A Florida condominium can be dissolved out from under you — and whether you walk away with a fair check or a lowball one comes down to one section of the statutes. The wave of South Florida condo buyouts that The Real Deal documented in May 2026 — Bayshore Park in Coconut Grove (bought out by BH Group and Mast Capital), St. Louis on Brickell Key (where Terra and The Related Group are negotiating with owners), and Portofino South in West Palm Beach (targeted by Immocorp and O.D. Kobo) — all run through the same legal machinery: a "plan of termination" under Florida Statutes § 718.117. Get the vote, divide the proceeds, dissolve the condominium, sell the land. The statute is detailed and, in places, surprisingly protective of the owner who does not want to sell — but only if that owner knows the rules in time.
This is general information about Florida condominium law and is not legal advice. Termination is one of the most complex and high-stakes processes in Chapter 718, and the outcome can turn on the exact wording of your declaration. If your building is facing a buyout or a plan of termination, talk to a Florida community-association attorney before you vote, object, or sign anything. This guide addresses condominiums under Chapter 718; cooperatives (Chapter 719) follow a parallel but separate process.
What "terminating a condominium" actually means
Terminating a condominium is not the same thing as a board dissolving an HOA or an owner selling a unit. Termination ends the condominium form of ownership itself. The legal regime created by the declaration — the units, the common elements, the percentage interests — is extinguished, and the entire property reverts to a single parcel owned in common (or, more often, conveyed to a buyer) so it can be sold, redeveloped, or rebuilt. After termination there are no more "units"; there is land and a building, and former unit owners hold a right to their share of the proceeds instead of a deed to a condominium parcel.
Florida law provides two routes to get there, both in § 718.117. The first is optional termination — a voluntary decision, almost always driven by a developer or bulk buyer who wants the land, governed by § 718.117(3). The second is termination because of economic waste or impossibility — the building is too damaged or too obsolete to sensibly repair or rebuild, governed by § 718.117(2). The buyout deals making headlines, and the focus of this guide, are almost all optional terminations. The statute applies to every condominium in Florida in existence on or after July 1, 2007 (§ 718.117(21)). The economics behind the current wave — soaring insurance, the new structural integrity reserve study funding mandates, and the cost of bringing aging towers up to code after milestone inspections — are what make a developer's check look attractive to a supermajority of owners.
The 80% vote: optional termination
Optional termination is the workhorse of the buyout era. The threshold sits in the opening paragraph of § 718.117(3):
"Before a residential association submits a plan to the division, the plan must be approved by at least 80 percent of the total voting interests of the condominium. However, if 5 percent or more of the total voting interests of the condominium have rejected the plan of termination by negative vote or by providing written objections, the plan of termination may not proceed."
Two numbers, not one. The 80 percent is the affirmative threshold — that share of all the voting interests in the condominium, not 80 percent of those who happen to show up, must vote yes. And critically, the statute says voting interests cannot be suspended for any reason when voting on termination, so a unit that is delinquent on assessments still counts toward the denominator. That makes the 80 percent harder to reach than boards sometimes assume, because abstentions and unreachable owners count as "no" for purposes of clearing the bar.
This is also why developers either assemble ownership or line up owner commitments before a termination vote. At St. Louis on Brickell Key, The Real Deal reported that Terra and The Related Group had brought nearly 80 percent of owners — the minimum that building's declaration requires — to the negotiating table. Once a buyer (or aligned group) controls or commits 80 percent of the voting interests, the affirmative vote is close to a formality — which is exactly why the statute layers a separate objection test on top of it. That second number is where the real fight happens.
The 5% veto and the 24-month freeze
The most important sentence in the statute for an owner who does not want to sell is the objection clause. Even if 80 percent — or 95 percent — approve, the plan dies if 5 percent or more of the total voting interests reject it, either by voting no or by submitting written objections. In a 100-unit building, five voting interests can stop an optional termination. That is a low bar, and it is deliberate.
- The blocking threshold is 5 percent or more of the total voting interests. Reaching exactly 5 percent is enough to stop the plan.
- This is the figure as amended in 2017 and reaffirmed in 2025. The old "more than 10 percent" standard from the 2007 version of the statute is obsolete — do not rely on it.
- Objections can be a negative vote or a written objection. An owner who never attends a meeting can still kill a plan by filing a written objection.
