Are you specifically happy about the lowered requirements to terminate an HOA? Because the rest of it seems fairly procedural (adding specific sub-courts to process arbitration for example).
As someone who is on the board of an association (condo [COA], so not optional like an HOA), getting 67% of the association to sign off on removing it will be a tough, but not impossible hurdle to overcome. It also appears that it would still need to go to court after succeeding so while it's a win for making it possible (when the requirement was 100% it was all but guaranteed it would fail), it's still very unlikely that an association would be terminated under these new laws.
Definitely good news for the especially egregious ones (or the zombie HOA that comes back after being dormant by an overzealous neighbor)
20% of doors and a majority of the board isn't much when plenty of boards are just 3 members. I presume once this passes a bunch of HOAs will be disbanded after their next board election.
(6)(a) A plan of termination must be approved by at least two-thirds of the total voting interests of the association.
20% is just to force the meeting where the vote occurs. 67% required of all membership required to approve. It would be insane if you could dissolve an association with 20% and a rogue board.
Yah how would that work legally? I'm not sure the towns can stop a HOA from not collecting any money from its residents or even releasing their records on title.
I can see where a private neighborhood disbands and some things will fall into disrepair quickly, like landscaping overgrowing or dumpsters not getting picked up. Homes would have to arrange individual trash pickup.
But then there are longer term issues, like roads not being maintained and taxes not being paid on things. Presumably the city could sue the defunct HOA for not keeping up any agreements the builder passed on from the original land acquisition and permitting. With that default judgement they could take title on the pools and parks, and either maintain some, or sell them off to an apartment developer as an FU to the residents.
I don't know what they would do about the deteriorating private roads. They can probably go for a few years without major issues. My hope is they would Eminent Domain them and fold them into the general city system, but who knows?
In the Florida example I imagine the plan to terminate would be denied by the courts in this scenario. It appears that they have to go through the courts to get the termination approved.
C.O.As are a different animal. There disbanding and dissolving would be much harder to do. That point is at least imo an inarguable one. So I can see there a definite case for the courts to become involved.
The sfh H.O.A.however should be much easier to dissolve and disband, vs the sfh H.O.A. setup. Also it shouldn't take a sixty seven percent vote, to dissolve and disband. It shouldn't take more than sixty percent. Then those want to be in one, can form a new one, if possible. They should also be prohibited from trying to force or coerce new home buyers of an existing former property into joining, with if they join, to remove that property from it, or if and when sold later on, the newer buyer can't be forced into remaining a part of it. Nor able to be forced into compliance, of the property is no longer a part of the H.O.A..
You're right though on the score of dormant H.O.A.s. If one has been dormant after a set preset umber of years, then that H.O.A. should automatically be dissolved and disbanded. Which means that the owners, should have the right to have all of the encumbrances stripped from the deed/titlf the H.O.A.
A one hundred percent requirement is virtually impossible to achieve, as all it takes is one dissenting vote to fail. Which there will almost in every case that one person to block it. Also the board shouldn't be permitted to override the majority vote. That places to much power in the hands of a tyrannical board. Plus it also opens those majority did vote to becoming targets for retaliatory actions, as well as doing things to prevent anyone from challenging them for a position, that will overturn their decision. It figuratively opens the door for cronyism on the board.
You also have developers, who will hold onto a certain number properties to maintain a degree if authority/control. They're not going to want to lose that extra money, or the control over the development. Which developers some will even stop building, or go slowly over several years, to maintain control. The developers can be either no better, or worse to deal with, and more so if they get extra votes, per undeveloped lot not sold. Developers aren't blind to that, as some have languished incomplete for more than ten years. Most developers are more canny about things like that, than people either realizes, or thinks that they are.
I realized that. However there can be things to get in the way and prevent that, as I pointed out. Also many H.O.A. property management companies, that will acquire or try to do so just to prevent it from happening. That gives them voting power. Which is point I missed in my comment. So adding that in and that two thirds majority can become literally unattainable goal. Even some basic property management companies has jumped into the mix of buying up properties in H.O.A.s, for rental purposes. This also goes into why the thresh hold needs to be lower, at least imo. There's more than what is generally seen at a glance, or on the surface of things.
I don't really agree, if 2/3rds of the voting interest (ie. the people/entities that pay 2/3rds of the expenses of the community) don't support something then it shouldn't happen. Who owns it is really not important. The way to avoid that is to have strong governing documents that don't allow that behavior (ie. ban or limit rentals), but ironically this is the same 'overreach' that makes one want to terminate HOAs in the first place.
Here's a quick reading from what I found about this HB657:
Dissolution of HOAs: Homeowners can initiate the dissolution of their HOA under specific conditions, requiring a petition signed by at least 20% of voting members and approval by a majority of the board.
Community Association Court Program: The bill establishes a dedicated court program for resolving HOA disputes, enhancing access to justice for homeowners.
