Peter Mineo and Diane Mineo v. Minh Binh Do and Mindy Hang Nguyen

D ISTRICT C OURT OF A PPEAL O F T HE STATE OF F LORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
PETER MINEO and DIANE MINEO,
Appellants,
v.
MINH BINH DO and MINDY HANG NGUYEN,
Appellees.
No. 4D2024-3192
[May 6, 2026]
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,
Broward 	County; 	Mark 	A. 	Speiser, 	Judge; 	L.T. 	Case 	No.
062022CA004206AXXXCE.
Adam G. Rabinowitz of Moore Rabinowitz Law, Plantation, and Peter
Mineo, Jr., of The Mineo Salcedo Law Firm, Davie, for appellants.
Alen H. Hsu and Jeremy S. Rosner of Weiss Serota Helfman Cole &
Bierman, P.L., Boca Raton, for appellees.
LEVINE , J.
This case involves a dispute between two homeowners who live in the
same 	community. 	Appellants, 	who 	are 	not 	on 	the 	same 	street 	as
appellees, 	complain 	about 	appellees’ 	parked 	recreational 	vehicle
(“RV”). Appellants claim that the visible RV lowers the value of their home
and other homes in the community. 	Appellants assert that appellees are
not 	in 	compliance 	with 	the 	homeowners 	association 	(“HOA”) 	rules.
Appellants 	asked 	for 	injunctive 	relief 	under 	section 	720.305, 	Florida
Statutes (2021), which allows members of an HOA to sue other HOA
members to redress injuries suffered by the member.
Not so fast, say appellees. 	Appellees, relying on the HOA’s assurance,
respond that they were, in fact, in compliance with the HOA rules. 	In
moving for summary judgment, appellees argued that appellants have not
complied with section 617.07401, Florida Statutes (2021), which governs
derivative suits, where the injury is sustained by the HOA, rather than the
individual member. 	The trial court agreed with appellees, determining
that appellants lacked standing to proceed, finding that the alleged injury

2
was to all HOA members and not to just appellants. 	The trial court
concluded that this cause of action was a derivative suit and appellants
had 	failed 	to 	comply 	with 	the 	pre-suit 	requirements 	of 	section
617.07401.1 	The trial court is correct. 	Appellants’ claim was derivative
and, therefore, appellants needed to comply with section 617.07401. 	We
affirm.
An order granting summary judgment is reviewed de novo. 	Maguire-
Ress v. Stettner, 268 So. 3d 171, 172 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).
On 	appeal, 	appellants 	contend 	that 	section 	720.305 	authorizes
members of an HOA to bring suit, at law or in equity, against another
member 	to 	redress 	noncompliance 	with 	the 	association’s 	governing
documents. 	Appellants maintain that because section 720.305 provides
this right, the requirements under section 617.07401 for a derivative
action do not apply.
Section 	720.305, 	Florida 	Statutes, 	provides 	HOA 	members 	with a
statutory right to bring individual actions, at law or in equity, against the
HOA or other members to redress failures to comply with chapter 720, the
association’s governing documents, or its rules. 	Courts have recognized
that actions brought under section 720.305 may proceed as individual
claims where the plaintiff seeks to remedy a personal injury. 	In Roebuck
v. Sills, 306 So. 3d 374, 377 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020), an HOA member sued a
neighbor for violating the association’s declaration by creating a nuisance
in a manner that directly affected his property when the neighbor installed
pool equipment directly below the member’s bedroom window. 	Because
the member sought relief for an injury personal to him, rather than an
injury to the association, which was unaffected by the installed equipment,
the action was brought as an individual claim under section 720.305. 	Id.
at 379.
Section 	617.07401, 	Florida 	Statutes, 	governs 	derivative 	actions
brought by members of not-for-profit corporations, including HOAs. 	See
also Udick v. Harbor Hills Dev., L.P., 179 So. 3d 489, 491 (Fla. 5th DCA
2015). 	A derivative action is one brought to enforce a right belonging to
1 On appeal, appellants argue that appellees failed to adequately raise the
affirmative defense of lack of standing based on non-compliance with section
617.07401. 	Because this argument was not raised below, appellants waived
appellate review. 	See Tillman v. State, 471 So. 2d 32, 35 (Fla. 1985) (“[T]o be
preserved for further review by a higher court, an issue must be presented to the
lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal or
review must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved.”).

