Challenging a Condominium Election: Arbitration, Deadlines and What the Board Should Do First

Jason Hamilton Mikes, JD, MBA
Founder & Managing Shareholder

• Published September 25, 2026
• Reviewed by Jason Hamilton Mikes, JD, MBA, September 26, 2026
• Florida Statutes as of July 1, 2026
• Applies to: Condominiums · Cooperatives

A losing candidate says the election was rigged. What happens next is governed by a narrow set of rules: a 60-day window to bring the challenge, a forum choice between Division arbitration and circuit court, a nonbinding arbitration decision that either side can take to trial, and fee-shifting that makes the fight expensive for whoever loses. The board's obligations begin immediately, before anything is filed, and they begin with preserving the evidence.

The 60-day deadline

Section 718.112(2)(d)5.c. is one sentence long: any challenge to the election process must be commenced within 60 days after the election results are announced.

Three things about it matter. The clock runs from the announcement of results, which for most associations is the moment the tally is read at the annual meeting, not from the date the challenger discovered the defect and not from the date the minutes were approved. The deadline applies to the election process, which is broader than the count and takes in notices, candidate eligibility, ballot packages and handling. And it requires the challenge to be commenced, meaning something must actually be filed, not merely threatened in a letter.

For a board, the 60 days are a planning horizon rather than a comfort. An association that has announced results and heard grumbling should treat the matter as live until counsel confirms in writing that the window ran without a filing, and should keep the election materials intact throughout.

Where an election dispute goes

Chapter 718 routes most owner-association disputes through alternative dispute resolution before anyone reaches a courthouse. Section 718.1255(4)(a) requires that, before the institution of court litigation, a party to a dispute other than an election or recall dispute must either petition the Division for nonbinding arbitration or initiate presuit mediation.

Election disputes are carved out. Section 718.1255(5) provides that election and recall disputes are not eligible for mediation and that such disputes must be arbitrated by the Division or filed in a court of competent jurisdiction. That gives a challenger a choice of forum rather than a mandatory first stop, and it removes the mediation step entirely.

In practice most election challenges start at the Division, because it is faster and far cheaper than circuit court and the arbitrators do nothing but this work. But a challenger with the resources can file in circuit court instead, so a board should not assume a Division petition is the only thing to watch for. Section 719.1255 directs the Division to provide alternative dispute resolution for cooperatives in accordance with § 718.1255, so a cooperative election dispute follows the same track. Our overview of condominium arbitration and mediation covers the broader framework.

What a petition looks like and what it costs

A petition for arbitration is filed with the Division of Florida Condominiums, Timeshares, and Mobile Homes within the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, accompanied by a filing fee of $50. Before filing, the petitioner must give the responding party advance written notice describing the dispute, demanding the relief sought, and stating an intent to file for arbitration if the demand is not met. Proof of that notice goes with the petition.

The Division employs full-time attorneys as arbitrators and assigns arbitrators who have been members of The Florida Bar in good standing for at least five years with experience in condominium disputes. The process is built to move: hearings on a short schedule, subpoena power, discovery at the arbitrator's discretion, and a written decision. Either party may ask that the matter be referred to mediation, and the arbitrator may refer it independently. The arbitration is nonbinding unless all parties agree in writing, filed in the arbitration, to be bound.

For an association the cost driver is not the $50. It is counsel's time responding to the petition, assembling the election record and preparing witnesses, and it is incurred whether or not the association prevails. The way to control that cost is on the front end. Our list of condominium election mistakes is essentially a list of the things petitions are built out of.

What the arbitrator can order

The statute empowers the arbitrator to decide the dispute and award relief, but it does not enumerate election remedies, so what an arbitrator actually orders comes out of Division practice. In election cases the realistic outcomes are a small set.

• Deny the petition, the most common outcome where the alleged error is real but could not have changed who won.
• Void the election and order a new one, usually on a specified schedule with specified corrections. This is the standard remedy where the process was defective in a way that touched who could run or who could vote.
• Order a recount or a corrected tally, where the defect is arithmetic or a discrete set of ballots was improperly counted or improperly disregarded.
• Seat the rightful candidate, where correcting the count produces a different winner on the existing record and no new election is needed.
• Order the association to produce records or to comply with a specific procedural requirement going forward.

What an arbitrator cannot do is rewrite the association's documents or reach a dispute outside the statutory definition in § 718.1255(1), which excludes disputes primarily involving title to a unit, enforcement of a warranty, collection of assessments, eviction of a tenant, and claims of breach of fiduciary duty by a director.

That last exclusion catches boards by surprise. An owner who believes the board acted in bad faith in an election may have a claim, but § 718.1255 arbitration is not where a fiduciary duty claim lives, and a petition framed that way may be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds while the election itself stands.

The standard: does the error affect the outcome

Not every procedural error voids an election. The question that decides most election arbitrations is whether the error was capable of affecting the outcome.

