This webpage will keep Jupiter Bay unit owners informed on progress to stop and repurpose the Association's $6.86 million Concrete Restoration Project.
If you haven't already signed up for our bulletins that will keep you informed regarding our efforts, you can subscribe to these bulletins via the following link: Subscription Form.
Owner's 2nd Attorney Letter
As reported in a prior Viewpoint bulletin, over 40 Jupiter Bay unit owners have engaged the services of an 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 yesterday 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 Two Inspection Report Analysis
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, and
- They 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:
| Association/Building | Phase Two Inspection* | Report Signed |
| East A | 4/15/24 – 4/26/24 | 5/29/25 |
| East B | 4/15/24 – 4/26/24 | 5/29/25 |
| East C | None Conducted** | |
| East D | 7/15-24 – 7/31/24 | 5/29/25 |
| West A | 6/13/24 – 7/9/24 | 5/29/25 |
| West B | 7/18/24 – 7/31/24 | 5/29/25 |
| West C | 7/11/24 – 7/31/24 | 5/29/25 |
| West D | 7/16/24 – 7/31/24 | 5/29/25 |
| West E | 2/8/24 – 5/20/24 | 5/29/25 |
| West F | 2/8/24 – 5/20/24 | 5/29/25 |
* Same dates as Phase one inspections.
** 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.
Verification of Complaint
Over 100 Jupiter Bay unit owners have signed a petition to halt the Board’s $6.86 million Concrete Restoration Project, and over 40 owners have engaged the services of an attorney to issue a stop-work injunction. 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 Milestone Inspections showed all nine (9) buildings three stories and above to be reasonably structurally safe. No Phase 2 follow-up inspections were performed, and 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
Owner's 1st Attorney Letter
Approximately one hundred concerned Jupiter Bay unit owners engaged the services of an attorney, Mr. Michael Posner of Lippes Mathias LLP, to contest expending almost seven million dollars for concrete restoration despite the Milestone Inspection Reports stating:
"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."
The attorney letter alleges that the Association's 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
Association Attorney's Response to Owners' 1st Attorney Letter
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.
DBPR Complaints Against the Association
Many complaints have been filed with the Department of Business & Professional Regulation (DBPR) Division of Condominiums, Timeshares & Mobile Homes against the Association over the past several years. The Association, under its current leadership, continues to violate Florida law and ignore concerns from Association members.
Following is some of the more recent complaints filed with the DBPR. Please click on the links to view them:
- Poor Project Management and Board Meeting Notices Complaint (filed 5/26/25): Poor Project Management
- Financial Complaint — Commingling of Operating & Reserve Funds (filed 4/21/25): Commingling of Funds
- Meeting Complaint — Statute violations regarding contract & special assessment approvals (filed 4/21/25): Meeting Complaint
- Inspections Complaint — Improper Milestone Inspections Communication (filed 6/11/24): Inspections Communication
- Official Records Complaint — Failure to Provide owner access to Official Records (filed 6/9/24): Official Records Access
The last complaint shown above was filed because the Association failed to respond to an Official Records Request within 10 working days after receipt of a written request. This failure to respond carries a minimum fine of $50.00 per calendar day up to 10 days. (The Association refused to pay the person who submitted the request the $500.00 required by Florida law.)