And the consequence of a successful objection is durable. Under § 718.117(3)(a), once 5 percent or more reject a plan, a subsequent optional-termination plan "may not be considered" for 24 months after the date of rejection. A developer cannot simply re-run the vote next month with a slightly higher offer; it has to wait two years or pursue one of the narrow alternative pathways. For owners, the practical lesson is that organizing even a handful of holdouts is enormously powerful — and for boards, that a plan should not go to a vote until the objection landscape is actually understood.
The other path: economic waste or impossibility
When a building cannot sensibly be saved, § 718.117(2) provides a different route that does not depend on the 80 percent figure at all. It allows termination by:
"the lesser of the lowest percentage of voting interests necessary to amend the declaration or as otherwise provided in the declaration for approval of termination"
— but only if one of two conditions is met: the total cost to repair, restore, or bring the improvements into compliance with applicable laws exceeds the combined fair market value of the units after the work is done, or it has become impossible to operate or reconstruct the condominium to its prior configuration because of land-use laws or regulations. This is the pathway most relevant to severely damaged or hopelessly non-conforming buildings — the kind of structural and code reality that the post-Surfside reforms brought into focus. There is no fixed "lower percentage" here; the threshold is whatever it takes to amend your declaration.
Two special cases live in this subsection. A condominium in which 75 percent or more of the units are timeshare units may be terminated only with the approval of 80 percent of the total voting interests and the holders of 80 percent of the original principal amount of outstanding recorded mortgage liens on the timeshare estates, unless the declaration sets a lower percentage. And a condominium that has been substantially destroyed and combines residential and timeshare units can be terminated through a court petition. These are narrow, but they explain why "termination" does not have a single magic number.
Who gets paid what
For most owners, the entire process comes down to one question: how much do I get? The answer is in § 718.117(12), which governs how sale proceeds are split among the units. The statute says the apportionment is "deemed fair and reasonable" if it uses one of three methods:
| Method | How units are valued | Who decides |
|---|---|---|
| Independent appraisal (default) | Fair market value of each unit immediately before termination | One or more independent appraisers selected by the association or trustee |
| County property appraiser value | Most recent market value in the county property appraiser's records | County property appraiser |
| Declaration percentages | Each unit's existing share of the common elements | As stated in the declaration |
The crucial point: the default and most common method is independent-appraiser fair market value, not the raw percentage of ownership written into your declaration decades ago. A penthouse and a ground-floor studio do not share equally just because the declaration assigns them similar common-element percentages; the appraisal captures the real difference. The statute also presumes that the common elements have no independent value — their worth is incorporated into the value of the units. After the unit pool is apportioned, § 718.117(17) sets the distribution order: trustee fees and expenses, then lienholders in priority, then the unit owners.
This appraisal mechanic is also why timing and engagement matter so much. The holdout owners at Bayshore Park in Coconut Grove — the 1960s building BH Group and Mast Capital bought out for roughly $28 million across some 39 units — reportedly received substantially more per unit than owners who accepted early offers — a reminder that the number a developer first offers is not the number the statute guarantees, and that an owner who understands the fair-market-value floor negotiates from a stronger position. Owners weighing an offer should also understand the broader market backdrop, including how a building's standing on the Fannie Mae lending list affects unit values before any buyout is even on the table.
Owner protections on the bulk-buyer track
Florida added a thick layer of protection specifically for the situation playing out across South Florida right now: a single bulk owner accumulating 80 percent or more of the units and then terminating. When "at least 80 percent of the total voting interests are owned by a bulk owner" at the time the plan is recorded, § 718.117(3)(c) imposes a set of conditions designed to protect the remaining owners:
- 100 percent of fair market value. All unit owners other than the bulk owner must be compensated at least 100 percent of the fair market value of their units, determined by an independent appraiser as of a date no earlier than 90 days before the plan is recorded.
- Original purchase price floor. For an owner whose unit had homestead exemption status, or was an owner-occupied operating business, on the recording date — and who is current on both assessments and other monetary obligations to the association — the fair market value used must be at least the original purchase price paid for the unit. The statute also excludes distressed, wholesale, and post-foreclosure sales from the comparison so the FMV is not artificially deflated.
- 1 percent relocation payment. An owner whose unit had homestead status is paid an additional relocation payment equal to 1 percent of the termination proceeds allocated to that unit, on top of the proceeds, no later than 10 days after the owner vacates.
