The Uneven Architecture of Private Governance in Florida Communities

October 9, 2025 By Paul Grant Truesdell DISCLAIMER

This document is intended for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal, tax, or professional advice and should not be relied upon as such. The concepts and opinions expressed reflect general observations regarding Florida law and governance practices and may not apply to specific factual circumstances. Individuals and associations should consult with qualified legal counsel or licensed professionals before taking any action based on this discussion. Nothing in this publication establishes an advisory, attorney-client relationship, guarantees any specific legal outcome. The reader assumes full responsibility for all decisions made in reliance upon this information.

Florida’s Homeowners’ Associations Began

Florida’s homeowners’ associations began as neighborhood cooperatives intended to maintain shared spaces and protect property values. What they became is something far more complex — a hybrid of corporate entity, quasi-government, and social contract. They govern millions of residents, oversee billions in assets, and operate with a level of influence that in practice often exceeds that of local government. Yet their legal foundation remains a patchwork of statutory fragments, case law exceptions, and volunteer-run boards navigating complex fiduciary terrain.

A well-run HOA can preserve value and stability. A poorly run one can turn a neighborhood into a hostile bureaucracy. The difference is rarely the documents themselves; it is the way power is structured and exercised under Florida’s statutory framework.

The Structural Dilemma

An HOA in Florida functions as a private corporation. It enforces covenants, collects assessments, and maintains shared property. Its board of directors wields corporate powers: adopting budgets, entering contracts, and exercising discretion over community rules. But while the law treats it as a corporation, the practical reality is that its shareholders — the homeowners — live under its jurisdiction, not just invest in it. The lines between private management and civil governance blur quickly when a board controls access to amenities, levies fines, or places liens that can lead to foreclosure.

Theoretically, these powers are balanced by democratic accountability through elections. In practice, the combination of apathy, limited transparency, and statutory deference to boards leaves many residents with minimal recourse. When disagreements arise, the association’s attorney is paid with collective funds while the homeowner must finance personal counsel. The imbalance is structural, not incidental.

The Shield of the Business Judgment Rule

At the center of this imbalance lies the Business Judgment Rule — a doctrine imported from corporate law that shields directors from liability so long as their decisions are made in good faith, within authority, and for a legitimate business purpose. In corporate settings, the rule encourages entrepreneurial risk-taking. In a neighborhood context, however, it sometimes becomes a blanket excuse for mediocrity, favoritism, or inaction.

Florida courts have consistently extended this protection to HOA boards, reasoning that volunteer service should not expose citizens to endless litigation. That reasoning is defensible in theory but flawed in effect. Unlike corporate directors, HOA board members are not managing shareholder investments; they are governing the daily lives of their neighbors. The consequences of mismanagement are personal — denied access to amenities, excessive assessments, selective enforcement, and reputational harm.

Courts rarely look beyond the formalities. If minutes reflect that a board “considered” an issue, the presumption of good faith usually attaches. The result is a culture of procedural box-checking that replaces genuine accountability with legal insulation.

Experience Versus Authority

Most HOA board members are well-meaning volunteers, not trained administrators. They often lack background in corporate governance, fiduciary duty, or statutory compliance. Yet they control operating budgets that in large communities rival small municipal governments. When errors occur — from mishandled maintenance contracts to violations of state record laws — the association, not the individual board member, bears the cost. This dynamic incentivizes risk aversion and deference to management companies or counsel, creating a feedback loop of dependency where legal fees rise and homeowner trust declines.

The business judgment shield becomes both sword and shelter. It discourages scrutiny by residents who recognize that the legal threshold for “bad faith” is nearly unreachable. Only when misconduct rises to the level of fraud, gross negligence, or self-dealing does the protection collapse. By then, the damage — financial and communal — is already done.

Precedent and Practice

Florida case law shows how this dynamic plays out. In Simmons v. Pebble Creek HOA, a couple fought an eleven-year battle over a $2,200 resodding charge. They ultimately prevailed, but only after spending hundreds of thousands of dollars. Their victory was symbolic, not efficient. The appellate record reveals what every HOA dispute demonstrates: once the system moves from mediation to litigation, the economics collapse.

Other cases illustrate both extremes. Homeowners have succeeded when HOAs failed to follow statutory procedures, such as providing records within ten business days or issuing proper notice before levying fines. Conversely, associations have prevailed where they adhered to process, even when their actions appeared harsh. Process, not fairness, becomes the decisive factor.

This procedural bias reflects a broader truth about Florida’s HOA law: the statutes define minimum compliance, not optimal governance. Boards that meet the letter of the law are protected even if they violate its spirit.

The Political Speech Paradox

One of the most under-examined areas of HOA authority involves political expression. Florida Statute § 720.304 nominally protects a homeowner’s right to peaceably assemble and to invite public officials or candidates into common areas. Yet the same law allows “reasonable” restrictions — a term undefined and thus subject to elastic interpretation. HOAs routinely exploit that elasticity, denying use of clubhouses for political meetings or banning campaign signs under “aesthetic” policies.

The courts have offered little guidance. Because HOAs are private entities, they are not considered state actors, and thus First Amendment protections do not apply directly. The statutory safeguard substitutes for constitutional rights but lacks enforcement teeth. A resident denied access must pursue costly civil litigation for injunctive relief, often without precedent to rely upon.

This gap undermines one of the most basic principles of community life — the right to civic engagement. In effect, private governments within Florida can silence lawful political participation in spaces funded by residents themselves. The Legislature attempted to strike a balance between order and expression but instead created ambiguity ripe for abuse.

A Matter of Scale and Maturity

What Florida faces today is not a legal novelty but a maturity problem. The HOA model was never designed to manage populations of the current scale. In many counties, HOAs govern more residents than incorporated towns, yet their leaders receive less oversight than a condominium treasurer or a volunteer fire chief. The state has layered new rules atop outdated structures, producing a legal mosaic instead of a coherent system.

The Business Judgment Rule protects directors but leaves homeowners exposed. The statutes recognize rights but lack enforcement. Political speech is theoretically safeguarded yet practically suppressed. This misalignment is not sustainable.

