ORA by Casa Tua

ORA by Casa Tua is proposed for 1210 Brickell Avenue in Miami, at 77 floors and 540 units, with a stated completion year of 2030. It is in preconstruction — no groundbreaking has occurred according to the status field. Arquitectonica is the architect of record and m2atelier is the interior designer, both named directly in the evidence.

Unit sizes span 487 to 2,302 square feet, a range wide enough to cover a studio and a large three- or four-bedroom layout, though the evidence gives no breakdown of how many units fall at each end.

The project's developer is not named in the structured data supplied to us. That is worth sitting with before anything else: at this stage of underwriting, we would expect the sponsoring entity to be a matter of public record, and here it is simply absent from what we were given.

Financing to date consists of a $36,080,000 loan from Amerant Bank. The source evidence describes this specifically as a pre-development loan, not expressly as construction financing — a distinction that matters, since pre-development money typically covers land, design, and entitlement costs, not the vertical build itself.

No price has been published — not a starting price, not a ceiling, not a price-per-square-foot figure. We cannot tell you what a unit here costs, and any number you hear elsewhere should be treated as unverified until it appears in a disclosed source.

What is published is the deposit schedule: 20% at contract signing, 10% at groundbreaking, 10% at top-off, and the remaining 60% described as due upon delivery. That is a back-loaded schedule by Miami standards — most of your capital is exposed for the entire construction period, then due in a lump sum at closing.

No HOA or monthly association fee is published. No amenities list was supplied. No rental policy — including whether short-term rental will be permitted — is in the evidence. If any of these matter to your decision, you are currently buying without them.

The project record does not name a developer. Separately, the legal records supplied are tagged with scope "developer" and involve Fortune International Group, Fortune International Realty, Fortune International Hospitality, and Edgardo A. DeFortuna — but neither of those litigation entries concerns ORA. One involves a lender's claim over the Jade Ocean condominium project, alleging $1.5 million owed and improper direction of funds to affiliates; Fortune denied the allegations, and no final disposition is stated in the evidence. The other involves the M Resort Residences condominium association disputing whether unit owners held fee-simple interests, at a project marketed as a condo-hotel; a 2011 appellate ruling quashed certain fee-payment orders without resolving the underlying case.

We flag both because they are what the evidence contains under "developer" scope, and because rule requires us to state plainly: neither lawsuit concerns this building, its construction, its financing, or its buyers. If these entities are in fact behind ORA, that connection is not confirmed anywhere in what we were given — which is itself a gap you should ask your broker to close in writing.

On track record proper — number of prior deliveries, average delay against promised completion dates, defect litigation, lender defaults — nothing is published. The score reflects that near-total absence, not a finding of poor performance.

Florida law escrows only the first 10% of a preconstruction deposit by statute. Everything collected above that threshold — and here, the schedule calls for 40% before delivery (20% at contract, 10% at groundbreaking, 10% at top-off) — sits outside that statutory protection unless the developer has voluntarily agreed to escrow more, which is not stated in this evidence. Combined with 100% of the purchase price due before completion, this is the reason the deposit protection score sits at 2 out of the scale used.

Association dues (HOA) are not published; the carrying-cost score was set at the category midpoint specifically because of that gap, not because dues are known to be moderate. Insurance costs — an increasingly material line item for new Miami high-rises — are also unpublished.

On the positive side of the ledger: as new construction, ORA is not subject to Florida's SB-4D milestone structural inspection requirement within the next ten years, which is a real cost avoided relative to older buildings in the same market.

The address is 1210 Brickell Avenue, in Brickell — Miami's dense financial-district corridor. Beyond the address itself, the evidence supplies no transit walk-time figure, no FEMA flood zone designation, and no data on protected view corridors.

No information on adjacent or planned towers was supplied — the nearby-development field is empty. In a corridor as active as Brickell, that is a meaningful blank: what gets approved on the neighboring parcel in the next five years can matter as much as what you buy today, and we simply do not have that picture here.

The location score of 6 reflects a reasonably regarded corridor address with almost no supporting detail behind it — treat it as a placeholder score built on an incomplete file, not a confident read on durability.

The dominant risk here is disclosure, not any single red flag. No price, no per-square-foot figure, no HOA, no escrow percentage above the statutory floor, no rental policy, no sales percentage, and no confirmed developer name — that is six or seven separate gaps in the file for a $2 million-class purchase decision, and each one compounds the others.

The deposit structure itself is a specific, quantifiable concern: 40% of the price is due before groundbreaking is even complete, with only the first 10% guaranteed by Florida statute to sit in escrow. If the project stalls after top-off, a buyer's exposure is considerably larger than the statutory minimum implies.

The litigation entries in the evidence, again, concern other properties — Jade Ocean and M Resort Residences — not ORA, and one produced a denial from the named party with no stated final resolution. We include them only because the evidence tags them under "developer" scope and because you should know they exist if the developer connection is confirmed elsewhere. They should not be read as a judgment on this building.

Finally: the construction loan on record is described as pre-development financing, not construction financing outright. Until a construction loan proper is disclosed, delivery risk should be read as elevated relative to a project with vertical financing already in place.