JACKSONVILLE, Fla. – A proposed federal class action complaint has been filed against a Florida law firm that regularly represents homeowner associations, alleging it “claimed, attempted or enforced debts it knew were not legitimate.”
Plaintiff Sean P. Meyer, a Duval County resident who owned residential property in the Hunters Ridge subdivision in Jacksonville, filed his complaint in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division.
According to the Aug. 18 filing, defendant Robert L. Tankel PA, doing business as Tankel Law Group, allegedly violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, or FDCPA, and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, or FCCPA.
Tankel Law Group, located in Dunedin, Florida, has been a “consistent and outspoken advocate for condominium and homeowner associations,” according to its website.
“This action concerns Defendant’s practice of adding predetermined legal fees and collection costs to delinquent homeowners’ association accounts and representing those amounts as debts homeowners must pay to avoid further lien and foreclosure collection activity,” the 21-page complaint states.
“Florida law limits the attorney’s fees and collection costs that may be recovered through the HOA collection process.”
Meyer alleges that Tankel’s standardized collection practices resulted in homeowners being charged attorney’s fees that the association had not incurred and costs that did not reflect the actual costs permitted by Florida law.
“The least sophisticated consumer receiving Defendant’s collection package would understand it to mean that the challenged charges were legally owed and that Defendant was lawfully entitled to collect them as part of the debt,” the filing states.
Meyer contends that Tankel “regularly” collects or attempts to collect – directly or indirectly – debts owed or asserted to be owed to others, including delinquent HOA assessments and related charges.
In the communications at issue, Meyer argues Tankel expressly stated that it was a debt collector and that the communications were attempts to collect a debt.
According to his filing, his 2026 annual Hunters Ridge assessment for the calendar year 2026 was $205 and was due in January 2026. He inadvertently failed to pay the assessment by the due date, he claims.
On March 17, 2026, Hunters Ridge, through its management agent, sent Meyer a written “Notice of Late Assessment.” The notice identified his delinquent obligation as a $205 assessment and $3.25 in accrued interest, for a total amount then due of $208.25.
“It did not identify or assess any attorney fee, legal cost, management collection charge, or tenant-related charge,” the complaint states. “The accompanying account statement likewise showed only the $205.00 assessment and accrued interest.”
On April 30, 2026, Tankel mailed Meyer a written pre-lien collection package concerning the Hunters Ridge assessment.
By April 30, his assessment and accrued interest totaled $211.68. Defendant’s collection package added $825 in collection-related charges to the amount represented as presently due, Meyer alleges.
In particular, Tankel allegedly charged Meyer a $350 demand fee and a $25 demand cost at the pre-lien demand stage.
“Hunters Ridge’s records produced in connection with Plaintiff’s account do not show the $350.00 Demand Fee or $25.00 Demand Cost as a legal bill, account payable, reimbursable expense, or other attorney-fee or cost obligation that Hunters Ridge had paid or become legally obligated to pay before Defendant demanded payment from Plaintiff,” the filing states.
“Even if there was a private arrangement between Defendant and an HOA client, that does not, by itself, expand a homeowner’s statutory obligations or convert a charge that exceeds an independent statutory limitation into a lawfully collectible debt.”
Meyer contends that, in his case, Tankel demanded and collected a total of $1,036.68, but remitted only $211.68 to Hunters Ridge Owners Association Inc. – the $205 assessment plus $6.68 interest.
“Hunters Ridge’s records contain no corresponding entry reflecting that it paid, incurred, or otherwise became liable for any portion of the remaining $825.00 collected by Defendant,” the lawsuit states.
Meyer seeks certification of the proposed classes and subclass, his appointment as class representative, and his attorney as class counsel.
He also seeks actual damages and restitution, including the return of amounts “unlawfully collected” and retained by Tankel; statutory damages; punitive damages; attorney’s fees; and pre- and post-judgment interest.
Scott D. Owens in Hollywood, Florida, is representing Meyer in the proposed class action.