Governing Document Changes: It mandates that associations include Kaufman language in their governing documents, ensuring they are updated with new laws and amendments.
Accountability Measures: The bill aims to hold HOA officers accountable for violations related to the dissolution process, with penalties for misuse of funds.
The bill is expected to take effect on July 1, 2026, and has been filed by Representative Juan Porras, who has previously proposed similar reforms.
What is my Opinion? This is a win for the people. HOAs keep using the conservative American image. If they truly believe in free speech, then there should be the freedom to vote their ass outta here.
If that's true then that makes it harder to dissolve. Currently the law does not require the board's approval if the the super majority of homeowners vote to dissolve.
Removals are struck through and new language is underlined.
There is nothing in there requiring board approval for dissolution.
It does appear that board members will become significantly more personally liable for their behavior which I definitely welcome because up until now the DBPR has been pretty much useless.
many don't have anywhere else to live then, Many places in the country have All new homes and most existing homes in an HOA. BY DEFAULT. it's an epidemic and needs to be addressed.
That’s nonsense. There are LOTS of places to live, everywhere. What you mean is that people cant find the perfect place they want for 50% of the cast. I could go out today and find 100 houses in my area that i would consider, abd NO E in an HOA.
Funny that you think Florida's state government would pass anything that would help real people. There's a lobby behind this somewhere, and it will end up worse than it is now. I have very little faith in my HOA, but none whatsoever in the state, so I'll take my chances with the local demons.
They can be either donated to the city in the case of common spaces, and in the case of the roads turned over to the city. The answer is just that simple.
The skeptics are right. It’s not a done deal everywhere. At my HOA there is no way the town will pay for the landscaping of common areas. They are not open spaces accessible from the street. They are in and around and in back of the townhomes. The pool will be neglected and will turn green from algae. Besides, a vote to turn it over to the public will get zero support.
Are you specifically happy about the lowered requirements to terminate an HOA? Because the rest of it seems fairly procedural (adding specific sub-courts to process arbitration for example).
The ability to terminate them! So many are abusive.
As someone who is on the board of an association (condo [COA], so not optional like an HOA), getting 67% of the association to sign off on removing it will be a tough, but not impossible hurdle to overcome. It also appears that it would still need to go to court after succeeding so while it's a win for making it possible (when the requirement was 100% it was all but guaranteed it would fail), it's still very unlikely that an association would be terminated under these new laws.
Definitely good news for the especially egregious ones (or the zombie HOA that comes back after being dormant by an overzealous neighbor)
20% of doors and a majority of the board isn't much when plenty of boards are just 3 members. I presume once this passes a bunch of HOAs will be disbanded after their next board election.
20% is just to force the meeting where the vote occurs. 67% required of all membership required to approve. It would be insane if you could dissolve an association with 20% and a rogue board.
Really unlikely unless towns are suddenly willing to take on a lot of responsibilities
Yah how would that work legally? I'm not sure the towns can stop a HOA from not collecting any money from its residents or even releasing their records on title.
I can see where a private neighborhood disbands and some things will fall into disrepair quickly, like landscaping overgrowing or dumpsters not getting picked up. Homes would have to arrange individual trash pickup.
But then there are longer term issues, like roads not being maintained and taxes not being paid on things. Presumably the city could sue the defunct HOA for not keeping up any agreements the builder passed on from the original land acquisition and permitting. With that default judgement they could take title on the pools and parks, and either maintain some, or sell them off to an apartment developer as an FU to the residents.
I don't know what they would do about the deteriorating private roads. They can probably go for a few years without major issues. My hope is they would Eminent Domain them and fold them into the general city system, but who knows?
In the Florida example I imagine the plan to terminate would be denied by the courts in this scenario. It appears that they have to go through the courts to get the termination approved.
I’d love to see what would happen. …one snowstorm on the private roads and no one plows!
C.O.As are a different animal. There disbanding and dissolving would be much harder to do. That point is at least imo an inarguable one. So I can see there a definite case for the courts to become involved.
The sfh H.O.A.however should be much easier to dissolve and disband, vs the sfh H.O.A. setup. Also it shouldn't take a sixty seven percent vote, to dissolve and disband. It shouldn't take more than sixty percent. Then those want to be in one, can form a new one, if possible. They should also be prohibited from trying to force or coerce new home buyers of an existing former property into joining, with if they join, to remove that property from it, or if and when sold later on, the newer buyer can't be forced into remaining a part of it. Nor able to be forced into compliance, of the property is no longer a part of the H.O.A..
You're right though on the score of dormant H.O.A.s. If one has been dormant after a set preset umber of years, then that H.O.A. should automatically be dissolved and disbanded. Which means that the owners, should have the right to have all of the encumbrances stripped from the deed/titlf the H.O.A.