That framing explains results that otherwise look inconsistent. Twelve ballots improperly counted in a race decided by ninety votes will not void an election, because the same person wins either way. The same twelve ballots in a race decided by four votes will. An eligible candidate left off the ballot voids the election regardless of the margin, because there is no way to know how many votes that candidate would have drawn.

For a board responding to a challenge, this converts a legal question into an arithmetic one, and the arithmetic has to be done from the preserved record. How many ballots are actually in dispute? What was the margin between the last candidate seated and the first candidate not seated? Can the association show, from the envelopes and sign-in sheets it kept, that the disputed ballots could not have changed the result? A board that can answer those questions on day three is in a materially better position than one still looking for the box.

Attorney's fees, and why they drive the case

Section 718.1255 provides that the prevailing party in an arbitration proceeding is awarded the costs of the arbitration and reasonable attorney's fees in an amount determined by the arbitrator. That one sentence changes the character of a dispute that on its face is about a $50 petition.

The provision runs both ways, and both directions are worth stating plainly to a board. If the association wins, it may recover its fees from the challenging owner, though recovery and collection are different things. If the association loses, it pays the challenger's fees and its own, and both come out of common expenses, which means every owner in the building pays for the procedural shortcut that caused the problem.

A second exposure sits on top. A party who files a complaint for trial de novo and does not obtain a judgment more favorable than the arbitration decision is taxed with the other party's arbitration costs and reasonable attorney's fees. That applies to an association appealing a loss just as much as to an owner.

The practical counsel that follows is unwelcome but sound. Where the association's own review shows a real defect that could have affected the outcome, the cheapest outcome is usually to rerun the election voluntarily rather than litigate the point and pay for both sides. That is a decision for the board with counsel, made early, on the numbers.

Trial de novo

Division arbitration under § 718.1255 is nonbinding unless all parties agree in a writing filed in the arbitration to be bound. An arbitration decision becomes final if a complaint for trial de novo is not filed in a court of competent jurisdiction in the county where the condominium is located within 30 days.

Thirty days is short, and it is a different clock from the 60-day challenge window. A board that receives an adverse decision should have counsel's recommendation in the first week, not the fourth. Trial de novo means what it says: the circuit court hears the matter fresh rather than reviewing the arbitrator's work for error, although the arbitration decision is admissible in the trial.

Between the fee exposure on an unsuccessful trial de novo and the cost of a circuit court case, very few condominium election disputes go past arbitration. That is the design. But the option exists on both sides, and an association should not tell owners the matter is closed until the 30 days have run.

What the board does the moment a challenge is threatened

Long before anything is filed, usually within a day of the meeting, someone says they are going to challenge the election. The board's obligations start at that moment, and the first of them is negative: stop discarding things.

1. Secure the election materials. Ballots, inner and outer envelopes including those marked disregarded, sign-in sheets, proxies used for quorum, the ballot box itself, tally sheets, candidate notices of intent, information sheets, and a clean copy of each notice package as mailed.
2. Secure the proof of notice. The affidavit or Postal Service certificate of mailing, the mailing list used, the first notice, and any electronic transmission logs.
3. Preserve electronic records. E-mail and text traffic among directors, the manager and any vendor about the election, plus website postings. Instruct the management company in writing and get written confirmation back.
4. Suspend routine destruction. Tell whoever runs records retention, in writing, that nothing relating to the election is destroyed until counsel says otherwise, regardless of the one-year period in § 718.111(12)(a)12.
5. Do not reconstruct, annotate or tidy. No recounting in private, no re-sorting the envelopes, no notes added to the tally sheet afterward, no correcting minutes to say what the board wishes had happened.
6. Notify counsel and the insurer. Directors and officers coverage may respond to an election claim, and late notice is a common reason coverage is lost.
7. Say very little. Any board statement to owners about a pending challenge should be reviewed before it goes out. Everything the board writes becomes evidence.

The emphasis has a reason. Ballots are official records under § 718.111(12)(a)12., so destroying them is not merely an evidentiary problem. Section 718.112(2)(q) requires removal from office of a director or officer charged by information or indictment with destroying, or refusing to allow inspection or copying of, an official record in furtherance of any crime. A board member who cleans out the closet after a challenge is threatened creates a far larger problem than a rerun election. Our guidance on litigation holds and record preservation sets out the mechanics, and records retention covers the ordinary periods.

One more step is the one most often skipped: have counsel review the election record honestly and early, before positions harden. If the election was clean, that review is what lets the association defend it confidently and pursue its fees. If it was not, knowing in week one is worth more than any argument the association could make in month six. Eligibility questions in particular are better settled before the ballot is printed, which is the subject of our guide to condominium board candidate eligibility.

Contact Hamilton Mikes

Hamilton Mikes represents condominium and cooperative boards in Division arbitration and in circuit court when an election is challenged, and advises boards on record preservation from the first day a challenge is threatened. Call 239-594-7227 or visit our Litigation and Alternative Dispute Resolution page.