Lawsuit

On June 19th, we received an email from the Association's attorney responding to our June 2nd attorney email. The Association's email contained many inaccuracies including the following false statements:

1. Concerned Owners lack of understanding of concrete deterioration.
2. The need to "repair" balconies with little or no concrete deterioration.
3. The cause of alleged holes under the tile in unit C402.
4. Claiming that repaired balconies won't need further repair work for another 15-20 years.
5. A second engineering opinion would be redundant.
6. A community-wide $7.0 million concrete restoration is the best course of action.
7. Unlicensed contractors without engineering supervision were used previously at Jupiter Bay.
8. Engineers that do quality engineering work will always provide the best recommendations without considering their future income.

Attached is a copy of The Association attorney's June 19th letter with our responses (in red): 6/19 Association Attorney Letter.

Over 40 Jupiter Bay unit owners have engaged the services of Lippes Mathias Attorneys at Law and attorney Michael Posner to issue a stop-work injunction for the $6.86 million Concrete Restoration Project. Our goal is to encourage the Association's Board of Directors to renegotiate and significantly reduce the contract with Custom Group to address repair of just those unit balconies with "serious" or "moderate" concrete damage.

Renegotiating this contract would allow it to be mostly funded through existing or future reserves instead of huge owner special assessments of up to $25,000.

The following letter was sent on June 2, 2025, to the Jupiter Bay Condo Association's attorney by the Homeowner's attorney: Second Attorney Letter.

A Department of Business & Professional Regulation, Division of Condominiums, Timeshares, and Mobile Homes Complaint was issued against the Association on 5/26/25 and was referenced by and attached to the Attorney's letter. You can view the Complaint here: DBPR Complaint.

Please review these documents and contact the Association's Board Members to express your concerns regarding their inappropriate actions in approving an unnecessary $6.86 million unfunded Concrete Restoration Project.

Thank You,
Concerned Jupiter Bay Owners

Phase one Milestone Inspections conducted in 2024 showed all nine (9) buildings three stories and above to be reasonably structurally safe. Specifically, every building report stated that:

Summary

1. The building is reasonably structurally safe for continued occupancy; however, there are concrete repairs that are required. Repairs are required at isolated areas of concrete deterioration of the building structure which includes the balcony slabs, walkway slabs, building walls and columns. The deterioration is a result of corrosion of the embedded reinforcing bars.
2. No deficiencies with windows, roof structure, masonry walls, wood and structural steel were observed that would require immediate repair.
3. Besides required repairs, we recommend that:
   1. Any remaining original windows or doors be replaced with new impact windows or doors that would have higher wind load and water intrusion ratings than the originals.
   2. All screen enclosures be replaced with new ones.

Present Condition

1. No bulging, settlement, deflections, expansions or contractions.
2. Concrete/stucco deterioration in the form of cracking/spalling at the balcony and public walkway slabs and exterior columns.
3. The exterior finishes are generally in good condition with localized stucco delamination and stucco cracking.
4. Hairline cracks were observed at balcony slabs, public walkway slabs and stucco finish. Fine to medium cracks were observed at building columns due to concrete spalling.
5. Deterioration is present in the form of cracked and spalled concrete at the exterior building slabs and columns and cracked and delaminated stucco finish.
6. No signs of differential settlement or other foundation problem was observed.

Masonry Bearing Wall

1. Exterior masonry finishes are good.
2. Interior masonry finishes are good.
3. Cracks: Hairline cracks present in stucco finish.
4. Spalling: None.
5. No visible rebar corrosion.

Floor & Roof System

1. The roof slab is a conventionally reinforced flat concrete slab in good condition where observed.
2. The elevated slabs are conventionally reinforced concrete slabs, supported by conventionally reinforced columns.
3. The ground floor is a concrete slab on grade. The condition was good where observed except for the deterioration previously noted.
4. Waterproofing finishes were added after construction.

Concrete Framing

1. The concrete framing system is generally in good condition, with localized concrete cracking and spalling at private balcony and public walkway slabs.
2. Cracking due to corroding reinforcing bars was observed at building slabs & columns.
3. Rebar corrosion is significant – Structural concrete repairs to slabs and columns are necessary to restore to pre-damaged condition.

Windows

1. Original windows are in poor condition.
2. Replacement windows are in fair to good condition.

Wood Framing

1. Truss plates were observed to be in good condition.
2. Joints were observed to be in good condition.

Phase Two Inspection Report Dates

On May 29, 2025, the Association, after receiving our 5/16/25 Attorney Letter, alleges that they miraculously found nine (9) phase two inspection reports, and that these reports:

• Were created when the phase one inspections were performed,
• Appear to contradict the Phase one findings, and
• Show all East and West buildings (excluding East C) to have "substantial structural deterioration" and are considered dangerous.

Here's a list of the phase two reports:

* Same dates as Phase one inspections.

