Oceanfront One Bal Harbour Hosts Bitter Lawsuit Over Shared Facilities
The owners of the hotel-condo unit claim they have been illegally overcharged more than $2 million for building expenses.
June 26, 2019 at 05:07 PM
6 minute read
The hotel and residential condominium associations at the high-end One Bal Harbour oceanfront tower are fighting over who pays how much for building expenses.
The hotel-condo association claims its residential counterpart illegally adjusted the allocation for the electric, gas, water, sewer and valet bills, leaving the hotel-condo owners to overpay by $2 million in five years.
The residential-condo association countered it had the right to make changes after buying a third part of the building, the so-called hotel lot.
The lot used to be comprised of a spa, restaurant and lobby, as well as the building's common elements such as exterior walls, hallways and the 5-acre parcel. The residential association carved out the spa, restaurant and lobby and sold them to an affiliate of Miami-based Lionstone Development. The residential association kept the building's common elements and land.
Lionstone, led by Alfredo Lowenstein, also owns the Ritz-Carlton in South Beach and has an operating agreement with the high-end hotel company. The Ritz-Carlton runs the hotel portion at One Bal Harbour.
All this divided the tower at 10295 Collins Ave. into four parts. The spa, restaurant and lobby are one; then there are the common elements and land; and the two warring factions, the 185 residential condos and the 124 hotel-condo units.
The hotel-condos are individually owned, but the owners are allowed only limited stays since the units also are rented as part of the Ritz-Carlton hotel.
The squabble can be traced back to when the residential association used an affiliate to buy the hotel lot in bankruptcy court in 2014 and then amended the declaration the same year to adjust the fees. Lionstone came into the picture then as well.
The residential association's assertion that it could reword the declaration after buying the hotel lot isn't true, said attorney Stevan Pardo, who sued on behalf of the hotel-condo association.
It's “a way to try to suggest that they had an absolute right to amend under any circumstance for any reason. That's their position, and it just does not follow from the reading of the documents,” said Pardo, a partner at Pardo Jackson Gainsburg in Miami.
The original declaration said assessments could be changed if adjacent property is bought or if the use of utilities is metered to show how much the hotel-condos and the residential condos used — none of which happened, Pardo said.
“They just reallocated it arbitrarily when those things weren't even properly metered. They were doing that regardless of the consumption,” he said. “They've never shown us even to this day how, where they have done metering for any utilities, which would justify a reallocation of expenses. So we know that they did it arbitrarily. Therefore, it's going to have to be reversed.”
Pardo filed an amended complaint for breach of contract and declaratory judgment May 2 in Miami-Dade Circuit Court, claiming the residential association had no right to reallocate expenses and must repay the hotel-condo association. The original complaint was filed Feb. 6.
Steven Cronig, a Hinshaw & Culbertson partner representing the residential association, insists the lawsuit is groundless. The firm's Leonor Lagomasino, also a partner in Miami, is defending the association in court.
When the residential association bought the hotel lot in 2014 through an affiliate, the hotel-condo association did not raise issues with the purchase or its lack of power over the allocation of expenses, Lagomasino argued in an April 18 motion.
In her May 22 motion to dismiss the amended complaint, Lagomasino said the hotel-condo association only references parts of the declaration that support its argument and contested the ground rules for an assessment change.
The amended complaint said the hotel-condo at one point was asked to pay 30% of elevator repair costs; a third of electricity, diesel, beach service and valet costs; and 40% of the water, sewer and natural gas — all more than its original responsibility of 13%.
Asserting the hotel-condo's responsibility was only 13% is an oversimplification applying only to shared expenses, Lagomasino responded. It actually was responsible for its full utility bill, a third of pool-deck expenses, 60% of the spa expenses and 26% of the garage expenses.
She called the allocation allegations “so grossly generalized and incomplete that they are in fact misleading and become emblematic of plaintiff's entire claim.”
The hotel-condo association, 10295 Collins Avenue, Hotel Condominium Association Inc., sued the residential-condo association, The Residences at One Bal Harbour Condominium Association Inc., and an affiliate of the residential association, One Bal Harbour Corp.
The hotel-condo also sued LK Hotel LLC, the Lionstone affiliate.
Pardo, the hotel-condo's attorney, remained confident the court will side with his client on assessment changes.
“Once the court determines that to be the case, then their house of cards that they built is going to fall,” he said.
The property has a storied litigation past, including two bankruptcy sales. The developer, WCI Communities Inc., in 2009 sold the hotel lot and 51 unsold hotel-condo units to individuals to Elcom Hotel and Spa LLC for $14.6 million.
That owner filed for bankruptcy protection and was sued for $20 million by the hotel and condo associations over alleged misappropriation of funds from the property.
Elcom was led by Jorge and Juan Arevalo, who bought the property with help from a loan provided by Lumber Liquidators founder Tom Sullivan. In a separate case, Sullivan claimed Jorge Arevalo concealed $1 million received from a broker in exchange for future business. Sullivan also claimed Arevalo received help in concealing the payment from Holland & Knight. The law firm settled the $14 million malpractice suit for $5 million.
Elcom then sold the hotel in bankruptcy in 2014, which is when the residential association acquired it through an affiliate.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHow Much Coverage Do You Really Have? Valuation and Loss Settlement Provisions in Commercial Property Policies
10 minute readThe Importance of 'Speaking Up' Regarding Lease Renewal Deadlines for Commercial Tenants and Landlords
6 minute readMeet the Attorneys—and Little Known Law—Behind $20M Miami Dispute
Trending Stories
- 1The Growing PFAS Morass: Why Insurance Should Cover These Products Liability Claims
- 2Dallas Jury Awards $98.65M in Botham Jean Killing by Dallas Officer
- 3In Talc Bankruptcy, Andy Birchfield Skipped His Deposition. Could He Face Sanctions?
- 4Pharmaceutical Patents: Benefits and Challenges
- 5Where Do Web-Tracking Class Actions Belong? 8th Circuit Weighs the Issue
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250