Reform requires re-engineering, not tinkering — aligning private governance with public expectations while respecting contractual autonomy. It demands transparency, education, and accountability equal to the financial and social power these associations wield.

Reconstructing Accountability: Reforming Florida’s HOA Framework for the 21st Century

The time has come for Florida to treat homeowners’ associations as what they have become — quasi-governments managing private tax bases under the guise of neighborhood cooperation. Their impact on residents’ property rights, speech, and finances rivals that of municipal authorities, yet they operate with a fraction of the oversight. The solution is not to abolish the HOA structure, but to reform it with the same discipline that corporate and public boards already face.

The principles of reform must be rooted in three realities. First, property rights are not surrendered at the neighborhood gate. Second, voluntary service cannot excuse incompetence or abuse of power. Third, private governance is sustainable only when its processes meet public standards of fairness, transparency, and proportionality.

I. Education and Competence as Prerequisites to Authority

Most HOA boards are populated by well-intentioned volunteers, but good intentions do not substitute for knowledge. A director overseeing a multi-million-dollar budget should not operate on instinct or personal preference. Corporate officers receive training, financial managers study compliance, and public officials complete ethics courses. The same expectation should apply to anyone controlling common funds or enforcing private laws.

Florida’s condominium statutes already require board member education. Extending that requirement to all HOAs is not a burden — it is an act of modernization. Mandatory orientation within ninety days of election should cover fiduciary duty, budgeting, record-keeping, statutory timelines, conflict-of-interest rules, and the use of professional advisors. Continuing education every two years would ensure that turnover does not erode institutional competence.

In Florida, every newly elected county commissioner is required to attend New Commissioner School, a structured orientation conducted through the Florida Association of Counties. That program, combined with ongoing professional development, ensures that local officials understand budgeting, ethics, statutory compliance, and procedural due process before they cast their first vote. It is not ceremonial; it is foundational.

The same standard applies to law enforcement leadership. The Florida Sheriffs Association, in coordination with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, mandates that all new sheriffs complete New Sheriff School, a rigorous orientation covering organizational management, personnel law, public safety administration, and legal liability. This requirement exists because, in Florida, a sheriff does not have to be a certified law enforcement officer to hold office — just as a Justice of the United States Supreme Court need not be an attorney.

The point is clear: experience may build judgment, but training builds competence. You cannot train common sense, but you can teach law, regulation, and procedure. The state recognizes this in virtually every other leadership domain, from county commissions to constitutional offices. There is no reason HOA governance should remain an exception.

Just as a sheriff must understand policies before managing a department, and a commissioner must know budget law before voting on expenditures, an HOA director must understand fiduciary responsibility before imposing assessments or authorizing enforcement. Structured education is not a luxury; it is a safeguard. It ensures that the people entrusted with real authority — to spend, to fine, to enforce, and to decide — know the framework within which they operate.

Education is not about bureaucracy. It is about risk management. A single uninformed board decision — a mishandled contract, a selective fine, a neglected inspection — can trigger lawsuits that consume reserve funds and divide communities. An educated board mitigates that risk, just as a licensed financial advisor or trustee must demonstrate competence before handling another person’s assets.

II. Transparency and Fiscal Discipline

The foundation of any legitimate government or corporation is transparency. Yet in Florida, many HOA financial statements remain locked behind procedural hurdles or ambiguous record definitions. Residents seeking to review expenditures are often stonewalled by management companies or told to submit written requests that go unanswered.

The state’s ten-business-day rule for document production is clear, but enforcement is weak. A statutory right without an automatic penalty is merely a suggestion. The law should impose meaningful consequences for noncompliance: a daily fine, reimbursement of legal fees, and potential removal of directors who repeatedly obstruct access to records.

Annual audits by independent certified public accountants should be mandatory for any association with revenues exceeding five hundred thousand dollars. These audits should confirm not only financial accuracy but compliance with statutory reserves and insurance funding. The results should be summarized and published online for member review — not buried in a filing cabinet.

Transparency is not punitive; it is preventative. Open books reduce suspicion, deter misconduct, and build credibility. When residents see that their assessments fund legitimate expenses, political tension dissipates. Trust replaces rumor.

III. Recalibrating the Business Judgment Rule

The Business Judgment Rule has been the cornerstone of corporate law for over a century. Its logic is sound: decision-makers should not be second-guessed merely because outcomes disappoint. But its blind transplantation into HOA law ignores context. Corporate shareholders can sell stock and walk away. Homeowners cannot move as easily. When a board’s bad decision devalues a home or limits its use, the injury is both financial and personal.

Florida should adopt a more tailored standard — a Reasonable Reliance Rule — applying immunity only when a board’s action is based on documented facts, professional advice, or reasonable investigation. Immunity should not extend to decisions made out of convenience, bias, or emotion.

Furthermore, the minutes of any meeting authorizing major expenditures or enforcement actions should reflect the basis of that decision. If a lawsuit arises, the association can then demonstrate that it met its fiduciary duty through informed deliberation, not arbitrary choice.

This refinement would preserve protection for honest volunteers while restoring accountability for careless or authoritarian boards. It would also align Florida law with modern corporate governance standards emphasizing transparency and documented rationale.

IV. Political Speech and Civic Freedom

No area of HOA law better illustrates the tension between private order and public freedom than political speech. In theory, Florida Statute § 720.304 guarantees homeowners the right to peaceably assemble and invite candidates to speak within common areas. In practice, many associations ban campaign meetings, prohibit signage, and censor newsletters — all under the banner of “aesthetics” or “nonpartisanship.”

This selective suppression undermines the spirit of citizenship. The First Amendment may not bind private associations, but Florida’s legislature can and should impose statutory safeguards for political engagement in privately governed communities.

Reform should begin by clarifying that any rule prohibiting the use of common areas for lawful civic meetings is presumptively unreasonable. Associations may regulate scheduling, security, and maintenance, but they may not deny use based solely on political content. Similarly, homeowners should have the right to display at least one sign supporting a candidate or issue on their private property, subject only to size and safety limits.

