Updated October 2026.

Short Answer

The Florida Supreme Court reversed the 2011 ruling discussed here in North Carillon, LLC v. CRC 603, LLC on January 23, 2014. Florida law does not require two separate escrow accounts for condominium deposits, so Miami attorney Aaron Resnick's September 2011 comments describe the earlier decision, not current law.

Originally published January 20, 2014. This page updates a firm release dated September 7, 2011, and explains the later reversal by the Florida Supreme Court.

What Did the Third District Decide in 2011?

On September 7, 2011, the Third District Court of Appeal reinstated buyers' claims against developer North Carillon over the handling of condominium deposits. The court accepted a theory requiring separate accounts for the first 10 percent and excess deposits. Aaron Resnick commented on that decision; the Florida Supreme Court later reversed it.

The consolidated appeals also involved First American Title Insurance Company, the escrow agent. The Third District affirmed dismissal of the statutory claims against that company. The developer ruling allowed those claims to proceed; it did not award or pay a refund.

The 2011 opinion discussed reasonable attorney fees and costs under the purchase contracts' prevailing party provisions. The historical release's broader refund language is not a promise that every buyer recovers fees or the entire deposit.

Why Did the Florida Supreme Court Reverse?

The Florida Supreme Court concluded that the law governing the 2006 contracts did not require two separate escrow accounts and that the 2010 amendment made no substantive change. The buyers could not void these contracts on the single account theory. Aaron Resnick's earlier commentary must be read with that later ruling.

The Third District had adopted a 2009 federal court's account interpretation and treated the 2010 amendment as impairing existing contract rights if applied retroactively. The Supreme Court rejected the premise that the amendment changed those rights: the earlier statutory language was ambiguous.

Because the escrow provision also carried criminal penalties, the Supreme Court applied the rule requiring ambiguous offense language to be construed in the accused's favor. That interpretation also governed the civil claims. The court reversed the developer ruling and remanded for proceedings consistent with its opinion.

What Did Aaron Resnick Say at the Time?

In the firm's September 7, 2011 Miami release, attorney Aaron Resnick called the appellate ruling "potentially cataclysmic" for developers. He described the earlier court's separate account interpretation and noted the possibility of rehearing or Supreme Court review. Those comments recorded his response to the 2011 decision, before its 2014 reversal.

The release discussed possible deposit recovery for buyers whose first 10 percent and excess payments had not been held in separate accounts. It also directed readers to the firm and Recover My Deposit. The later reversal replaces that legal premise; the release remains part of the history of Aaron Resnick's condominium deposit work.

Does Current Florida Law Allow One Escrow Account?

Chapter 718, Florida Statutes, permits one or more escrow accounts with separate accounting for each purchaser and the relevant deposit categories and releases. Using one account therefore does not itself require a refund. Aaron Resnick reviews the contract and escrow records rather than applying the rejected 2011 account theory to a current dispute.

The statute still regulates deposits and permits a buyer to void a contract for qualifying noncompliance. Refund rights turn on the applicable requirements and facts, not merely the number of bank accounts. This historical decision does not decide a different buyer's contractual cancellation rights or a different escrow violation.

What Should a Buyer Bring for a Deposit Review?

Bring the purchase contract, amendments, disclosures, deposit receipts, escrow statements and correspondence with the developer or closing agent. Identify the contract date, planned closing date, any termination notice and the next response deadline. Aaron Resnick reviews those documents to distinguish a present deposit claim from the account theory rejected in 2014.

The firm's condominium deposit recovery page addresses the current practice. A closing demand or served court paper requires attention to its own date; this history supplies no new cancellation period or assurance of a refund.

Frequently Asked Questions

Was the 2011 Separate Account Ruling Reversed?

Yes, in North Carillon, LLC v. CRC 603, LLC, decided January 23, 2014, the Florida Supreme Court reversed the Third District's developer ruling. The buyers' contracts were not voidable on the claimed separate account ground. Aaron Resnick's September 2011 comments predated that reversal and remain historical commentary.

Does One Escrow Account Automatically Entitle a Buyer to a Refund?

No, chapter 718 permits a single escrow account with the required separate accounting. A refund claim requires review of the actual contract, deposit handling and applicable law. Aaron Resnick examines those documents and dates rather than assuming one account means the developer must return the buyer's money.

Was the Escrow Agent Held Liable in the 2011 Appeal?

The Third District affirmed dismissal of the statutory claims against First American Title Insurance Company, the escrow agent in the consolidated appeals. That was separate from the developer ruling later reversed. Aaron Resnick's historical release discussed both outcomes; the decision is not a blanket rule eliminating every possible claim against an escrow agent.

Sending an inquiry does not create representation.

Send the parties, the problem and the next date; the firm reviews every inquiry and tells you whether it can help.

We Don't Make Promises. We Have Results to Prove It.

Aaron Resnick has handled business disputes in Miami since 1998 and is a fourth generation Miami attorney. He works hands-on on every case; the client gets Aaron on every major litigation issue, not a junior partner. The Law Offices of Aaron Resnick represents large corporations, Miami businesses and their owners, professional athletes and entertainers in Miami Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties and across Florida in business litigation and business counsel. Call 305-672-7495 or request a consultation.

This page provides general information and is not legal advice. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome.

Tell Aaron What Happened

Call 305-672-7495 Speak to Aaron