue sharing. Employment for athletes could prompt another wave of cost-adjusting and revenue-chasing. Advertisement Preventing athletes from being employees has been a central focus of the NCAA in federal legislation, and the House of Representatives' Education and Workforce committee plans to work to codify that restriction as part of a set of bills in the works from three House committees this week. Of course, any federal law could still be challenged in the courts, which is why outside observers think this will still be settled there. What constitutes employment can be a complicated issue, including various tests. Does the employer have the right to hire and fire the employee? Does the employer set rules and working hours? How much day-to-day supervision is involved? There have been court cases before on employment status, but none quite like this. 'In the employment law world, you have employees and you have non-employees. There's only two buckets,' said Josh Nadreau, an employment lawyer in Massachusetts who has advised some schools on employment issues. 'And I think with respect to looking at student athletes, to try to put them into this two-bucket paradigm is complicated.' There could be a lesson in what the Third Circuit said last year when it denied the NCAA's attempt to dismiss the case. The circuit court judges devised a test to determine whether athletes are employees, which could lead to different conclusions about athletes in revenue versus non-revenue sports. 'They're not subject to the same pressures, they're not subject to the same economic forces,' Nadreau said. 'I think at some point we'll start drawing circles around different groups, some will be employees and some will not.' For many, that's the clean solution, but McDonald is not distinguishing between sports in his arguments. Field hockey players, though their sport is not a revenue driver, also work hard and compete for their school, serving essentially as brand ambassadors, and have expectations from their coaches. Meanwhile, the NCAA has expressed no interest in granting hourly wages to any athletes, even those in football and basketball, hoping the House settlement's revenue-sharing structure shows that athletes are now being sufficiently paid. One final caveat: Expecting this to play out the same way as the House case ignores that it has a different lawyer and is also starting on the opposite coast. The House case, led by Steve Berman and Jeffrey Kessler, went before the same federal judge, Claude Wilken, in California, who oversaw the Alston case (also led by Berman and Kessler) that eventually went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled unanimously against the NCAA's ability to cap education-related benefits. The Johnson case was filed in Pennsylvania, which the Third Circuit oversees, so it could proceed predominantly on the East Coast. Advertisement But unless and until the case makes it to the Supreme Court — or gets settled — there could still be more lawsuits and differing rulings. The result could be a mish-mash of laws, with athletes' employment statuses depending on where you live. 'The question of common sense comes down to who's deciding,' Nadreau said. 'What some people might say is common sense might be different than the rest of the country.'