The Legislature already protects certain flag displays — national, state, and military — recognizing them as expressions of identity and honor. Political expression deserves equal respect. No resident should lose their right to participate in democracy because they live behind a gate.

V. Oversight and Enforcement

The weakest link in Florida’s HOA system is enforcement. The Department of Business and Professional Regulation oversees condominiums but not most homeowner associations. This asymmetry leaves homeowners at the mercy of local courts, where procedural complexity and cost discourage valid complaints.

Florida needs a dedicated Community Association Division with investigative authority, rulemaking power, and public reporting obligations. The division should oversee education, audit filings, and homeowner complaints. A parallel Ombudsman’s Office could mediate disputes before litigation, reducing court congestion and preserving community relationships.

Such oversight is not intrusive government. It is prudent regulation of a multi-billion-dollar sector that has long operated in legal limbo.

VI. Redefining Reasonableness

“Reasonableness” is one of the most overused and underdefined words in HOA law. Boards rely on it to justify almost any action, from architectural denials to amenity suspensions. The Legislature should codify a concrete definition: a rule is reasonable only if it bears a direct and proportionate relationship to a legitimate purpose such as safety, aesthetics, or property value, and is applied uniformly across all members.

Placing the burden of proof on associations — rather than homeowners — would finally balance the scales. If a board wants to restrict political signage or deny use of a clubhouse, it should be required to document why the restriction is necessary and how it serves a legitimate purpose.

VII. Fiscal Sanity and Limits on Foreclosure

Finally, Florida should revisit the draconian power of HOAs to foreclose over minor fines. The ability to seize a home over a few hundred dollars in penalties contradicts any reasonable conception of proportionality. Foreclosure should be limited to unpaid assessments directly tied to maintenance or essential services, not punitive fines.

Associations should also be restricted from charging excessive attorney’s fees in small disputes. Legal escalation should not become a profit center. The goal of enforcement is compliance, not confiscation.

Toward a New Contract

The fundamental problem with Florida’s HOA structure is that it relies on 20th-century assumptions in a 21st-century reality. What began as neighborhood management has become a system of private governance. With that evolution must come maturity — professionalism, oversight, and respect for civic rights.

A modern HOA law must recognize that governance, even when private, is a public act. It shapes behavior, affects property values, and influences social cohesion. Homeowners are not subjects; they are shareholders in a common enterprise. Their rights must be defined as clearly as their obligations.

The reforms outlined here are not radical. They are overdue.

We need the courage on an individual and collective level, and demand more from our elected servants. Florida requires confident, capable legislative representation — in both the House and the Senate — focused on meaningful reform rather than ceremonial gestures. This is not about political theater or attaching one’s name to a bill that will never see the light of day. It is about mechanics, not campaigning. The work ahead requires legislators who understand that property rights, due process, and local governance are not academic talking points but daily realities for millions of homeowners. County commissioners also play an essential role. They are often the closest to the people and maintain regular contact with state legislators. A good county commissioner understands their “keystone” position in government. Their influence carries weight, and their advocacy can bridge the gap between neighborhood frustration and legislative response. Those in public office who are unwilling or unable to engage with this issue should step aside for those who will. Competent, engaged leadership — at every level — is the only path to restoring trust and efficiency in Florida’s most common form of local governance: the homeowners’ association.

Balancing Property, Power, and Participation: A Framework for Florida’s HOA Reform

The health of any self-governing system depends on balance — between authority and accountability, between private control and public right. Florida’s homeowners’ associations were conceived to maintain community order and property values, but over time they have evolved into a parallel form of local government operating without the constitutional restraints that define traditional governance.

When the lines between corporate structure and civic authority blur, the risk of overreach grows. HOA boards enforce rules, levy penalties, and in some cases seize homes. They regulate expression, dictate architectural choices, and control access to shared spaces. Yet their members are not elected under public law, and their actions are shielded by contractual doctrines that treat governance as a private act, even when its effects are unmistakably public.

The resulting tension between private autonomy and civic freedom is the defining challenge of HOA law in Florida.

I. Lessons from Florida Case Law

The existing body of Florida case law provides a fragmented but instructive picture. In Simmons v. Pebble Creek HOA, homeowners spent more than a decade fighting a small assessment imposed for lawn resodding. They ultimately won, but their victory underscored the inefficiency and inequity of the system. The process, not the principle, was the punishment.

Other cases, such as Pecchia v. Wayside Estates HOA and Vizzi v. Eagles Master Association, expose recurring procedural failures — delayed records, selective enforcement, and arbitrary fines. These disputes reveal a pattern: HOAs often lose not because they act maliciously, but because they fail to comply with statutory timelines or internal procedures. Compliance, in the legal sense, has become a game of technicalities rather than a standard of fairness.

Conversely, in cases where associations have prevailed — such as those enforcing architectural standards or collecting unpaid assessments — the courts have reinforced the authority of boards that act within their documents and follow due process. In these decisions, the judiciary has made its position clear: the law favors process over sentiment. A board that checks the procedural boxes is presumed reasonable. A homeowner who cannot prove arbitrary action faces an uphill battle.

This asymmetry reveals a deeper flaw in the structure of HOA governance. The law offers abundant protection for the entity but insufficient recourse for the individual. It recognizes the association’s corporate status but overlooks its governmental behavior.

II. The Political Expression Gap

Perhaps nowhere is that contradiction more apparent than in the area of political speech. Florida Statute § 720.304(2)(a) nominally guarantees homeowners the right to peaceably assemble, invite candidates to speak, and engage in civic discourse within community common areas. The Legislature inserted this provision to counter growing complaints of HOAs denying residents access to clubhouses or banning campaign events.

In practice, enforcement is almost nonexistent. Associations often claim that their denial is based on “neutral rules” — scheduling conflicts, insurance coverage, or “policy against political use.” Courts, reluctant to interfere with private contracts, rarely intervene. As a result, residents who pay for the maintenance of their clubhouses and community centers often find themselves barred from using them for the very activities the statute was designed to protect.

