Regency Pembroke Pines FL: CAM cap breach 5% NON_CUMULATIVE case study
A public-record retail CAM case study showing $11,250 in CAM overcharges: landlord billed $108,900 against a $97,650 cap (5% over prior year $93,000).
What happened
The lease at Regency Centers Pembroke Pines set a 5% annual CAM cap. Prior year CAM was $93,000, capping 2022 at $97,650. The reconciliation billed $108,900, which is 17% above the prior year, far exceeding the 5% contractual ceiling.
Findings from the pipeline
Rule 6: CAM Cap Violation
high confidence
$11,250
CAM billed ($108,900.00) exceeds the 5.0% NON_CUMULATIVE cap. Max allowed: $97,650.00 (prior year $93,000.00). Overcharge: $11,250.00.
Lease evidence
CAM charges in any Lease Year shall not exceed the prior Lease Year's CAM charges by more than five percent (5%). Section 7.1(c).
Section 7.1(c), page 13
Math proof
prior_year_billed=93000.00, cap_rate=0.05, max_allowed=97650.00, billed=108900.00, overcharge=11250.00
Lease evidence
- 5% annual NON_CUMULATIVE CAM cap (Section 7.1(c)).
Why this matters for your firm
Florida retail leases frequently include annual CAM caps, but landlords operating large portfolios sometimes apply portfolio-wide cost increases without checking individual lease cap provisions. The result is systematic overcharges across multiple tenants in the same center.
Correction package excerpt
Request for Cooperative Review of Certain Line Items. The automated review flagged a CAM cap breach of $11,250.00 for the 2022 reconciliation year.
Frequently Asked Questions
Run these same detection rules on your client engagements
Upload a client lease and reconciliation. CAMAudit applies the same rule set used in this case study and delivers findings in under 15 minutes, with white-label report delivery under your firm brand.
Apply for partner accessPublic-record note
This page summarizes public-record documents and CAMAudit output for educational and marketing purposes. It does not imply endorsement by Retail Tenant (Regency Centers Pembroke Pines) or any third party. Readers should review the underlying lease, statement, and dispute timeline for their own facts.