Court Opinion

ID: 9946758
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-01 14:03:26.185608+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:23:35.363524
License: Public Domain

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.
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

                                 2
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.
               _____________________________

                                  3