The constitutional issue is subtle but significant. Because HOAs are private entities, the First Amendment does not directly apply. Yet when an association controls access to shared spaces and enforces rules that affect expressive activity, its conduct takes on a quasi-public character. The state, through statute, already acknowledges this by guaranteeing limited rights of assembly. The problem is that the statute stops short of providing a remedy.

The solution is to give the statute teeth. If an HOA denies political use of a facility without clear, documented justification — such as safety, capacity, or scheduling — that denial should be presumed unreasonable under the law. The homeowner should have a simple, low-cost path to seek injunctive relief or damages. Political neutrality should not mean civic silence.

III. Reimagining HOA Law as a Modern Social Contract

At its core, an HOA is a social contract — a voluntary compact where individual owners agree to restrictions in exchange for collective maintenance and value protection. But like all contracts, it relies on mutual performance and good faith. When that balance collapses, courts must intervene to restore fairness.

The modern challenge is that HOAs now function less as contracts and more as micro-governments. They enforce laws, not merely agreements. They hold hearings, levy penalties, and adjudicate disputes. That evolution requires a recalibration of legal expectations.

Just as municipal governments are subject to sunshine laws, public records requirements, and procedural fairness, HOAs should face parallel standards proportional to their authority. Transparency and education are not administrative burdens; they are the price of legitimacy.

A Homeowner Bill of Rights should be enacted to codify that legitimacy. It would not eliminate associations or diminish their operational control. It would simply ensure that power is exercised with integrity and that residents retain core civic and property rights.

The Bill should guarantee:

Timely access to all financial and governance records. Equal access to newsletters, digital platforms, and meeting spaces for all political viewpoints. The right to at least one sign or symbol of expression on private property. Mandatory fair hearing procedures before any fine, suspension, or lien. The right to mediate disputes without the threat of immediate litigation. Transparent bidding, vendor disclosure, and conflict-of-interest reporting.

These measures are not radical innovations — they are standard practices in both corporate and public governance. Applying them to HOAs simply acknowledges that these entities have outgrown the label of “private club.”

IV. The Moral and Economic Case for Reform

Opponents of reform often argue that regulation would burden associations or discourage volunteer participation. This argument misunderstands both the economics and the ethics of governance. Accountability does not deter service; it legitimizes it. Board members who act responsibly have nothing to fear from transparency.

From an economic perspective, reform would likely reduce costs. Most HOA litigation arises from poor communication, opaque decision-making, and inconsistent enforcement. Education, documentation, and oversight reduce those variables. The legal fees that drain reserves are symptoms of ignorance and arrogance, not necessity.

From a moral standpoint, reform affirms the dignity of ownership. The ability to buy property is a cornerstone of independence. That independence should not vanish when an owner crosses a gated threshold. A resident who pays assessments, contributes to maintenance, and follows the rules deserves respect, not subservience.

V. Florida’s Legislative Opportunity

The Florida Legislature stands at a crossroads. It can continue patching the HOA statutes with incremental amendments, or it can create a coherent framework that recognizes reality. The path forward is not partisan — it is structural. Whether one values free markets or civic freedom, the argument is the same: power without accountability is a liability.

Florida’s demographic trends make the issue urgent. As the state attracts retirees, investors, and working families into master-planned communities, the number of residents living under HOA authority will only increase. Without reform, the friction between private governance and public expectation will intensify, and litigation will rise accordingly.

VI. The Florida Homeowner Bill of Rights — A Practical Blueprint

Education and Certification: Required training for all board members, with annual refreshers.
Transparency: Mandatory audits and online publication of budgets and contracts.
Speech and Assembly: Guaranteed access to common areas for civic meetings and limited rights to political expression on private property.
Procedural Integrity: Uniform notice and hearing requirements before any fine, lien, or suspension.
Oversight: A state-level Community Association Division with an independent ombudsman.
Accountability: Personal liability for willful misconduct or gross negligence; loss of immunity for noncompliance with statute.
Fair Enforcement: Foreclosure limited to unpaid assessments essential to operation, not punitive fines.
Vendor Disclosure: Transparency in contracts, competitive bidding, and prohibition of self-dealing.
Access to Justice: Low-cost mediation and arbitration options before civil litigation.
Uniformity: Standard definitions of “reasonableness,” “common area,” and “enforcement,” reducing interpretive chaos.

VII. The Path Forward

The debate over HOA reform is not about ideology; it is about trust. Homeowners want to believe their assessments are managed responsibly, that their rights are respected, and that their neighborhood government operates fairly. Board members want clarity, not exposure.

Legislators should want to reduce complaints and litigation, but too many for too long have been blind to the needs of those who live withing HOA communities.

A modernized HOA framework can satisfy all three. It will protect homeowners from abuse, protect boards from frivolous suits, and protect the state from the growing administrative and legal chaos of unregulated private governance.

Florida has long prided itself on innovation in property law. It was among the first states to codify condominiums, the first to pioneer large-scale planned communities, and the first to merge tourism with residential development at scale. It now faces another first — to become the state that modernized private neighborhood governance into a fair, transparent, and balanced system fit for the 21st century.

This is the moment to act. Reforming HOA law is not just a matter of property management — it is a reaffirmation of civic principle.

THE LESSON OF JACK GARGAN: INTEGRITY, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND THE COURAGE TO CONFRONT HYPOCRISY

Now, if you will permit me a brief sidebar — a term used in jury trials when the judge and attorneys step aside from the main courtroom discussion to address an important point privately — I want to do the same here and explain why topics like homeowners’ association laws, and the way they affect honest, tax-paying residents, strike such a nerve with me. It is the same reaction I have when I see the shenanigans and backroom games that too often surface in the financial services industry. Both represent systems that should protect people but instead too often exploit their trust.