A one hundred percent requirement is virtually impossible to achieve, as all it takes is one dissenting vote to fail. Which there will almost in every case that one person to block it. Also the board shouldn't be permitted to override the majority vote. That places to much power in the hands of a tyrannical board. Plus it also opens those majority did vote to becoming targets for retaliatory actions, as well as doing things to prevent anyone from challenging them for a position, that will overturn their decision. It figuratively opens the door for cronyism on the board.
You also have developers, who will hold onto a certain number properties to maintain a degree if authority/control. They're not going to want to lose that extra money, or the control over the development. Which developers some will even stop building, or go slowly over several years, to maintain control. The developers can be either no better, or worse to deal with, and more so if they get extra votes, per undeveloped lot not sold. Developers aren't blind to that, as some have languished incomplete for more than ten years. Most developers are more canny about things like that, than people either realizes, or thinks that they are.
I'm a little confused about your 60% idea. The proposed law in question specifically says 2/3rds of total voting interest (hence 67%).
I realized that. However there can be things to get in the way and prevent that, as I pointed out. Also many H.O.A. property management companies, that will acquire or try to do so just to prevent it from happening. That gives them voting power. Which is point I missed in my comment. So adding that in and that two thirds majority can become literally unattainable goal. Even some basic property management companies has jumped into the mix of buying up properties in H.O.A.s, for rental purposes. This also goes into why the thresh hold needs to be lower, at least imo. There's more than what is generally seen at a glance, or on the surface of things.
I don't really agree, if 2/3rds of the voting interest (ie. the people/entities that pay 2/3rds of the expenses of the community) don't support something then it shouldn't happen. Who owns it is really not important. The way to avoid that is to have strong governing documents that don't allow that behavior (ie. ban or limit rentals), but ironically this is the same 'overreach' that makes one want to terminate HOAs in the first place.
Here's a quick reading from what I found about this HB657:
Dissolution of HOAs: Homeowners can initiate the dissolution of their HOA under specific conditions, requiring a petition signed by at least 20% of voting members and approval by a majority of the board.
Community Association Court Program: The bill establishes a dedicated court program for resolving HOA disputes, enhancing access to justice for homeowners.
Governing Document Changes: It mandates that associations include Kaufman language in their governing documents, ensuring they are updated with new laws and amendments.
Accountability Measures: The bill aims to hold HOA officers accountable for violations related to the dissolution process, with penalties for misuse of funds.
The bill is expected to take effect on July 1, 2026, and has been filed by Representative Juan Porras, who has previously proposed similar reforms.
What is my Opinion? This is a win for the people. HOAs keep using the conservative American image. If they truly believe in free speech, then there should be the freedom to vote their ass outta here.
If that's true then that makes it harder to dissolve. Currently the law does not require the board's approval if the the super majority of homeowners vote to dissolve.
The proposed changes are detailed here: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2026/657/BillText/Filed/PDF
Removals are struck through and new language is underlined.
There is nothing in there requiring board approval for dissolution.
It does appear that board members will become significantly more personally liable for their behavior which I definitely welcome because up until now the DBPR has been pretty much useless.
whole HoA thing is a mess bro like just let people live how they want
Then they shouldn’t buy into an HOA. There are no victims, only volunteer. NO ONE has a gun put to their head to buy into an HOA.
many don't have anywhere else to live then, Many places in the country have All new homes and most existing homes in an HOA. BY DEFAULT. it's an epidemic and needs to be addressed.
That’s nonsense. There are LOTS of places to live, everywhere. What you mean is that people cant find the perfect place they want for 50% of the cast. I could go out today and find 100 houses in my area that i would consider, abd NO E in an HOA.
There are lots of urban aces where people”live how they want.” They are usually called slums.
[deleted]
????
That comment was meant for someone else. Which was why I've removed it.
Funny that you think Florida's state government would pass anything that would help real people. There's a lobby behind this somewhere, and it will end up worse than it is now. I have very little faith in my HOA, but none whatsoever in the state, so I'll take my chances with the local demons.
My HOA, with so much common area to maintain cannot possibly be dissolved.
That's simply put, wrong.
Then what will happen to the common spaces, clubhouse, maintenance of roads, pools. ?
They can be either donated to the city in the case of common spaces, and in the case of the roads turned over to the city. The answer is just that simple.
The county where I live will not take responsibility for roads. Parking areas, pools etc. in a HOA.
You think the city just takes donations of liabilities?
The skeptics are right. It’s not a done deal everywhere. At my HOA there is no way the town will pay for the landscaping of common areas. They are not open spaces accessible from the street. They are in and around and in back of the townhomes. The pool will be neglected and will turn green from algae. Besides, a vote to turn it over to the public will get zero support.
[removed]
Rule 3 Violation:
Don't be rude. - Fuck HOAs but be civil to each other.
Sorry. Not saying the person is dumb, but the idea is patently ridiculous.
Not in a million years at my HOA for a dozen valid reasons. Zero support by owners.