** Concrete restoration work was done on all units of East C without a Phase two inspection.

Report on Findings (From Phase two reports)

• The building has Substantial Structural Deterioration or is considered dangerous; Corrective Action is Required. (#10)
• No unsafe or dangerous conditions exist. (#7).
• The building doesn’t need to be vacated at this time. Once the repair project starts, access will be restricted at the work areas. (#9)
• All private balconies and public walkways have been inspected by visual observation and acoustic emission (tap sound). Exterior columns were inspected by visual observation from the balconies, walkways and ground. (#4)
• Repairs are required at the public walkways, private balconies and exterior walls and columns. (#2)
• The damage is cracking and spalling of conventionally reinforced concrete exterior slabs and columns. The extent of the damage is localized areas. Standard structural concrete repairs should be performed as soon as practical. (#3)
• No additional inspections are required. (#8)
• No additions to original structure observed. (#1n)
• The project will be performed in three (3) phases with an expected project duration of 30 months. (#6)

Problems with the Report

• Unit owners were not told for a year that their buildings had “Substantial Structural deterioration” and are considered dangerous (or are they, based on report contradiction?).
• No unit balconies that had a Phase two inspection were identified. Shouldn’t the Phase two report say specifically what was done and where additional inspections/testing was performed (what balconies or walkways needed a Phase two?).
• Upon completion of a phase one or phase two inspection of each building, a detailed inspection report, with a separate summary, is to be sent to the Condominium Association and local enforcement agency. The summary must contain, at least, the material findings and recommendations. We don’t believe that this was done for Phase two.
• Within 45 days after receiving each inspection report, the Association must distribute a copy of the inspector-prepared summary of the inspection report to each condominium unit owner, regardless of the findings or recommendations in the report, by United States mail or personal delivery, should have posted a copy of the inspector-prepared summary in a conspicuous place on the condominium property, and should have published the full report and inspector-prepared summary on the Association’s website. This was not done for Phase two..
• It is a breach of a board member or officer’s fiduciary duty if an association fails to complete the required Phase one, and if required, Phase two Milestone Inspections.
• Unsafe building & balcony conditions must be disclosed to potential purchasers and renters. Acknowledging unsafe building conditions can impact condo sale prices, insurance premiums, and ability to rent a unit. Pending Special Assessments must be disclosed at the time of sale.

On July 19, 2025, the Association's V-P posted a Newsletter regarding the concrete repair work being done on B305 West. The newsletter described the owner's surprise at the extent of the remediation needed on his condo. The owner said that 2 feet of the leading edge of the balcony's concrete had to be removed and that the rebar below the sliding glass doors was affected, requiring removal of the doors.

On July 24, 2025, the Association's Property Manager sent out a Concrete Remediation Update with pictures showing the significant concrete damage found in A207 West's balcony.

A review of the concrete inspections and West building repairs provided the following information regarding these units:

1. Swaysland’s 2020 Balcony Concrete Repair Investigation reported that on 9/23/20, Unit B305 West had “moderate” concrete damage in all three balconies (living room, dining room, & bedroom), and A207 had "moderate" concrete damage in its living room balcony. The following damage was reported:
   • Deck Spall at bottom surface of slab (A207)
   • Crack and/or spall at slab edge (B305 living room),
   • Crack and/or spall at building column or wall (B305 living room),
   • Cracked and/or delaminated stucco (both A207 & B305), and
   • Delaminated tiles (both A207 & B305).

2. In the years (2021-2024) since the 2020 Concrete Investigation, $89,487 was spent on West A concrete remediation and $141,465 was spend on West B concrete remediation, depleting much of the buildings' reserves.

3. Both units (B305 & A207 West) were inspected by Swaysland again on 8/28/24. This inspection reported that both units had “no damage” in any of their balconies, although they did have some delaminated tiles.

I don’t understand these Association Newsletters. If B305 and A207 West’s concrete condition “improved” from 2020 to 2024 as the Swaysland inspections reported,

• How could they be so bad in 2025?
• Were they repaired after the 2020 inspection? If so, were the repairs done improperly?
• Did Swaysland do poor inspections in 2024 and completely miss the presumably major concrete damage of these units found less than a year later?

These newsletters leave us with more questions than answers.

According to Swaysland's engineer, "The typical method for concrete deterioration is caused by corroding reinforcing bars exerting an internal pressure on the concrete, eventually resulting in cracking and spalling at the concrete surface. The steel corrosion is caused by chloride ions in the atmosphere attacking the reinforcing bars. The chloride ions are carried by rainwater to the reinforcing bars through cracks and voids in the concrete surface. Concrete naturally has a protection layer when it is originally cast. Over a period of time, the natural protection is lessened, and the chloride content increases, and, eventually, the corrosion process starts. This typically takes twenty (20) to thirty (30) years and will continue for the building’s life span."

In his June 19^th email, the Association's attorney attached this picture saying that “enclosed is a photograph of a balcony in the C West Building where there is visual evidence of concrete erosion on the balcony.” He indicated that this damaged concrete was hidden under the balcony tiles.

Property Manager Chris Sands also showed these pictures in his project update as evidence that the concrete deterioration was much more severe than indicated in the inspections which categorized this damage as “moderate”.