There once was a man named Jack Gargan — a name that, for those of us who worked in the trenches of financial planning and fiduciary education during the 1970s and 1980s, still resonates as a symbol of courage and integrity. Jack was not a career politician or a polished corporate executive. He was a veteran, a teacher, a financial consultant, and above all, a citizen who refused to tolerate hypocrisy. Jack and I first crossed paths during the years when he taught finance at Hillsborough Community College. By coincidence, the year he retired from teaching full-time was the year I began my own full-time career in this business. We shared more than a profession; we shared a worldview. Both of us came up through the ranks of financial services in an era before slick marketing and hollow certifications — a time when competence and character meant more than a logo on a business card. Jack had started his professional journey after honorable service in the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Army. He earned his degree in Business Administration from Birmingham–Southern College in 1957, worked as an insurance and financial consultant, and eventually relocated to Florida. He later attended Stetson University College of Law, though he chose not to pursue the practice of law. His early years in Florida placed him squarely at the intersection of finance, education, and public accountability. During that time, he founded what became the International Association of Registered Financial Consultants (IARFC) — originally named the International Association of Registered Financial Planners. The goal was straightforward but profound: to elevate ethical and professional standards in financial advising through continuing education and transparency. I am proud to count myself as a member of that same organization today. The principles Jack stood for — integrity, competence, and accountability — still guide my own professional philosophy decades later. Jack’s professional integrity was not b that had grown comfortable with mediocrity masquerading as expertise. It was a masterclass in exposure: a living demonstration that credentials without competence are meaningless. That incident may sound humorous, but it carried serious weight. Jack’s point was simple — and I have echoed it throughout my career: certification without verification is deception. When an industry’s gatekeepers can’t tell the difference between a trained professional and a dog with a checkbook, reform isn’t optional; it’s overdue. To this day, that is one of the reasons I refuse to affiliate with certain well-known “planning” organizations that have turned professional designation into a marketing business. The public deserves better. If an individual claims to act as a fiduciary, they should demonstrate mastery of the craft and an understanding of the law, not just pass a multiple-choice exam written by a trade group. In many ways, Jack’s later activism in politics mirrored his earlier fight in finance. Around 1989, frustrated by congressional pay raises and the detachment of elected officials from the realities faced by ordinary citizens, he launched a nationwide campaign under the banner T.H.R.O. — Throw the Hypocritical Rascals Out. Using $45,000 of his own retirement savings, he placed full-page ads in major newspapers demanding that voters reject incumbents of both parties. His message was simple, nonpartisan, and timeless: the American people deserve honest representation, not professional incumbency. His campaign struck a national nerve. Jack’s grassroots movement became an early spark for what would later be called the Tea Party movement — not in the modern political sense, but in its original spirit of taxpayer accountability and citizen oversight. In the process, he helped ignite the national debate over term limits, campaign finance reform, and political transparency. The parallels between his work and the challenges faced in homeowners’ associations today are uncanny. Both systems — Congress and the HOA boardroom — begin with good intentions but risk degenerating into self-serving bureaucracies when accountability fades. Both rely on rules that are easily manipulated by those in power. And both need citizens willing to call out hypocrisy, not whisper about it behind closed doors. Jack’s courage didn’t stop at the printed page. He later ran for Congress as a Reform Party candidate, and though he didn’t win, he made an impact. At one point, he served as national chairman of the Reform Party of the United States, succeeding Ross Perot. But as time went on, his disillusionment deepened. He saw firsthand how even reform movements succumb to the same institutional self-preservation that destroys innovation. In his later years, Jack left the country and settled in Thailand, a decision born out of exhaustion and frustration with the political hypocrisy he had spent decades fighting. I understood why he left. But I also knew that I never would. Jack had the heart of a reformer and the mind of an educator, but he had grown weary of pushing a system that refused to listen. I share his frustration, but I also believe that reform requires staying in the arena — standing your ground and fighting until the final whistle blows. You can’t fix a system from the outside; you have to roll up your sleeves and rebuild it from within. The lesson Jack left us is universal. Whether we’re talking about Washington D.C., Tallahassee, or the boardroom of a homeowners’ association, the disease is the same: complacency, entitlement, and hypocrisy. The cure is equally universal: transparency, education, and accountability. Jack Gargan’s story is not a cautionary tale — it’s a roadmap. It shows what one person can accomplish when integrity outweighs convenience. He demonstrated that reform doesn’t begin with institutions; it begins with individuals willing to tell the truth, even when it’s uncomfortable. He was a teacher who refused to stop teaching, even after the classroom lights went out. His lessons live on — not in political slogans, but in principles: • That power without accountability is corruption. • That credentials without competence are fraud. • That silence in the face of hypocrisy is complicity. In many ways, the modern HOA environment mirrors the same conditions that drove Jack to start T.H.R.O. — unaccountable leadership, entrenched interests, and the apathy of those who should know better. The difference is that we don’t need to leave the country to make change. We can do it right here — through legislation, education, and the courage to “throw the hypocritical rascals out” of complacency. If Jack Gargan were alive to see today’s Florida, I have no doubt he would look at our sprawling neighborhoods — governed by volunteers wielding unchecked power — and recognize the same warning signs he saw in Congress decades ago. He would remind us that reform isn’t a one-time act; it’s a continual process of self-examination. And he would likely smile at the irony that a man who once exposed hypocrisy with a dog application may have left behind the clearest blueprint for ethical leadership that the financial and civic worlds have ever known. Jack’s life stands as a testament to what happens when experience meets conscience — and what’s possible when one refuses to confuse silence with civility. His example is not nostalgia; it is instruction. It reminds us that the fight for integrity never ends, and that the only way to honor those who walked before us is to keep walking forward, clear-eyed and unafraid.

xxxx

The Moment of Transition: Leadership, Legacy, and the Law of Consequences

When a developer completes the final phase of a community and transfers control of the homeowners’ association to the residents, a quiet but monumental shift occurs. It is not merely the handover of administrative files or bank accounts. It is the passing of sovereign authority — the moment when private governance becomes truly self-governing. What follows depends entirely on the competence, character, and cohesion of those first resident-led boards.

In the early days of most developments, the builder controls everything. Budgets are predictable, vendors are coordinated, and conflicts are rare. The developer wants stability because instability affects sales. But once the last home closes, the incentives change. The builder’s interest ends at profit realization; the residents’ interest begins at preservation and sustainability. The moment that control transitions, the community either matures into a stable organization or drifts into dysfunction.

