A group of unit owners at a Pompano Beach condo complex won a recall of the majority of the association’s board members, after months of accusations of mismanagement and fighting over a $15 million assessment.
On Thursday, a state arbitrator certified residents’ recall petition against seven of the nine board members at the Cypress Bend Condominium I, a 380-unit complex with 19 two-story to seven-story buildings nestled between a pair of lakes and a canal. It’s at 2304-2326 South Cypress Bend Drive.
The association filed for a trial de novo, meaning the seven board members retain their positions until the court decides on the appeal.
The recall marked the culmination of a yearlong battle between unit owners and board members.
Tensions erupted when the board imposed the $15 million assessment last year. Unit owners alleged little transparency in how the funds will be spent, questioned the need for all of the work, and claimed the board resorted to threats and retaliation against those who spoke out, according to residents who have spoken to The Real Deal since December. Some alleged fund misappropriation by association leaders.
“They started to do the ‘concrete restoration’ but if you see what they do, it is just cosmetic repairs. Whatever they do does not seem to be worth the money they charge,” said unit owner Leon Match. “We don’t believe $15 million is required to do all the jobs. … None of the other communities [in the area] do that for the same price tag.”
The board countered it was doing everything by the book, interviewing the project manager, unsealing contractors’ bids at public meetings and leaving a long paper trail of records and contracts on their website.
Association leadership did not respond to TRD’s requests for comment. Records posted on Cypress Bend’s website, and emails the property manager and board president sent to unit owners reveal their stance.
In February of last year, the board approved the $15 million special assessment, including for concrete restoration and electrical work for the property’s legally mandated 50-year recertification, as well as for stucco, roof and catwalk repairs; waterproofing, repainting and administrative costs, according to the emails obtained by TRD. Cypress Bend was completed in 1974, property records show.
The association started collecting the assessment in September, allowing unit owners to either pay a lump sum or pay monthly over 18 years. The repairs are being financed by a City National Bank line of credit at a 6 percent interest rate, according to association emails.
The repairs are mandatory because Cypress Bend already was hit with building safety violation notices, association leaders said in emails. The city provided several extensions on enforcement of the fines, which would be $100 per day per building, and said it will hold off collecting the fines as long as the association continues with repairs, according to the emails and city records. Opponents spread “misinformation” that threatens to derail restoration work and leave unit owners on the hook for hefty fees, association leaders said in the emails.
“We no longer have options to avoid this concrete restoration project and required electrical” work, board President Wendy Elder told unit owners in an email last year. “Daily fines … will occur if in any way this project is further delayed.”
The state’s review of the recall didn’t focus on the substance of residents’ gripes over the assessment. It evaluated the validity of the petition signatures. Board opponents first submitted a recall petition to the association in July, which the board didn’t certify, saying some ballots were invalid because they were electronically signed.
Cypress Bend’s property manager alleged that 60 recall ballots from a second petition in October had issues, “including signatures that appeared to have been copied, cut, and pasted from other sources,” according to an email sent to residents last month. A professional forensic analyst verified some signatures were copied, the property manager said. The association never provided the forensic analyst’s report requested by TRD.
After the board shot down the second recall petition in October, unit owners took their case to the state. In his decision, arbitrator J. A. Spejenkowski said the state reviewed 115 ballots that the board had disqualified and found no evidence of the board’s claim that these ballots were “pre-marked” or had electronic signatures. This gave the recall effort a total of 201 ballots, more than the minimum requirement of 191.
The board members subject to the recall are Annette Pelletier, Wayne Behnken, Derek Fuelling, Sharon Frank, James Dwyer, Pablo Villalba and Elder.
An attorney for the board responded by emailing the association’s request for a trial de novo, saying the recall isn’t effective due to the pending case.
Elder didn’t respond to a request for comment on the arbitrator’s order. Pelletier and Villalba declined to comment. Behnken, Frank and Dwyer could not be reached for comment. Fuelling said he disagrees with the opposition group’s claims.
The recall petition lists seven alternative unit owners that residents want appointed to the board. If they succeed, they are likely to reevaluate the $15 million assessment.
In 2023, Hialeah-based Maestre Engineering Consultants inspected the complex and deemed the buildings in “good” and “fair” condition. His reports also noted spalling and the need for concrete restoration. The board then solicited bids, hiring Davie-based Paradigm Construction Group of South Florida for the concrete restoration and Hialeah-based Raircon for the electrical work, records show.
Unit owner Alex Miller, who signed the recall petition, said board opponents are not trying to ignore the legally mandated recertification. He pointed to the lack of technical terms for safety requirements. Maestre’s examination amounted to a “speculative visual inspection,” allowing for an “unbounded” project, Miller said. This potentially could include wish list items.
“Essentially, every crack in the wall they don’t like could be fixed. Not that it doesn’t have to be fixed. The main question is how did it end up being a core safety requirement?” Miller said.
In emails to unit owners, the property manager has countered opponents’ allegations. In a March email, the property manager wrote that opponents to the assessment are circulating “misinformation.” “For this reason, we ask that if any legal documents are circulating, including petitions, please do not sign them because they are legal documents and they could have a significant impact,” the property manager wrote. The association also provided documents by email and on its website where unit owners can rescind their recall signatures.
Some supporters of the recall received cease-and-desist letters, accusing them of harassing the board, interfering with association business and making false statements that “cast a negative light” on the board.
Unit owner Guy Piscione, who initially signed the recall and then pulled his support for the recall, said he thinks some of those opposing the assessment are “misinformed.” “I can’t see that there is some kind of fraud. We do have our financials audited, and I know they would not sign the audit unless they can verify the financials are accurate,” Piscione said.
Cristian Zobeck, who still supports the recall, said he’s had issues with the board beyond the assessment. Last year, he sold one of two Cypress Bend condos he owns after the board denied his prospective renters, including over having credit scores off by a point, Zobeck said.
Cypress Bend is not the only association mired in infighting due to a hefty assessment. The deadly Surfside condo collapse in 2021 led to stricter state requirements for inspections and repairs and also heightened concerns among associations about buildings’ structural integrity and repair needs. This has led to hefty assessments, setting off firestorms between unit owners and boards.
Attorney Carolina Sznajderman Sheir said she sees the issue play out across condo associations. Board members are squeezed between municipalities ready to fine violations, and residents protesting assessments. At some complexes, repairs have been deferred for years, necessitating hefty assessments. For unit owners, it feels like they are the Davids in a “David and Goliath situation,” said Sheir, who is not involved in the Cypress Bend case.
“I am not discarding the fact that there is funny business going [on] somewhere,” she said. But “just because something is a large assessment, doesn’t mean something fishy is going on.”
If Cypress Bend pursues the $15 million assessment, unit owner Heidi Koch will have to get a part-time job after she retires this spring to cover her $261 monthly share.
Koch, who cited the lack of transparency in how the money is being spent, hasn’t been able to use her balcony for months due to the ongoing repairs.
“Before the [special] assessment, I could have been OK just on Social Security,” said the 66-year-old who also pays maintenance and insurance assessments. “It’s definitely an issue.”
