Owners,
Following the COA’s recent legal update to the membership, we believe it is important that owners also be
made aware of a significant development in this litigation: on October 5, 2026, the Defendants formally filed a Motion for Sanctions with the Court.
Before a Motion for Sanctions under Florida Statute § 57.105 can be filed with the Court, the opposing party and its attorneys must first be given a 21-day “safe harbor” period. This gives them an opportunity to review the challenged claims and withdraw or appropriately correct them before the sanctions motion is presented to the Judge.
In this case, the Defendants’ attorneys served the Association’s attorneys with the § 57.105 Motion and a letter demanding withdrawal of the Second Amended Complaint on September 11, 2026. The Association and its attorneys were then given the required 21 days to withdraw or appropriately correct the challenged pleading. According to the Motion, they did not do so. After that 21-day safe-harbor period expired, the Defendants formally filed the Motion for Sanctions with the Court on October 5, 2026. In simple terms, theAssociation and its attorneys were given an opportunity to address the issues raised by the Defendants before sanctions were sought from the Court, and they chose not to withdraw or appropriately correct the challenged pleading.
What the motion is arguing? — The central argument is essentially: “Discovery has now occurred, the Association has its own records, witnesses have been deposed, and the evidence does not support the accusations—but the Association filed another complaint making them anyway.”
The defendants rely heavily on the fact that this isn’t the beginning of the case. They point out that the Court has already dismissed multiple claims and, in the August 31 order, dismissed the breach-of-contract claims against Pease and Miller with prejudice, specifically finding that the existing complaints and exhibits did not suggest additional facts that could establish individual contractual liability and that further amendment would be futile.The Court also struck the punitive-damages demand.
Despite that, the Association filed its Second Amended Complaint on September 10 with 13 counts, including fraud/suppression, fiduciary-duty, negligence, conspiracy, FDUTPA, constructive fraud, and aiding-and-abetting theories involving these defendants.
Key Highlights of the Motion
● The defendants say there is no evidence that votes were fabricated. — This is probably the centerpiece of the motion.
According to the motion, the Association possesses the ballots, voting reports, voter records, and other voting materials. In discovery, the Association was specifically asked to identify each ballot or vote it contends was fabricated, fraudulent, added after voting closed, or improperly counted.
The motion says the Association could not identify a single one. It also could not identify a witness who would testify that a specific vote was fabricated or improperly counted.
The motion then uses Randy Bradshaw’s deposition against the Association. It emphasizes that when
Bradshaw was asked whether he believed Pease committed fraud, he answered,“Uncertain.” It also quotes him as saying he had never alleged she stole from the COA, had no evidence of theft, and that, at best, the Club purchase was a “raw deal.”
● The motion says the actual vote reconciliation shows enough votes.—The defendants say the preserved unit-by-unit reconciliation shows:
571 total votes received — 541 YES and 30 NO.
That consisted of 494 electronic submissions and 77 paper submissions.
The Second Amended Complaint allegedly acknowledges that 534 affirmative votes were required. Therefore, the defendants argue that the Association would need to invalidate at least 8 YES votes to get below the required threshold.
The motion’s point is that the Association hasn’t identified those eight votes—much less evidence supporting its allegation that the vote was “more than 100 votes short.”
● The defendants attack the reliability of the MyHOAst reports. —This section is particularly interesting because the motion acknowledges there were irregularities in the electronic voting system.
The Association apparently has different MyHOAst reports showing 367, 389, and 476 electronic ballots fort he same vote. One report reportedly showed 389 votes cast despite only 361 eligible voters.
There were also strange audit-log entries attributed to Sue Cook during a period when her company wasn’t managing the property, and Bradshaw testified that he was perplexed by them. The motion also acknowledges that 2021 voting data had been deleted from the platform and later reconstructed.
But the defendants turn those irregularities around on the Association. They argue that the inconsistent
system reports demonstrate that the reports themselves aren’t reliable evidence of fraud, particularly
because administrative logins were shared/recycled and the vendor explained that deletion entries could
result from re-voting and voter-record management.
Their ultimate argument is that none of this identifies Pease, Miller, or Emerald View as having fabricated or altered a vote.
● The Association’s own financial statements are used against its damages theory. —The Association apparently alleges that it grossly overpaid for the Club and suffered substantial financial
injury.
The defendants point to the Association’s own 2025 audited financial statements, which reportedly show the Club asset at $15 million, Club income of approximately $2.31 million, revenues exceeding expenditures by approximately $1.125 million, approximately $4.31 million in year-end cash, and approximately $4.06 million in replacement funds.
Importantly, the motion does not claim that carrying the Club at $15 million conclusively proves its market value. Instead, it argues that these financial statements contradict the Association’s portrayal of the transaction as leaving it financially devastated.
The defendants also say the Association admitted in discovery that it does not have a final appraisal or expert valuation establishing what the Club was worth when purchased or what the alleged overpayment actually was.
● The motion says the 2021 meetings followed the bylaws and advice of specialized condominium counsel.—The Association alleges the November 29 meeting couldn’t properly be continued, the December 3 session was unauthorized, and the December 24 meeting was improperly used to complete a failed vote.
The defendants respond that the bylaws specifically allowed a membership meeting to be adjourned when the required percentage wasn’t present and allowed proxies to remain effective at lawfully adjourned meetings.They say the November 29 meeting was formally adjourned by vote to December 3.
More importantly, the motion says condominium attorney John Townsend guided the process in writing.
According to the motion, Townsend provided written advice regarding the Association’s acquisition authority, the appraisal provision, meeting notices, agendas, motions, voting procedures, and the December 24 proceedings.
The owners were also allegedly provided information about the properties, prices, financing, mortgage, and two-thirds approval requirement before the transaction.
The defendants characterize this as the opposite of concealment.
● The motion goes directly after the Association’s attorneys.—This is what makes this motion more significant than another motion to dismiss.
The defendants argue that by September 10, when the Second Amended Complaint was filed, the
Association’s lawyers had already participated in the relevant depositions, received written discovery, reviewed the voting records, and had the benefit of the Court’s August 31 order.
Therefore, the defendants say counsel couldn’t simply rely on allegations from their client anymore—they had an obligation to compare those allegations against the evidence that had actually been developed.
The motion also uses Holly Bailey’s testimony to suggest Bradshaw was personally determined to find wrongdoing. According to the motion, Bailey described investigating the Club purchase as an “everyday topic,” said Bradshaw’s demand for follow-up was “100 percent every day,” and characterized his conduct as becoming “more of a personal vendetta”and “not necessarily looking at the facts.”
The defense’s point isn’t merely that Bradshaw may have been wrong. They’re arguing that these
circumstances should have caused the Association’s attorneys to conduct an especially careful independent
investigation before filing another fraud-based complaint.
What the defendants want the judge to do
They are asking for several significant sanctions:
1. Find that the claims against Pease, Miller and Emerald View lack the necessary factual support.
2. Find that the Association and its attorneys knew or should have known that.
3. Order the Association and potentially its attorneys personally to pay the defendant’s reasonable
attorney’s fees and costs.
4. Potentially sanction the Association's attorneys personally under the Court’s inherent authority if the judge finds bad faith.
5. Strike the Second Amended Complaint.
6. Hold an evidentiary hearing on sanctions.