I. The Critical First Board

The inaugural resident board sets the tone for everything that follows. It inherits assets, liabilities, and obligations from a corporate entity that often operated under different priorities. It must quickly establish fiscal controls, confirm reserve funding, audit vendor relationships, and assert authority over management contracts written for the developer’s convenience rather than the community’s benefit.

This is not a ceremonial task. It is the most consequential governance event in the life of the association. If the first resident board is comprised of individuals who lack the time, experience, or temperament for disciplined management, the results can be irreversible.

In Florida, we have seen what happens when transitions go wrong: contracts renewed without oversight, records lost or withheld, insurance neglected, and reserves depleted. The absence of early accountability compounds over time. Once bad precedent sets in, future boards inherit not just the mistakes but the culture of avoidance that allowed them.

That is why education and professional orientation at turnover should be mandatory, not optional. Every newly seated resident director should undergo training in fiduciary duties, statutory timelines, and financial management. The board must understand that they are no longer volunteers helping neighbors — they are fiduciaries managing a corporate entity that carries the power to lien, fine, and foreclose. That authority demands structure, not improvisation.

II. The Developer’s Legacy and the Residents’ Burden

Developers often market communities on amenities, not governance. They highlight clubhouses, pools, and gated entries — the visible signs of value. Yet the invisible infrastructure, such as drainage systems, insurance coverage, and reserve adequacy, determines the community’s long-term stability.

When control transfers, residents frequently discover that maintenance costs were underestimated and reserves were never properly funded. The first resident board then faces an unpleasant choice: raise assessments or allow deterioration. Either path sparks conflict, and many boards choose delay — a choice that leads to eventual crisis.

This is not always malice; often it is ignorance. The statutes presume that volunteer residents will possess the same fiscal discipline and institutional knowledge as developers yet provide little in the way of structured transition. That assumption is unrealistic. The Legislature could easily require developers to fund professional onboarding for resident boards, provide audited financial statements at turnover, and certify reserve adequacy. Doing so would protect both sides.

The Perils of Meme-Based Governance

Every community, no matter how well designed, has a small handful of residents who treat social media like a courtroom and Facebook like the town square. These are the meme-based residents — self-appointed experts armed with half the facts and twice the confidence. They post, share, and speculate not to solve problems but to stay relevant. Their approach to civic participation is equal parts gossip, performance, and agitation.

In every 55+ community, these personalities are instantly recognizable. They are loud, certain, and perpetually outraged. If they wear sequined cowboy hats on a 24/7 basis and cackle like a crow, well, there’s your sign. They do not volunteer for practical committees that involve rolling up the sleeves and getting to work, they do not attend meetings with calm deliberative though, and they do not study budgets, instead they have opinions on everything based on flimsy flim-flam. They take to social media, typing in all caps about conspiracies that don’t exist, confident that their commentary is a public service. Their followers are usually a handful of equally discontented spectators who confuse visibility with credibility.

Here’s the real danger: these individuals often know just enough about a topic to be not only misinformed, but dangerous. With a few partial truths (emphasis on “partial”), they can create chaos, discourage good people from serving on boards, and make it appear as though the entire community is in turmoil when in reality, it’s just a few loud voices echoing off the same digital walls. When that small handful mistakes their own noise for a movement, they become what I call “flamethrowers.” They create heat, not light. Their goal isn’t to improve the community — it’s to dominate the conversation. They thrive on conflict because outrage gives them purpose.

The temptation, of course, is to engage. To respond. To correct every false claim or insult. But that is a mistake. When you wrestle a pig in the mud, you may win, but you’ll still get dirty — and the pig will enjoy every minute of it.

The better strategy is patience and professionalism. You counter misinformation not by confrontation, but by communication. You stay steady, factual, and transparent. You let time, documentation, and credibility do the talking. The residents who matter — the ones who value order over chaos — will see the difference. They will recognize professionalism for what it is and theatrics for what it isn’t.

Strong communities are not built by the loudest voices but by the calmest hands. Leadership means understanding that not every comment deserves a reply, not every rumor deserves a rebuttal, and not every critic deserves your attention. What truly deserves your attention is the work — maintaining the property, protecting the budget, and preserving the peace. The rest is noise.

In the end, the greatest service any HOA board can perform for its residents is to model the behavior it wishes to see: calm under pressure, facts over feelings, and action over argument. The flamethrowers will eventually burn themselves out. The adults in the room just have to keep showing up.

And use the “unfriend” and “block” feature found on many social media networks. It’s just that simple.

III. The Human Variable

Even with proper records and reserves, governance ultimately comes down to people. A homeowners’ association is not an abstract legal entity; it is a living organism composed of neighbors, personalities, and competing interests. The first resident board is both a management team and a cultural compass.

The strongest boards are those that balance diversity of skill and uniformity of purpose. One member with legal or accounting experience, another with business management background, another skilled in communication — this composition matters. It is not about ego or status; it is about capability and balance.

Too many communities elect boards by popularity rather than competence. Charismatic candidates win votes, but good governance requires discipline, not applause. The right board chair sets the expectation that meetings begin on time, that budgets are data-driven, and that decisions are documented. The right treasurer demands clarity in accounting and adherence to reserve studies. The right secretary ensures transparency and compliance with records law. Those habits, formed early, define the association for decades.

IV. From Rules to Reputation

Communities rise or fall on reputation. A well-managed HOA signals stability to buyers and lenders, increasing home values and attracting quality residents. A poorly run one invites litigation, vacancies, and decline. The irony is that both reputations are self-reinforcing. Order breeds confidence; dysfunction breeds distrust.

Residents must understand that leadership is not about controlling neighbors — it is about stewardship. Rules are tools, not weapons. The goal is to preserve harmony, not to manufacture uniformity.

HOA leadership requires the same mindset as sound business management: establish clear policies, communicate decisions transparently, apply standards uniformly, and hold oneself accountable first. The Business Judgment Rule protects those who act in good faith, but only if that faith is grounded in diligence and integrity.

