HOA Justice Now

This Construction Debacle Was Always Doomed

Likely Violation Highlights Based on 2+ Year Case Study Investigation

1. THE PAPER TRAIL WAS EVERYWHERE (2011-2025)

They documented their own knowledge of the law, then LIKELY violated it:

  • ✅ 2011-2012 minutes acknowledging 75% vote requirements for windows/siding
  • ✅ 2018-2023 minutes showing same legal reminders from multiple attorneys/architects
  • ✅ 2023-2025 meeting videos with contradictory stories
  • ✅ Engineer statements changing from “caulking” to “must replace”
  • ✅ Construction “mysteries” resolved only after owners discovered them

14+ years of documented evidence that they KNEW the law and ignored it.

2. THE SCHEME DEPENDED ON NOBODY READING ANYTHING

They assumed owners wouldn’t check:

  • ❌ The minutes
  • ❌ The statutes (§718.113, §718.116, etc.)
  • ❌ The contracts
  • ❌ The construction specifications
  • ❌ The wall measurements
  • ❌ The Declaration (windows = owner responsibility)

Fatal flaw: They built the entire operation on owner ignorance.

3. THE STORY CHANGED TOO MANY TIMES

Real compliance doesn’t require six different excuses:

Timeline Story Reality 2018-2022 "Windows just need caulking" Engineer Farrukh's original assessment 2023-2024" City requires window replacement "FALSE - no such requirement 2024" Engineer says replacement mandatory" Then engineer backtracks2024-2025" Walls are thicker because... materials? "Then owners find hidden furring strips2025" It's for hurricane safety" Still requires owner vote per §718.113(5)Dec 2025"Non-compliant windows per engineer" Contradicts 2018-2022 statements

A lie that keeps evolving is a confession with extra steps.

Attorney Hollander’s Apparent Misrepresentation of NOA Documents (June 25, 2025)

The Furring Strip Cover-Up

In a June 25, 2025 demand letter, Attorney Rhonda Hollander appears to have made several demonstrably false statements to justify the unauthorized furring strip installation that created the window replacement crisis.

📄 View Full Hollander Letter with NOA (June 25, 2025)

CLAIM #1: NOA “Requires” Furring Strips

What Hollander Wrote:

“The original contract with Austro incorporated the Hardie Board System. The enclosed certified NOA reflects that the system being used requires furring strips as part of that system and is certified by the company supplying the materials.”

The Reality:

  • ❌ The NOA (Notice of Acceptance) document has alternative configurations other than the one selected with furring strips
  • ❌ “REQUIRED” is requirement language – but it is for configurations that include furring strips
  • ❌ There is an alternative NOA for Hardie Board that includes installation with NO furring strips
  • ❌ Hollander appears to have deliberately misrepresented the series of NOA Hardie Board configurations that may be used

📄 View Actual NOA Document

“Hollander Claims NOA ‘Requires’ Furring Strips – But NOA Allows Alternatives”

The NOA explicitly states: “Alternative fastening schedule or furring material shall be designed by the architect or engineer of record.” This means the engineer (Farrukh) could have designed an alternative system without furring strips. Hollander’s claim that furring strips were “required” is misleading – they were one option, and alternatives were explicitly allowed by the NOA.

It appears to tie the misrepresentation directly to the physical construction in the real world, which is the whole theme of the page.

This NOA-Approved System Uses NO Furring Strips

And here’s the part the Board really hoped no one would ever catch: the NOA series includes a configuration with no furring strips at all, where Hardie Board attaches directly to 5/8″ plywood sheathing over the wood framing. This is an approved, compliant installation that preserves the original wall depth and aligns cleanly with existing window frames. If they had used this configuration — which the NOA explicitly allows — the entire “your windows no longer fit” narrative collapses instantly. Their own chosen system created the problem they later used as the excuse.

The contract’s written wall scope proves the Board originally selected the NOA-approved Hardie Board system that attaches directly to 5/8″ plywood — a configuration with no furring strips. Furring strips do not appear anywhere in the first or second floor scope. This means the furring strips were added later, off-scope, without disclosure, without a change order, and without owner approval. The fact that the contract itself follows the “no furring strip” NOA configuration makes Hollander’s claim that furring strips were ‘required’ factually impossible and suggests the attorney was defending a construction change that never received legal authorization.

NOA Approval Letter for No-Furring Strip System Configuration:

This is still attorney misrepresentation – just a more nuanced one!

CLAIM #2: “No Material Alteration Vote Required”

What Hollander Wrote:

“No material alteration vote was required for this system as the case law is clear that where an alteration or addition is necessary to maintain or preserve the common elements, it is exempt from the requirement of unit owner approval.”

