They Knew the Law — and Built Anyway

Board minutes spanning 12 years show Omega Villas leadership repeatedly acknowledged a mandatory 2/3 owner vote for siding and window changes. The vote appears never held. The work proceeded. The bills are now coming due.

For over a decade, the board of Omega Villas Condominium Association in Plantation, Florida documented in its own minutes that replacing siding and windows required approval from at least two-thirds of unit owners. That vote appears to have never happened. Construction did.

What has emerged from a comprehensive review of board minutes, engineering reports, contractor communications, and DBPR filings is a detailed paper trail showing that leadership — along with its attorneys, management firms, and construction contractors — may have systematically circumvented state condominium law while steering a community of 128 families toward the most expensive material options available.

The evidence covers the period from 2011 through 2025. It does not rely on hearsay. It relies on the association’s own records.

They cannot seek enforcement or arbitration rulings against me while simultaneously violating the same statutes they claim to uphold.

A 12-Year Paper Trail

The core allegation is straightforward: Florida Statute 718.113 requires a supermajority owner vote before a condominium association can make material alterations to common elements. Siding and windows — the exterior building envelope — qualify.

Board minutes from three separate periods confirm the association knew this:

2011–12

Minutes explicitly acknowledge that replacing T-111 siding with stucco and installing hurricane-impact windows each require approval from 75% of homeowners. Architects, attorneys, and the management company are all present when this is recorded.

2018–19

During the 40-year recertification process, the association’s own engineer states that the windows only need caulking. The same meetings discuss material options and confirm owner-vote requirements for exterior changes. Within months, the board directs management to begin pricing hurricane-impact windows.

2023

At the March 21, 2023 board meeting, trellises, window banding, and T-111 replacement are each listed as items requiring unit owner votes for material change approval. The notation is written into the official minutes. Construction began in February 2024 — without a recorded vote.

2024–25

During active construction, furring strips not included in the contract are installed, allegedly creating window flange misalignment. This misalignment is then cited as the technical justification for mandatory full window replacement.

Owners were never presented with a side-by-side cost comparison for siding options. Engineering and architectural records reveal at least three viable alternatives existed:

Stucco, the least expensive and most durable option at $7–$10 per square foot, was code-compliant and termite-resistant. T-111 wood siding ran $12–$14 per square foot. The board ultimately chose Hardie board, the most expensive option at $14–$16 or more per square foot, with higher installation costs due to its weight.

No vote appears to have been held to authorize this selection. No documented rationale explains why the cheapest compliant option was passed over. Owners allege the cost differential across the 128-unit complex could represent hundreds of thousands of dollars — potentially more.

From the record — August 15, 2011 board minutes

“Replacing T-111 with stucco would require approval from 75% of the homeowners. Installing hurricane impact windows would also require approval from 75% of the homeowners.”

The Special Assessment That Wasn’t

On November 30, 2025, a “Notice of Special Assessment” was posted at community mailboxes and distributed to some — but not all — unit owners. The notice was sent under the letterhead of Your Management Services, the association’s management company, rather than by the board or its attorney.

Under Florida Statute 718, a special assessment of this magnitude requires a properly noticed board meeting, transparent financial disclosures, and a legitimate owner vote. None of these steps are documented as having occurred prior to the notice being posted.

Florida law prohibits a licensed Community Association Manager from unilaterally authorizing or issuing a special assessment. That authority rests with the board.

Alleged Statutory Violations

• F.S. 718.112(2)(c) — Failure to hold a properly noticed board meeting before proposing a special assessment
• F.S. 718.112(2)(e) — Failure to provide required 14-day mailed and posted meeting notice
• F.S. 718.113 — Material alterations made without the required 2/3 unit owner vote
• F.S. 718.111(12) — Withholding records and failing to document votes and approvals
• F.S. 718.111(1)(a) — Breach of fiduciary duty in issuing an assessment without authority
• F.S. 468.436(2) — CAM licensing violations for issuing assessment without legal authority or board action

What Is Being Requested

The whistleblower filing is calling for:

1. An immediate DBPR investigation into the special assessment, the construction contracts, and the vote records (or absence thereof) from 2011 to present.

2. A Florida Bar review of the role played by association counsel in drafting and enforcing construction contracts that may bypass statutory owner-approval requirements.

3. Federal review — including under the Fair Housing Act — given the presence of FHA-financed units, elderly residents, and individuals with documented disabilities in the community.

4. State and federal audit of the $4.85M+ construction project, including review of contractor billing, change orders, and scope deviations such as the unauthorized furring strips.

Full evidence archive publicly available

Board minutes (2005–2023), engineering correspondence, arbitration filings, video documentation of board meetings, and contractor records are compiled at:www.HOAJusticeNow.com

---

Attachments:

• Watchdog Email 12.5.25

Shawn Martin, MBA · Owner, Director & Whistleblower, Omega Villas Condominium Association · Plantation, FL

DBPR Arbitration Case No. 2025-06-1476 is active.

A hearing was scheduled December 16, 2025.
This report is based on official board minutes, engineering records, and publicly filed documents. All assertions represent the opinion and analysis of the author.