V. The Cycle of Reform

Every community begins as a product, becomes an organization, and matures into an institution. The first phase belongs to the developer, the second to the founders, and the third to the future boards who inherit the culture they set. Florida’s problem is not that HOAs exist; it is that they evolve faster than the legal system that governs them.

The reforms discussed throughout this brief — education, transparency, limits on foreclosure, and political rights — are not simply statutory recommendations. They are mechanisms to build resilience at that critical handover point. A system that expects amateur directors to manage multimillion-dollar corporations without training is not freedom — it is negligence disguised as autonomy.

Florida has the opportunity to redefine the national standard. By aligning HOA law with corporate governance principles and civic rights, the state can protect property, preserve freedom, and prevent communities from turning into microcosms of bureaucracy. The state that first invented the modern planned community can now modernize it for the century ahead.

VI. A Final Reflection

The mark of a successful community is not how perfectly it enforces its rules, but how respectfully it manages its disagreements. The first resident board sets that tone. If the foundation is built on fairness, transparency, and competence, future generations will inherit stability. If it begins with conflict, concealment, or complacency, the damage will echo for decades.

Leadership at transition is not about control — it is about continuity. The laws may shape the structure, but people shape the culture. That is why quality leadership at turnover is not optional. It is existential.

Florida’s HOA framework was built for a time when communities were smaller, disputes simpler, and homes cheaper. Today, these private governments oversee billions of dollars in real estate and affect millions of residents. Volunteer boards need accountability, homeowners need enforceable rights, and the state needs an oversight system that matches the economic and social weight of these associations.

The goal is not to dismantle HOAs but to modernize them — ensuring transparency, fairness, and civic freedom while preserving stability, shared responsibility, the rule of law, fiscal integrity, collective protection of property values, safety, and neighborly respect.

Addendum

Ten Cases Where Homeowners (or Residents) Won Against the HOA

Loeffler v. Yachtsman HOA (Lake Wylie, NC / Charlotte area) A homeowner installed vinyl windows after obtaining initial approval. Later the HOA claimed the windows didn’t conform, fined her nearly $12,000, placed a lien on her home, and threatened foreclosure. She sued. The HOA ultimately settled: she kept her windows, the lien was removed, and she was awarded $75,000. (Charlotte Observer)
Disabled Veteran’s Accessible Driveway Case An HOA demanded that a homeowner remove a wheelchair-accessible driveway that had been approved earlier, contending it violated community restrictions. The homeowner prevailed, forcing the HOA to back off. (Robinson & Henry, P.C.)
Sainani v. Belmont Glen HOA (Virginia) The HOA had rules limiting holiday decorations. The Sainanis violated those rules and were fined. The Virginia Supreme Court ruled that the HOA’s seasonal guidelines exceeded the authority granted by its restrictive covenants, and reversed a monetary judgment and attorneys’ fees awarded to the HOA. (Justia Law)
Rancho Palma Grande HOA (Santa Clara, CA) Homeowners discovered an abandoned subterranean well beneath their unit, causing flooding and structural damage. The HOA ignored warnings, withheld information, and mismanaged the issue. A court awarded $1.8 million judgment in favor of the homeowners for neglect, deception, and failure to disclose. (Neighborhood.online)
Currys v. Hillside Patio Homes HOA (California hillside property) The HOA failed to maintain slopes and retain walls behind a homeowner’s property. Their neglect led to major structural damage, forcing the family to vacate. A jury found the HOA liable and awarded $2.6 million. (TBM Lawyers)
Simmons Case (Florida, lawn assessment dispute) A Florida couple was assessed roughly $2,200 for lawn resodding. That dispute escalated over years; they eventually prevailed in court after 11 years of litigation. The cost of their legal fees reportedly exceeded $220,000. (ABA Journal)
Arrowhead Lake Estates (Missouri) A homeowner built a pool and spa beyond what had been submitted and approved. The HOA sued to have the structure removed. On appeal, the court affirmed that the HOA could enforce its declaration and award attorneys’ fees, but the dispute also illustrates that courts will closely interpret the language of governing documents, and homeowners must comply with procedural requirements. (Carmody MacDonald)
Kansas Fence / Declaration Interpretation Case The Restum family objected to the HOA’s demand to fix a fence, arguing that the HOA’s interpretation would change other parts of the declaration unfairly. The appellate court sided with the homeowners, rejecting the HOA’s interpretation as overly broad and ambiguous. (Kansas.com)
Texas “In re Kappmeyer” (Restrictive Covenant Amendment Enforcement) Property owners challenged the enforceability of amended restrictive covenants. The Texas Supreme Court held that the trial court improperly required joinder of all other owners in the subdivision before allowing the lawsuit. The decision affirmed that homeowners should not be burdened by overly aggressive procedural gatekeeping. (Justia Law)
Homeowner’s Challenge to Unauthorized Fines / Lien (Georgia / Channing Cove HOA) A homeowner sued when the HOA placed a lien based on alleged unpaid fines and assessments, claiming the charges were fraudulent and improperly authorized. The HOA ultimately agreed to a $40,000 settlement rather than litigate further. (https://www.atlantanewsfirst.com)

