FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________ 

Case No. 5D23-1971

LT Case No. 2021-SC-006219

_____________________________ 

DUNMAR ESTATES HOMEOWNER’S 

ASSOCIATION, INC., and EMPIRE 

MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., 

Petitioners, 

v.

LISA REMBERT, 

Respondent. 

_____________________________ 

Petition for Certiorari Review of Order 

from the County Court for Seminole County. 

Carsandra Buie, Judge. 

Jason P. Del Rosso, and Correy B. Karbiener, of Moran Kidd 

Lyons Johnson Garcia, P.A., Orlando, for Petitioners. 

Lisa Rembert, Orlando, pro se. 

March 1, 2024

HARRIS, J.

Dunmar Estates Homeowner’s Association, Inc. (“DEHOA”) 

and Empire Management Group, Inc. (“Empire”) (collectively, 

“Petitioners”) filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking an order 

quashing the trial court’s order denying their motion to dismiss. 
2 

Specifically, Petitioners argue that Respondent, Lisa Rembert, 

failed to comply with the requirement to demand pre-suit 

mediation prior to filing her lawsuit against Petitioners for failure 

to provide her access to official homeowners’ association records. 

In its order, the trial court found that pursuant to section

720.311(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2021), pre-suit mediation is not a 

condition precedent to filing a lawsuit for failure to provide access 

to records. This was error and we grant the petition. 

In 2021, Rembert requested all records, including emails, 

from January 1, 2020, to present from DEHOA, the homeowner’s 

association for the community in which Rembert lived. Upon 

inspection of the records, Rembert concluded that she was denied 

access to all the requested records. She ultimately filed an 

amended statement of claim seeking a judgment against 

Petitioners for failing to provide her timely access to records 

pursuant to section 720.303(5), Florida Statutes (2021). She 

claimed that all conditions precedent were complied with and that 

pre-suit mediation was not required pursuant to section

720.311(2)(a) for her to file the lawsuit. Rembert requested and 

sought damages, costs, and fees and that the Petitioners produce 

records. 

Section 720.311(2)(a) provides that an “aggrieved party” is 

required to serve a demand for pre-suit mediation before filing a 

lawsuit if there is a dispute between the parcel owner and the 

association about: (1) use of or changes to owner’s parcel, common 

areas; (2) covenant enforcement; (3) amendments to association 

documents; (4) board and committee meetings; and (5) access to 

official association records. Thus, Rembert, as the aggrieved party, 

was required to serve her demand for pre-suit mediation on the 

association prior to filing lawsuit. Rembert’s argument that she 

complied by including a general notice about mediation with her 

initial summons evidences a clear failure to comply with the 

condition precedent of sending the demand for pre-suit mediation 

prior to filing the lawsuit. § 720.311(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2021).

In establishing that their motion to dismiss was denied based 

on the erroneous determination that section 720.311(2)(a) did not 

require a demand for pre-suit mediation, Petitioners have 

sufficiently shown irreparable harm. Next, we must determine 
3 

whether the trial court departed from the essential requirements 

of the law. 

A trial court’s ruling that fails to follow the plain language of 

a statute can constitute a departure from the essential 

requirements of the law. See State v. Patterson, 325 So. 3d 142, 144 

(Fla. 5th DCA 2020) (holding certiorari relief is warranted when 

trial court grants defendant post-arrest release in violation of plain 

language of the statute); see also Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaklamanos, 

843 So. 2d 885, 890 (Fla. 2003) (finding that departure from 

essential requirements of law can be shown by a controlling 

statute). As such, the trial court’s order departed from the 

essential requirement of the law by failing to follow the plain 

language of section 720.311(2)(a). 

Having established entitlement to certiorari relief, we grant 

the Petition and quash the order denying Petitioners’ motion to 

dismiss. 

PETITION GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED. 

MAKAR and LAMBERT, JJ., concur. 

_____________________________ 

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331. 

_____________________________