Here are some facts regarding the damage depicted in the pictures:

1. As the Swaysland engineer says: "Rebar corrosion results in cracking of the concrete surface (not holes)."

2. Concrete does not disappear creating crevices. Concrete had to have been removed by someone, creating holes in the balcony slab.

3. If these holes existed under the tile flooring, the engineer conducting the inspection would have recognized the hollow sound and categorized the damage as “severe” not “moderate”.

4. Chris said that this proves how fast concrete deterioration occurs, since the 8/28/24 inspection reported the unit’s concrete damage as “moderate”. No, this damage either did not exist in 2024 or it was misdiagnosed by the engineer. Concrete does not deteriorate this fast in 10 months.

5. Those chips seen in the concrete have nothing to do with the structural integrity as the board is portraying. They are 100% a result of how the old tiles were chipped away, resulting in pulling up pieces of the concrete in those circular patterns where the adhesive was.

It would be better if the Property Manager and Board provided unbiased information rather than continuously trying to reinforce their position and defend their decision.

Over 100 Jupiter Bay unit owners have signed a petition to halt the Board’s $6.86 million Concrete Restoration Project in addition to the over 40 who have hired an attorney. A stop-work injunction will enable owners to temporarily halt the project until its scope can be reduced and refocused on only units with the most damage. This will save each of us special assessments of $15,000 to $25,000 for unnecessary construction work.

The Board has provided no evidence or documentation to the association members supporting the need for this project. Recently completed Phase one Milestone Inspections showed all nine (9) buildings three stories and above to be reasonably structurally safe. No Phase 2 follow-up inspections were reported to have been performed at that time. Subsequently, no concrete repair was mandated by Florida law or the local (Town of Jupiter) enforcement agency. The project was not voted on or approved by the Jupiter Bay members. Despite this, the Board is continuing with the project.

Following is a link to a form that needs to be signed by as many Jupiter Bay unit owners as possible: Verification of Complaint

Signers of the form will collectively be the plaintiffs in the complaint against the Association which our attorney expects to be issued within the next day or two. You will receive a copy of the complaint for your review before it is submitted.

Please print the form, print your name and title (e.g. Owner of Unit X123W), sign the form, scan the signed form, and email the form to the attorney’s office (Lippes Mathias Attorneys at Law). Send it to Rocio M Leiva, rleiva@lippes.com.

Thank You,
Concerned Jupiter Bay Owners

The Jupiter Bay unit owners' attorney sent a letter to the Association's attorney alleging that the Board of Directors ignored the phase one Milestone Inspection results and claimed that all East and West Jupiter Bay buildings had "substantial structural deterioration", and this was justification for their huge project. It was suggested that the Association hire an independent engineering firm to obtain a second opinion on the condition of our units and buildings.

Our attorney also said that a number of Florida condominium statutes were violated in the noticing and communicating to owners and in the way that the project is being conducted.

Click on the following link to view this first (May 16, 2025) Homeowner's attorney letter: First Attorney Letter.

Thank You,
Concerned Jupiter Bay Owners

The Association's attorney, Steve Braten, responded on May 28, 2025, to the Concerned JB Owners saying that:

"In consultation with the Engineer of Record, Swaysland Professional Engineering Consultants, Inc. (SPEC), SPEC performed a more intensive inspection than the minimum required for the Phase One inspection; therefore, no further inspections were required to identify the best course of action to repair the distressed and damaged portions of the building. SPEC is actively preparing the Phase Two inspection reports required following the completion of the Phase one reports. It is up to the Engineer's discretion if further destructive testing is warranted and SPEC did not believe that such further testing was necessary based on past experience performing structural concrete repairs on multiple buildings at Jupiter Bay."

However, after saying that the Swaysland engineers said that "no further inspections were required" the engineers prepared, almost a year after their phase one inspections, phase two inspection reports.

Regarding proper noticing of special assessment meetings, Mr. Braten said that"

"The Board informed the owners at prior Board meetings that a separate meeting would be noticed to levy a special assessment to in part fund the Project. Also, for your information the Board conducted several informational meetings at which the scope of the project was explained by Swaysland Engineering and why the project was necessary and appropriate."

Click on the following link to view the letter sent on May 28, 2025, to the Homeowners' attorney by the Jupiter Bay Condo Association's attorney: JB Attorney Response.

Following is the Association's schedule and cost by building for the $6.86 million unnecessary Concrete Restoration Project. Cost is based on the Custom Group contract. Cost per Unit does not include engineering costs, estimated at 6% of contractor costs, and the credit for building reserve balances.

*Cost / Unit Special Assessments will be less than this amount based on the building's reserves. Announced assessments for West A, B, and C are $23,630, $22,026, and $19,823 respectively.

**The East buildings will spread their $2.07 million cost across 135 units resulting in a cost per unit of $15,336 for all 4 buildings. East D-105, used as the Association office, will contribute $23,252 of common funds to the East's reserve.