The Reality:

  • ❌ Board’s own minutes from 2011-2023 repeatedly acknowledge siding changes ARE material alterations requiring 75% owner vote
  • ❌ Multiple attorneys and architects told the Board this across 14+ years of meetings
  • ❌ The “necessary maintenance” exception doesn’t apply when choosing the MOST EXPENSIVE option without disclosing cheaper alternatives

Why This Matters: Hollander’s claim directly contradicts 14 years of the Board’s own documented acknowledgment that they knew votes were required. This isn’t a legal interpretation dispute – this is contradicting the client’s own written records.

CLAIM #3: The Stucco “Smoking Gun” Admission

What Hollander Wrote:

“Previous arbitration decisions have determined that removal of wood siding… with stucco, fell under the above exception and did not require owner approval.”

🚨 THE SMOKING GUN:

If stucco doesn’t require a vote according to Hollander’s own legal research, WHY DIDN’T THEY USE STUCCO?

The Facts:

  • ✅ Stucco: $7-8 per square foot CHEAPER than Hardie Board
  • ✅ Stucco: Rot-proof, termite-proof, long-lasting
  • ✅ Stucco: According to Hollander, doesn’t require owner approval
  • ✅ Stucco: Was discussed in 2019 Board meetings as an option

What They Actually Did:

  • ❌ Chose Hardie Board (most expensive option: $14-16/sq ft)
  • ❌ Never disclosed stucco option to owners
  • ❌ Never held vote on siding material
  • ❌ Owners could have saved hundreds of thousands to over $1 million

Why This Is the Smoking Gun: Hollander just admitted in writing that stucco was a legal, vote-free option that didn’t require owner approval. Yet they chose the most expensive alternative and hid the cheaper option from owners. This proves they KNEW cheaper options existed and deliberately concealed them to maximize costs.

CLAIM #4: “Original Agreement” / “No Change Orders”

What Hollander Wrote:

“Since this was the original agreement, which was approved by the Engineer of Record, Farrukh Sayeed, S.I. P.E., CGC, MBA, MIS, there were no change orders and so we have no answers to your request for rationale etc.”

The Reality:

  • ❌ Furring strips were NOT listed in the original Austro contract scope for wall composition (first or second floor)
  • ❌ Adding materials not in the contract specification IS a change – they simply didn’t document it as a change order
  • ❌ Contract review shows wall composition materials listed – furring strips absent

📄 View Austro Contract – Wall Composition Specifications

Why This Matters: Claiming “no change orders” when undocumented construction changes occurred is a method to avoid accountability. If it was in the “original agreement,” why isn’t it in the contract? If it’s not in the contract, it’s a change.

CLAIM #5: Board Claims “Statutory Code Changes” Caused Wall Thickness

The Narrative in 2024-2025 Board Meetings: The Board claimed “statutory changes in code” required thicker walls.

The Reality:

  • ❌ Building code for wall thickness DID NOT CHANGE between 2018-2025
  • ❌ Contractor Dorin stated in June 2025: “2×4 studs are fine, code hasn’t changed”
  • ❌ The furring strips caused the wall thickness increase – not code

What the Official Approved January 14, 2025 Board Meeting Minutes State

The January 14, 2025 approved Board Meeting Minutes independently confirm the false “code-change” narrative Attorney Hollander relied on to justify the hidden furring strips. In Section 8, the Board claimed that “new code requirements” for T1-11 buildings required additional plywood and materials that “brought the structure out about an inch and a half.” This statement is verifiably false. Building code did not change between 2018–2025 in any way that required thicker walls. Contractor Dorin later stated to whistleblower: “2×4 studs are fine, code hasn’t changed.”

The minutes show the Board used fabricated “code changes” to explain the exact wall expansion created by unauthorized furring strips that were never listed in the contract scope, never voted on, and were physically discovered only after owners exposed them. This creates a direct pattern:

  • Board creates false code narrative (Jan 2025)
  • Attorney later cites NOA requirements to defend the same unauthorized work (June 2025)
  • Both narratives attempt to blame “code” instead of the concealed construction change

These minutes are critical evidence showing a coordinated, documented attempt to manufacture a justification after the fact — not an error, but a deliberate cover story.