3
the association and to redress an injury suffered by the association as a
whole, rather than by an individual member. 	Id.; see also Leppert v.
Lakebreeze Homeowners Ass’n, 500 So. 2d 250, 252 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
(defining a derivative action as one in which a member seeks to enforce a
right of the corporation where the injury is common to all members).
Section 	617.07401 	imposes 	strict 	pre-suit 	requirements, 	including 	a
written demand on the board of directors and a ninety-day waiting period,
unless irreparable injury would result. 	See Ezer v. Holdack, 358 So. 3d
429, 430-31 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023).
We find that the injury presented here is derivative in nature. 	The
appellants have not alleged an injury separate and distinct from other
members of the HOA. 	The alleged injury of the parked RV is suffered by
the members of the HOA as a whole. 	Thus, the issue presented here is
whether 	a 	derivative 	action 	brought 	under 	section 	720.305 	requires
compliance with section 617.07401.
Section 	720.302(5), 	which 	sets 	out 	the 	purposes, 	scope, 	and
application of chapter 720, Homeowners’ Associations, provides:
Unless expressly stated to the contrary, corporations that
operate residential homeowners’ associations in this state
shall be governed by and subject to part I of chapter 607, if
the association was incorporated under that part, or to chapter
617, if the association was incorporated under that chapter,
and 	this 	chapter. 	This 	subsection 	is 	intended 	to 	clarify
existing law.
Id. (emphasis added).
Consequently, we read chapters 720 and 617 in pari materia. See Tsuji
v. 	Fleet, 	366 	So. 	3d 	1020, 	1025 	(Fla. 	2023) 	(providing 	that 	when
interpreting multiple statutory provisions courts “must give full effect to
all 	statutory 	provisions 	and 	construe 	related 	statutory 	provisions 	in
harmony with one another”).
In this regard, Iezzi Family Limited Partnership v. Edgewater Beach
Owners Ass’n, 254 So. 3d 584 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018), is instructive. 	There,
the First District addressed an analogous issue when a condominium unit
owner sued the directors of the association under section 718.303, Florida
Statutes. Id. at 585. Chapter 718 provides rights to condominium owners
similar to those afforded to HOA members under section 720.305. 	See §
718.303, Fla. Stat.

4
The court in Iezzi held that, although section 718.303 creates a cause
of action, it does not displace section 617.07401 when the substance of
the claim is derivative. 	254 So. 3d at 589. 	Thus, where a claim is
derivative in nature, a plaintiff must still comply with the statutory pre-
suit requirements of section 617.07401.2
We find this reasoning equally applicable to actions brought under
section 720.305. 	While section 720.305 authorizes members to bring a
claim for personal injury, it does not eliminate the requirement to comply
with section 617.07401 when the claim asserted is derivative in nature.
Here, we agree with the trial court that appellants’ claim is derivative
and that appellants failed to comply with the pre-suit requirements of
section 617.07401.3 Accordingly, we affirm.
Affirmed.
CONNER and S HEPHERD, JJ., concur.
* 	* 	*
Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.
2 Appellants maintain that this case is distinguishable from Iezzi, where equitable
and legal relief was sought, because they seek only equitable relief. 	254 So. 3d
at 585. This argument fails. The court in Iezzi did not rely on the type of relief
sought in reaching its holding. Id.
3 Because we find appellants do not have standing to proceed, we do not reach
the merits or offer any opinion on their suit.