- 12-month lease-back. An owner in occupancy when the plan is recorded may lease the former unit and stay for 12 months after the effective date, on the same terms similar units are offered to the public.
- First-mortgage protection. The plan must provide for payment of a first mortgage to the extent of the unit's share of proceeds; for a current owner, receipt of that share (or the mortgage balance, whichever is less) is deemed to satisfy the first mortgage in full.
- Disclosure and board seats. The bulk owner must make sworn disclosures of its ownership and any board relationships, and where the board is bulk-owner-controlled, the non-bulk owners may elect at least one-third of the directors before any plan is approved.
A persistent myth holds that bought-out owners are entitled to 110 percent of value. The statute says 100 percent of fair market value for non-bulk owners, with a floor of the original purchase price for current-paying homestead and owner-occupied-business owners. Those are the two real protections — anything you read promising 110 percent is not in § 718.117.
Try Mosaic alongside your current software. No Risk!
- Keep yourself compliant on every statute change
- Keep your board compliant across every workflow
- Keep your HOA compliant and your owners happy
The plan of termination and the trustee
Termination is documented in a single instrument: the plan of termination. Under § 718.117(10), the plan must specify a defined list of provisions, and the contents are not optional boilerplate — they are how the whole thing is supposed to be fair and traceable. The plan must specify:
- The name, address, and powers of the termination trustee — the person or entity that takes title, manages the sale, and distributes the proceeds.
- A date after which the plan is void if it has not been recorded.
- The interests of the respective unit owners in the association property, common surplus, and other association assets — ordinarily the same as their common-element interests immediately before termination.
- The interests of the unit owners in any proceeds from the sale, apportioned by one of the § 718.117(12) methods.
- The owners' interests in any insurance or condemnation proceeds not used for repair at the time of termination.
The plan must be executed with the formalities of a deed and recorded in the county public records to take effect. The trustee role is the operational heart of the process: once the plan is effective, the trustee holds legal title to the former condominium property for the benefit of the former owners and lienors, conducts the sale, and pays out according to the distribution waterfall. Separately, § 718.117(4) makes an important legal declaration — a plan of termination is not an amendment subject to the unanimous-consent rule of § 718.110(4). That distinction is exactly what the courts have had to police, as the next sections explain.
DBPR review, recording, and notice
An optional termination is not purely a private affair; the state reviews it. Before the plan can proceed, the association submits it to the Division of Florida Condominiums, Timeshares, and Mobile Homes at the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. Under § 718.117(3)(e), the Division examines the plan for procedural sufficiency and, within 45 days of the initial filing, must notify the association of any procedural deficiencies or that the filing is accepted. If the Division does not respond within 45 days, the plan is presumed accepted. The Division's review is procedural — it confirms the plan checks the statutory boxes — not a judgment on whether the price is fair.
After approval and recording, the notice machinery in § 718.117(15) kicks in. Within 30 days after the plan is recorded, the termination trustee must deliver notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, to all unit owners and lienors. The notice must include where the plan is recorded, that a copy is available on request, and — critically — that the owner or lienor has the right to contest the fairness of the plan. The trustee must also file a certified copy of the recorded plan with the Division within 90 days after the effective date. That contest right is the subject most likely to matter to an owner who feels shortchanged, and it comes with a hard clock.
Your 90-day window to contest
If you believe a termination is unfair, § 718.117(16) gives you a narrow door and a short time to walk through it. A unit owner or lienor may contest a plan of termination by filing a petition under the mandatory non-binding arbitration / dispute resolution process of § 718.1255 within 90 days after the date the plan is recorded. Two features make this provision unforgiving:
- You can only contest three things. The fairness and reasonableness of how the proceeds are apportioned among units; whether the first mortgages of non-bulk owners are being satisfied as § 718.117(3) requires; or whether the required vote to approve the plan was actually obtained. You cannot use the contest to argue you simply do not want to sell.
- Miss 90 days and you are barred. An owner or lienor who does not contest within the window is barred from later asserting or prosecuting a claim against the association, the trustee, any owner, or any successor — including the buyer.