Why This Matters: This appears to be a coordinated false narrative between Board and attorney to:

  1. Justify unauthorized furring strip installation
  2. Manufacture excuse for window replacement mandates
  3. Shift blame from their hidden changes to “code requirements”
  4. Provide legal cover through attorney misrepresentation

Official Approved January 14, 2025 Minutes

What This Appears to Demonstrate

Potential Attorney-Assisted Fraud:

Attorney Hollander appears to have provided legal cover for unauthorized construction by:

  1. ❌ Misrepresenting NOA having multiple approved configurations for Hardie Board – one with furring strips and one with NO furring strips
  2. ❌ Citing cheaper options as legal precedent (stucco) while concealing those options from owners
  3. ❌ Contradicting the Board’s own documented knowledge that votes were required (2011-2023 minutes)
  4. ❌ Falsely claiming undocumented construction changes were part of “original agreement”
  5. ❌ Coordinating false “code changes” narrative with Board to justify unauthorized work

This elevates the matter from Board misconduct to coordinated attorney-client scheme to bypass owner voting rights and maximize financial extraction.

The Documents – Judge For Yourself

Attorney Letters & Your Management Services Demand Letters:

(Plus Whistleblower’s Glantz Law Attorney Responses)

Engineer Letters – Fabricated Window Requirements?

Critical Question: Why are there multiple engineer letters demanding window replacement in 2025 (after construction substantially complete) when the same engineer said in 2018-2020 windows just needed “caulking”?

And why are there NO such letters for Phase 4, which has the SAME series of windows and sliding doors?

NEW Money Grab Requests Coming?

Bottom Line

A lie that keeps evolving is a confession with extra steps.

When an attorney:

  • Misrepresents “MAY” as “REQUIRES”
  • Cites cheaper options as precedent while hiding them from clients
  • Contradicts the client’s own documented knowledge
  • Claims undocumented changes were “original agreement”
  • Coordinates false narratives about code requirements

That’s not legal representation. That appears to be legal cover for an organized scheme to bypass owner rights and maximize financial extraction.

All evidence has been sent to:

  • Florida Bar (attorney misconduct investigation)
  • DBPR (Board violations)
  • Federal authorities (potential RICO pattern)
  • State Attorney (potential criminal fraud)

A lie that keeps evolving is a confession with extra steps.

4. THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE WAS VISIBLE

You can’t hide construction defects that owners can see:

  • ✅ 1-1.5 inches of wall thickness increase
  • ✅ Furring strips suddenly appearing during 2nd floor construction
  • ✅ Misaligned window openings/flanges
  • ✅ Missing insulation in pitched roofs
  • ✅ 2023 Roof cuts and alterations
  • ✅ Work not matching contract specifications

That’s the kind of evidence you don’t talk your way out of – it’s physically there in the buildings.

5. THEY TRIGGERED THE #1 THING THAT EXPOSES HOA SCHEMES: MONEY PAIN

Financial pressure creates motivated investigators:

  • 💰 Maintenance fees raised to $1,000+/month
  • 💰 Surprise window assessments (now Dec 2025)
  • 💰 $125,000+ legal fees in 2025 (not budgeted)
  • 💰 $175,000+ additional construction assessments
  • 💰 $1M+ in city fines since 2008
  • 💰 Hurricane “requirements” without votes
  • 💰 Construction cost overruns with no transparency

When people’s homes and savings are at stake, they start asking questions. Fast.

6. THEY RETALIATED INSTEAD OF EXPLAINING

Classic sign of a cornered operation:

If they had a legitimate process, they would have:

  • Shown the owner votes
  • Produced the engineering reports
  • Explained the cost comparisons
  • Welcomed transparency

Instead they chose:

  • ❌ Public shaming of questioners
  • ❌ Intimidation and legal threats
  • ❌ Silencing dissent with police presence
  • ❌ Rewriting/manipulating minutes
  • ❌ Rogue approvals outside meetings
  • ❌ Endless “misinformation correction” sessions
  • ❌ Retaliating against whistleblower with medical disability

Retaliation is the “I plead the Fifth” of HOA governance.

7. THE SCHEME REQUIRED TOO MANY PLAYERS TO STAY SILENT FOREVER

Coordination across too many parties:

  • Management companies (3 different firms over time)
  • Board members (same core group 2005-2025)
  • Multiple attorneys (Procton, Frank Weinberg Black, Hollander)
  • Multiple contractors (Austro, Cavaliere, etc.)
  • Engineer (S&D Engineering – Farrukh)
  • Accounting/legal networks (Juda Eskew/Carol Eskew)
  • Permit/recertification processes
  • City interactions

This wasn’t Ocean’s Eleven. It was a sloppy group project where nobody checked the rubric.

