Purpose
To document and illustrate recurring patterns of coordinated conduct, influence, and interdependence among the Omega Villas Condominium Association Board, its legal counsel, management companies, accounting vendors, and contractors. The evidence supports the existence of a cooperating governance and vendor network that appears to suppress owner participation, evade statutory safeguards, control narrative and process, and advance unauthorized or undisclosed actions with financial impact to owners.
Key Allegations
- Legal Counsel as Strategic Enabler Rather Than Independent Advisor
- Rhonda Hollander (Association Counsel; former City of Plantation judge)
- Documented conduct indicates legal counsel functioned as an active participant in governance strategy rather than a neutral legal advisor:
- Coordinated closely with Board leadership to justify proceeding without required owner votes for material alterations, despite 12+ years of prior acknowledgment that such votes were required.
- Issued correspondence containing disputed legal representations, including mischaracterization of NOA requirements, material alteration exemptions, and alleged “code changes,” later contradicted by contractors and engineering facts.
- Interfered with or attempted to block emergency repairs undertaken by owners, including harassment of emergency contractors.
- Initiated retaliatory DBPR arbitration filings without documented Board authorization votes, escalating legal pressure against a whistleblower owner.
- Continued escalation of enforcement and legal actions despite statutory changes enacted in 2024–2025 strengthening owner protections and limiting retaliatory conduct.
- Referenced Exhibits: Master Exhibit Index – refer to BB, L, L2, U, X
- Austro Construction:
Evidence reflects contractor actions that align with Board enforcement objectives rather than independent construction judgment:- Accessed roofs and common elements under disputed or improperly applied permits (including not giving proper 48-hour notices per Florida law before access).
- Construction activity coincided with increased structural issues, including undocumented installation of furring strips not specified in original contracts.
- Contractor actions contributed directly to wall-thickness changes later used to justify mandatory window replacement.
- Contractor personnel participated in or were present during confrontational interactions involving owner contractors performing emergency repairs.
- Errors or scope deviations were later shifted onto owners as “requirements,” supporting financial mandates lacking prior authorization.
- Referenced Exhibits: Master Exhibit Index – refer to Q, Q2, U, X
- Juda Eskew (Accounting/Financial Vendor):
- Accounting and financial vendor involvement extended beyond traditional financial reporting roles:
- Mailed or facilitated distribution of a Board-backed letter in or around November 2023 targeting and discrediting a whistleblower owner.
- Subject of multiple DBPR complaints alleging financial irregularities and lack of transparency; all complaints were reviewed by DBPR’s Office of General Counsel.
- On October 1, 2025, Board President Patty Sabates directed that the 2026 Budget Workshop be held at Juda Eskew’s corporate offices rather than at the community clubhouse.
- This relocation limited owner access, discouraged participation, and symbolically embedded vendor authority within governance functions.
- The decision illustrates reliance on aligned vendors to control process, access, and narrative rather than encouraging owner oversight.
- Referenced Exhibits: Master Exhibit Index – refer to L, CC
- Sunrise Management (Former Property Manager):
- Your Management Services (Current Property Manager)
- Management firms appear to have functioned as execution arms for Board directives rather than neutral administrators:
- Failed to act on documented damage reports and long-term maintenance issues while aggressively enforcing selective compliance against targeted owners.
- Issued notices, assessment communications, and access demands without clear statutory authority or attribution to legal counsel.
- Distributed or posted disputed “official” notices that later proved procedurally defective.
- Reinforced Board narratives while deflecting or delaying records access and owner inquiries.
- Referenced Evidence: DBPR Complaint Case #2024044370, Link;
- Exhibits: Master Exhibit Index – refer to CC
- Coordinated Suppression:
- Evidence of selective enforcement, misinformation, intimidation of owners, and use of off-duty police to suppress dissent.
- Alignment between Board officers, legal counsel, and vendors shows a systematic effort to consolidate control and obstruct accountability.
- Across multiple years and phases, the following recurring tactics are documented:
- Use of procedural maneuvers (committees, emergency framing, retroactive meetings) to bypass owner votes and transparency requirements.
- Dissemination of misinformation or partial information to manufacture urgency.
- Escalation to legal threats, arbitration, or police presence during meetings to suppress questioning.
- Alignment of Board members, counsel, management, and vendors in real-time responses to owner challenges.
- Referenced Exhibits: Master Exhibit Index – refer to U, X, AA, AA3, CC
Summary Interpretation
When reviewed collectively, the evidence does not reflect isolated incidents or independent professional judgment. Instead, it reveals a recurring pattern of aligned conduct among Board leadership, legal counsel, management firms, financial vendors, and contractors that appears designed to:
- Concentrate decision-making authority,
- Evade owner voting and participation rights,
- Control documentation and narrative,
- Justify cost-maximizing decisions,
- Retaliate against challengers, and
- Shield participants through coordinated validation.
Decisions such as relocating official governance meetings to vendor offices, issuing unauthorized assessments through management, and advancing disputed legal interpretations demonstrate an entrenched alignment of interests rather than independent oversight.
Regulatory Significance
This pattern warrants further review by state and federal oversight bodies to determine whether the documented conduct meets thresholds for:
- Breach of fiduciary duty,
- Statutory violations under Florida Condominium Act (Chapter 718),
- Retaliation and anti-SLAPP concerns,
- Misuse of association authority,
- Coordinated suppression of owner rights, and
- Potential enterprise-level misconduct.