A precise buyer’s audit separates Faena House’s historical Miami Beach litigation from Faena Residences Miami in Downtown Miami, then examines the documents needed to assess claims, repairs, warranty transfers, and financial exposure.
For a buyer considering Faena Residences Miami Downtown Miami, the first construction-quality question is one of identity. The litigation discussed here concerns Faena House at 3315 Collins Avenue in Miami Beach, not the Downtown Miami project. That distinction must remain clear throughout the purchase review.
The historical cases do not establish a construction-defect history for Faena Residences Miami. Nor do allegations establish adjudicated defects or present conditions at Faena House. They do, however, offer a framework for more exacting questions about the residence being purchased: which entity made each promise, what records support completion, and which rights would the buyer acquire at closing?
A considered acquisition looks beyond finishes to the records supporting them. Brand recognition is no substitute for property-specific engineering, financial, and legal review.
In 2020, 3315 Tower Condominium Association sued developer-related entities, Coastal Construction, Foster + Partners, and other firms over alleged defects at Faena House Miami Beach. The suit alleged that the association inherited the issues following the transfer of developer control around 2016.
The allegations included stucco and concrete cracking, delamination, and debonding, as well as improper roof slope and ponding water. They also covered plumbing, electrical systems, HVAC, elevators, pool and spa systems, doors, glazing, and balcony railings. Inadequate hot-water recirculation allegedly caused unacceptable waits for hot water in units. Interior allegations included cracking floors and yellowing marble.
Separate buyer litigation arose in 2016. Ruslan Shudrik sued Tower 3315 after purchasing an approximately $8.6 million unit, alleging that unfinished or defective work made it uninhabitable. Haresh Tharani separately sued Tower 3315 LLC and Faena Group over an allegedly unfinished unit, citing missing kitchen cabinets and appliances, broken bathroom mirrors, and broken glass in balcony railings.
These are allegations, not findings. The cases’ current disposition, completed remediation, and any verified inventory of open claims are not established here. None of this history should be applied by implication to the Downtown project.
Before evaluating litigation, ask counsel to match the purchase contract to the property’s legal description, actual address, developer entity, and applicable condominium documents. Confirm the association’s identity, where applicable. A shared brand does not mean a shared legal record.
The contact address listed for Faena Residences Miami is 90 SW 3rd Street, Unit Retail 1, Miami, FL 33130. It should not be treated as a verified condominium-building address. That distinction matters when requesting permits, occupancy records, inspections, or code-enforcement files.
For a buyer also considering Aston Martin Residences Downtown Miami, use the same document categories but maintain separate property files. This is a diligence principle, not a suggestion that the projects share construction issues, counterparties, or warranty terms.
A useful claims review distinguishes allegations, active proceedings, settlements, releases, and unfinished obligations. Ask counsel to obtain current docket records and operative pleadings for any identified matter, along with available settlements, releases, insurance agreements, and a written status assessment.
Request a claim-by-claim schedule identifying the relevant component, claimant, responsible parties, procedural status, and remaining work or payment obligations. Where records cannot be disclosed, ask counsel to explain what can be confirmed and how unresolved uncertainty affects the purchase decision.
The central question is not simply whether a lawsuit exists. It is whether an obligation remains, who can enforce it, and what evidence establishes that it has been satisfied. A historical filing cannot answer those questions alone.
Request litigation and defect disclosures separately where necessary. Do not assume that a standard estoppel contains every engineering concern, disputed insurance position, or unresolved repair obligation relevant to the acquisition.
The Faena House association obtained a property-condition assessment and supplemental assessment before its 2020 lawsuit. For a buyer’s audit, the lesson is to request the underlying technical record rather than rely on a summary of the dispute.
Where applicable, seek assessments, testing, repair specifications, permits, inspection sign-offs, and unit-specific repair records. Ask an independent engineer to reconcile the original concern with the proposed repair and the evidence of completion. Keep common-element work distinct from work inside the residence.
An inspection brief can address glazing, balcony railings, finishes, hot-water delivery, and mechanical performance without presuming defects exist. Ask which matters are observable during the visit and which require specialist testing or access to building records.
Check occupancy documentation and permit history with the authority responsible for the actual property. General information about Certificates of Occupancy and Completion does not establish either property’s individual permit or occupancy status.
No project-specific warranty-transfer terms are established here. A buyer should not assume automatic transfer, a particular duration, or continuing coverage merely because a residence is changing hands.
Have counsel examine each applicable warranty instrument and distinguish it from asserted statutory or implied-warranty rights. The review should address commencement dates, duration, assignment requirements, notice deadlines, exclusions, and the identity of the party entitled to make a claim.
Prior settlements and releases deserve particular attention. Ask whether they affect the component under review or the rights the buyer expects to receive. Where an assignment is contemplated, request the required documentation and confirmation of any consent or notice procedure.
The result should be a written explanation of what transfers, what does not, and what remains uncertain-not a broad assurance that the residence is under warranty.
Pair the technical and legal review with budgets, reserves, meeting minutes, assessments, insurance deductibles, coverage denials, and outstanding repair obligations. Ask the buyer’s advisers to distinguish funded work from unresolved costs, and anticipated recoveries from money actually available.
A settlement amount alone does not explain the scope or funding of remaining repairs. Likewise, a completed repair should be evaluated alongside its sign-offs and any continuing maintenance or warranty conditions.
Before committing, discuss with counsel document-review contingencies, an independent inspection, warranty assignments where available, and negotiated remedies for newly disclosed defects or assessments. These are proposed purchase protections, not statements of legal requirements or established project terms.
The objective is neither to dismiss historical litigation nor to let another building’s history define the residence. It is to reach closing with a coherent account of the property, its obligations, and the rights being acquired.
For a considered approach to South Florida’s exceptional residences, explore MILLION.
If branded residences are on your mind — as a home or as an allocation — we would be glad to share what we are seeing, privately.
Begin a quiet conversationNo. The historical construction-defect litigation discussed here concerns Faena House at 3315 Collins Avenue in Miami Beach, not the Downtown project.
No. Historical allegations do not establish adjudicated findings, current conditions, or whether particular repairs have been completed.
The allegations included cracking and delamination, roof ponding, and issues involving mechanical systems, glazing, railings, and finishes. They also included inadequate hot-water recirculation.
Their current disposition is not established here. Counsel should check current docket records and relevant settlement or dismissal documents.
It is listed as a contact address for Faena Residences Miami, including Unit Retail 1. It should not be treated as a verified condominium-building address.
Request operative pleadings, current docket records, available settlements and releases, insurance agreements, and counsel’s written status assessment.
No automatic transfer is established here. Counsel should review each applicable instrument for assignment terms, deadlines, exclusions, and any required consent or notice.
Request assessments, testing, repair specifications, permits, inspection sign-offs, and unit-specific repair records where applicable. An independent engineer can help reconcile findings with evidence of completion.
Do not assume it will. Request litigation and defect disclosures separately where necessary, alongside engineering and financial records.
Review budgets, reserves, assessments, insurance deductibles, coverage denials, and outstanding repair obligations. Ask advisers to distinguish available funding from anticipated recoveries and unresolved costs.
