Brickell Key One (BK1) owners are currently paying for both sides of a significant legal dispute, as the BK1 Board has initiated a lawsuit against one of our owners and the Brickell Key Master Association (BKMA).
This action has immediate and substantial financial consequences for all unit owners.
The Financial Impact on BK1 Owners
The cost of this action is being borne by all owners through multiple avenues:
| Expense Category | Financial Impact | Details |
| BK1 Direct Costs | Over $10,000 Spent | Funds from our BK1 dues have been spent on filing and pursuing the lawsuit. |
| Master Association Defense | Double Payment | Owners are simultaneously paying for the defense of the BKMA through increased Master Association dues. |
| BKMA Office Relocation | 83.59% Budget Increase | The BKMA’s move out of BK1 due to the lawsuit led to their office budget increasing from $53,640 to $98,480. We owners pay this increase. |
| BKMA Legal/Seawall | 525% Legal Fee Increase | BKMA’s legal fee budget increased from $12,000 to $75,000, partially due to the need to defend against the lawsuit initiated by our own board. |
In short, owners are paying for the action and the reaction, leading to a demonstrable increase in our total monthly costs.
The Core Dispute: Eviction and Access
The lawsuit appears to stem from two primary issues:
1. The Eviction of the Master Association in an Office rented out by one of owners
The BKMA had been renting the O-205 office space from a fellow unit owner. The lawsuit was reportedly filed to evict the BKMA based on an alleged failure to provide a timely annual lease renewal.
- Key Question: For 42 years, the association has not sought to evict a renter over this administrative issue. Given that the owner pays dues timely and the BKMA provides the benefit of increased, uniformed security presence on the property, the board’s decision to pursue eviction—apparently without seeking to remedy the administrative issue—raises questions of motivation and proportionality.
2. The Baywalk Access Conflict
There appears to be a costly ongoing argument between the BK1 Board, the BKMA, and Swire regarding access to the Baywalk via our private driveway.
- The Easement: An existing easement grants the BKMA the legal right to use the driveway.
- Board Actions: Our board reportedly at times was physically blocking access and posting a security guard near the Baywalk side (At our expense).
- Risk Assessment: In over forty years, there has been no reported slip-and-fall or pedestrian accident on this driveway, suggesting the liability risk is low. The aggressive defense of this access appears to be the primary motivation behind the costly lawsuit.
This conflict then reportedly extended to the office complex, with new restrictions placed on guest parking and garage access for office owners and renters—a practice that had not been restricted for decades.
Potential Seller Interference and Waste of Funds
The case never reached the scheduled November court date because the BKMA vacated the premises in June, making the legal fight moot and leading to a substantial waste of association funds on a lawsuit they would have lost.
Furthermore, the unit owner (O-205) reportedly had a buyer for the unit in February. However, the owner claims the BK1 Board would not approve the sale until the BKMA had moved out. This alleged action of preventing a unit sale raises significant legal and financial liability questions.
A Call for Transparency
Owners were not informed of these actions by the board, which contradicts the principles of open governance. Add in a $40,000 (66.67%) increase to the 2026 Legal Budget this platform urges the board to provide immediate clarification on:
- The total cost spent on the lawsuit to date.
- The justification for pursuing eviction over an administrative issue.
- The legal basis for interfering with a unit owner’s right to sell their property.