There is a powerful enforcement hook: the arbitrator must automatically void the plan upon finding that any of the sworn ownership and conflict disclosures required of a bulk owner were omitted, misleading, incomplete, or inaccurate. And the prevailing party in a contest recovers reasonable attorney fees and costs — a meaningful deterrent against both sloppy plans and frivolous objections. The burden is on the person contesting to prove the apportionment was not fair and reasonable or that the vote was not obtained; an apportionment done by one of the § 718.117(12) methods is presumed fair. Because the clock runs from recording, owners who wait for the certified-mail notice to arrive before consulting counsel are already burning the very days they need.
When your old declaration beats the statute
The most consequential development in Florida termination law is not in the statute at all — it is in the courts. The statute is written to let the 80 percent optional-termination scheme override a declaration that demands more, repeatedly using the phrase "notwithstanding any provision in the declaration." But Florida's appellate courts have drawn a constitutional line where an original declaration baked in stronger protections.
In Avila v. Biscayne 21 Condominium, Inc., the Third District Court of Appeal addressed a declaration that required unanimous (100 percent) consent to terminate the condominium and required unanimous consent to amend that very provision. A bulk buyer tried to use a lower amendment threshold to cut the termination requirement down to the statutory 80 percent. The court held it could not: stripping each owner's individual veto power was an unconstitutional impairment of a vested contractual right, so the original unanimous-consent requirement governed. The Florida Supreme Court declined to review the decision in late 2025, leaving the Third District's rule in force. It built on the earlier reasoning of Tropicana Condominium Ass'n v. Tropical Condominium, LLC (Fla. 3d DCA 2016), which reached a similar result.
Whether your declaration is frozen at its original (possibly unanimous) threshold or floats up to the current statute usually turns on whether it adopted Florida law "as amended from time to time" — so-called Kaufman language. A declaration with that phrase generally takes on the current statutory thresholds. A declaration without it — one that simply set its own termination rule — may keep that stricter rule despite § 718.117. Reading your declaration's termination and amendment clauses, with counsel, is the single most important thing an owner facing a buyout can do. The same care applies any time your association moves to amend its governing documents.
What HB 913 changed
The 2025 condominium reform law, HB 913 (Chapter 2025-175) — covered in our legislative session recap — amended § 718.117 in several ways that matter to anyone tracking the buyout wave:
- It confirmed the 5 percent / 24-month rule — if 5 percent or more of voting interests reject a plan, it cannot proceed, and a new optional-termination plan cannot be considered for 24 months.
- It allowed an association — notwithstanding any contrary declaration provision — to amend its declaration to incorporate the statutory termination procedure by the lowest percentage of voting interests needed to amend the declaration. This is the provision bulk buyers will lean on, and the one the Avila line of cases constrains for older unanimous-consent declarations.
- It clarified that the Division approves an optional-termination plan only after the required unit-owner approval has been obtained.
- It allowed a terminating association to waive the reserves recommended by a structural integrity reserve study by a member vote — logical, since a building about to be demolished does not need funded reserves.
None of these changes disturbed the case-law protection for original unanimous-consent declarations. The tension between the statute's "notwithstanding the declaration" language and the courts' "vested rights" limit is the central legal battleground of the current buyout era, and it is unlikely to be settled soon. For a broader view of where these deals are heading, see our guide to Florida condo developer takeovers.
Key takeaways
- Optional termination needs 80% yes and under 5% no. Both tests must be met — and delinquent units still count in the denominator.
- 5 percent or more objecting kills the plan and freezes a re-vote for 24 months. It is the strongest tool a holdout has.
- The economic-waste path (§ 718.117(2)) uses the lowest percentage needed to amend the declaration, available only when repair costs exceed post-repair value or rebuilding is legally impossible.
- Proceeds are apportioned by independent-appraiser fair market value by default — not automatically by old declaration percentages.
- On a bulk-buyer deal, non-bulk owners get at least 100% of FMV, with an original-purchase-price floor for current-paying homestead and owner-occupied-business owners, plus a 1% relocation payment and a 12-month lease-back. There is no 110% rule.
- You have 90 days from recording to contest — and only on apportionment fairness, mortgage satisfaction, or vote validity. Miss it and you are barred.
- An original unanimous-consent declaration may beat the statutory 80% under Avila v. Biscayne 21, especially where the declaration lacks Kaufman language.
- HB 913 (2025) codified the 5%/24-month rule and a declaration-incorporation amendment path, but did not override the vested-rights case law.
Frequently asked questions
Share this guide