Eventually someone:

  • Contradicts themselves on video ✅
  • Leaves a paper trail ✅
  • Slips up in minutes ✅
  • Changes their engineering opinion ✅
  • Gets caught on the wrong side of a statute ✅

8. THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE CONTRADICTED THE NARRATIVE

Key contradictions caught on record:

The Furring Strip Discovery

  • Claim: Wall thickness changes due to new code requirements
  • Reality: Hidden furring strips (not in contract) caused thickness
  • Problem: Creates window flange misalignment they then used as excuse for replacements

The Window Story Evolution

  • 2018-2020: “Windows need caulking”
  • 2025: “Non-compliant windows must be replaced per engineer”
  • Problem: What changed? Hidden furring strips created the “non-compliance”

The Siding Selection

  • Claim: Hardie Board was necessary
  • Reality: Stucco was $7-8/sq ft cheaper, never disclosed, never voted on
  • Problem: Owners could have saved $1M+ if given actual choice

The Authority Question

  • Claim: Board can mandate window replacements
  • Reality: Omega Villas Declaration makes windows OWNER responsibility
  • Problem: Board operated outside its legal authority from the start

9. THEY DESTROYED PROPERTY VALUES FOR EVERYONE (INCLUDING THEIR SUPPORTERS)

The financial damage hit ALL owners:

Property Value Impacts:

  • ❌ Ignored required legal votes → due diligence red flags
  • ❌ Botched construction → appraisal questions
  • ❌ Walls that don’t match windows → inspection failures
  • ❌ Furring strips trapping moisture → structural concerns
  • ❌ $1M+ in city fines → title search problems
  • ❌ Multi-year assessments → buyer financing issues
  • ❌ Forced owners into panic selling → comps collapse
  • ❌ Foreclosure patterns → market stigma

Market Punishment for HOA Dysfunction:

  • Buyers Google everything now
  • Realtors spread the reputation
  • Inspectors flag weird construction
  • Lenders pull back on financing
  • Values go down
  • Time on market goes up
  • Offers get lowballed
  • Insurance premiums increase

HOA reputation = property values. It’s a direct equation.

Even Board supporters lost equity when the scheme tanked the community’s value.

10. THE VIOLATIONS SPAN MULTIPLE LEGAL CATEGORIES

This wasn’t just “HOA drama” – it’s potential criminal conduct:

Florida Condominium Law Violations:

  • §718.113(5) – No owner vote for work on owner-responsibility items (windows/doors)
  • §718.112(2)(c) – Improper special assessment procedures
  • §718.112(2)(e) – Failure to provide required 14-day notice
  • §718.111 – Records access violations and fiduciary duty breaches
  • §718.3026 – Material contracts without proper authorization

Potential Criminal Violations:

  • Wire/mail fraud (unauthorized assessment notices)
  • Elder abuse (targeting retirees on fixed income)
  • RICO pattern (17-year coordination, multiple parties, systematic approach)
  • Fair Housing Act violations (disability retaliation against whistleblower)
  • FHA loan fraud (irregular assessments affecting federally-backed mortgages)

Professional Misconduct:

  • CAM violation questions (YMS apparently issuing unauthorized assessments?)
  • Attorney conduct questions (Hollander drafting contracts then enforcing them?)
  • Engineering inconsistencies (changing opinions without new findings?)

BOTTOM LINE: WHY THEY WERE ALWAYS GOING TO GET CAUGHT

The scheme had too many fatal flaws:

  1. ✅ Too much documentation – They wrote down their knowledge of the law before violating it
  2. ✅ Too many contradictions – The story changed too many times
  3. ✅ Too much physical evidence – Construction defects are visible
  4. ✅ Too much financial pain – Owners became motivated investigators
  5. ✅ Too much retaliation – Guilt reveals itself through overreaction
  6. ✅ Too many participants – Someone was bound to slip up
  7. ✅ Too much value destruction – Even supporters lost money
  8. ✅ Too many legal violations – Multiple categories of potential crimes
  9. ✅ Too long a timeline – 17 years creates a massive evidence trail
  10. ✅ Too obvious a pattern – Repetition proves intent, not mistake

The only question was: Who would finally notice the pattern, connect the dots, and lay out the receipts?

Answer: A whistleblower who kept every document, recorded every meeting, analyzed every minute, and refused to be silenced despite retaliation, medical challenges, and a 2+ year investigation.

FINAL OBSERVATIONS:

“This wasn’t a governance failure. This was a straight-up value-extraction disaster disguised as a construction project. They set the neighborhood on fire and called it ‘renovation.’ Even their own allies got financially wrecked. Lower values don’t care if you were Team Patty or Team Reality. Everyone’s equity, comps, appraisal potential, buyer pool, insurance risk, and mortgage strength took a blow. HOA dysfunction spreads like a virus. One bad project? Fixable. Ten years of shady patterns? That’s generational damage.”

Evidence compiled by: Shawn Martin, MBA
Case study duration: 2+ years (2023-2025)
Documentation: 150+ videos, 18+ years of minutes, contracts, engineering reports, owner testimony
Website: www.HOAJusticeNow.com