Ten Cases Where the HOA (or Association) Prevailed Against Residents

Goetz v. Villages of Cool Springs HOA (Tennessee) A homeowner painted the trim of his home without prior approval from the HOA, in violation of the declaration. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the HOA, holding the homeowner breached the covenant and awarding attorney’s fees. (Justia Law)
HOA / Association vs. Homeowner Building Without Approval (Arrowhead Lake Estates) In that same Missouri case, the HOA’s suit succeeded to require removal of unapproved structures. The court upheld the principle that homeowners must follow the approved plans and the association may enforce removal or alteration. (Carmody MacDonald)
Selective Enforcement Defense Rejected (Rhode Island – Mignacca case) In a dispute involving a small horse stable, the homeowner argued that the HOA had allowed similar violations elsewhere and thus should be estopped from enforcing. The Rhode Island Supreme Court declined that defense, ruling the HOA was allowed to enforce the covenant selectively so long as it did not act in bad faith. (Hoey & Farina)
HOA Right But No Obligation (Sugarloaf / Greenwald style litigation) In a Georgia trial court, homeowners sued their HOA for selectively enforcing landscaping and structural covenants while ignoring others. The court ruled that the HOA had the right to enforce covenants, but no affirmative duty to enforce every violation. The homeowner claims were dismissed. (Freeman Mathis & Gary)
Merger Doctrine / Deed Restrictions (Florida HOA Precedent Case) Plaintiffs challenged whether certain restrictions applied to their lot, arguing that pre-closing agreements had merged into the deed and no longer bound them. The Florida Supreme Court declined to review the lower court’s decision, effectively allowing the HOA’s restriction enforcement to stand. (BIPC)
HOA vs. Homeowner over architectural or structural changes (various construction defect / defect suits) Many HOAs have successfully litigated against homeowners who made unapproved modifications or alterations, enforcing removal or fines based on the governing documents. (These kinds of cases appear in HOA practice summaries and would depend heavily on document language.) (Robinson & Henry, P.C.)
SLAPP / Anti-Strategic Lawsuit Motions in HOA Disputes In certain cases HOA plaintiffs have succeeded in dismissing homeowner crossclaims via motions under anti-SLAPP statutes or equivalent procedural devices, thereby cutting off counterclaims or defenses by residents. (Cal Attorneys Fees)
Enforcement of Covenants and Attorney Fees under “Prevailing Party” Provisions Many HOA declarations include language that the HOA (as prevailing party) is entitled to attorneys’ fees. In cases where homeowners challenge covenant enforcement but lose, HOAs frequently obtain judgments plus fee awards under those provisions. (Referenced in HOA litigation surveys) (Caibaycen)
HOA Enforcement Ordering Removal of Unapproved Additions or Fences There are numerous unpublished and local court cases in which HOAs successfully sued to force removal of fences, sheds, or exterior alterations done without approval. These cases succeed when the HOA shows clear violation of covenant process and good reason. (Such cases are common in HOA litigation practice) (Find Ho A Law)
HOA Wins Summary Judgment on Architectural Violation with No Dispute of Fact Where a homeowner admits that a paint change, window alteration, or other exterior modification was done without approval, HOAs have won summary judgment in many jurisdictions, especially when the homeowner fails to present a factual dispute or legal defense. (For example, see the Goetz case above). (Justia Law)

Observations & Lessons from These Cases

Courts closely examine the governing documents (CC&Rs, declarations, bylaws). A homeowner who acts outside or contrary to approval procedures often loses, while an HOA that enforces inconsistent or overreaching rules may lose. Procedural fairness, documentation, and consistency are critical. HOAs that follow proper notice, opportunity to appeal, and transparent process tend to prevail. HOAs that deviate or act arbitrarily are more vulnerable. Limitation of liability or immunity clauses inside association documents can help HOAs in defense, but courts will not enforce immunity for clear acts of bad faith, self-interest, or beyond authority. Attorney fee provisions and “prevailing party” clauses are powerful. HOAs often succeed in recovering fee awards when their documents allow it. Even when homeowners “win,” the cost of litigation (time, stress, fees) is often very high. Many disputes are settled prior to full judgment. Local state law and precedent vary significantly. What works in California, Texas, Florida, or Virginia may not transfer directly to your state.

Florida Cases Where Homeowners (or Residents) Won Against the HOA

Simmons v. Pebble Creek HOA — Lawn Resodding Dispute A Florida couple was assessed about $2,212 by their HOA for lawn resodding. Over 11 years of litigation, a court found that the association had not followed its own governing documents when imposing the charge and placing a lien. The homeowners were awarded $85,000 in damages (with further determinations pending for attorney’s fees). (ABA Journal)
Pecchia v. Wayside Estates HOA (Fifth DCA, 2024) The HOA failed to timely respond to a homeowner’s written request for inspection of official records. Florida law requires associations to provide such records within 10 business days. The appellate court held that the HOA’s delayed or incomplete production violated the statutory requirement and remanded for further proceedings, underscoring that “substantial compliance” is insufficient. (Adams & Reese)
Vizzi v. Eagles Master Association — Parking / Pickup Truck Dispute In Hillsborough County, the HOA sued homeowners (the Vizzis) for parking a pickup truck in their driveway (a use permitted historically). The court ruled in favor of the homeowners and awarded them more than $187,000 in legal fees and costs, finding the HOA’s action unjustified. (floridalawpartners.com)
Isola Bella HOA v. Unit Owner — Unpaid Maintenance Assessments / Prevailing Party Determination In that case, the association sued a unit owner for unpaid maintenance assessments. The court examined whether the owner or the association should be deemed the “prevailing party” for purposes of attorney’s fees, emphasizing that courts must look to substance over procedural technicalities. The decision illustrates homeowner defenses in assessments cases. (Justia Law)
MacKenzie v. Centex Homes / Sullivan Ranch HOA (Florida, 5th DCA) The MacKenzies challenged their HOA and Centex developer on multiple counts, including failure to properly fund capital reserves under the declaration. The appellate court reversed summary judgment on one count and remanded. On remand, the court awarded attorney’s fees to the homeowners for the count they prevailed on. (Abbey Adams Law Firm)
HOA Records Access / Open Records Lawsuits Several Florida appellate decisions have held HOAs liable when they fail to provide proper records under Florida Statutes governing homeowners’ associations. One case held that failure to respond within the 10 business day window gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of willful noncompliance, and statutory damages (minimum $50 per day up to 10 days) may apply. (Siegfried Rivera)
Selective Enforcement / Rule Reasonableness Challenges Florida courts have required that HOA rules must be “reasonable” (not arbitrary or oppressive). HOAs have lost challenges where homeowners can show selective enforcement or a rule was unreasonable under circumstances. These principles have been used by homeowners successfully to contest fines, architectural denials, or arbitrary rule applications. (LS Carlson Law)
Invalid Fines or Waived Fines Due to Statutory Violation Under Florida law, an HOA must give 14 days advance notice of an alleged violation and hearing before levying fines or suspending privileges. If it fails to adhere to this procedure (or fails to furnish a “detailed accounting” within 15 days when requested), fines can be waived. Homeowners have prevailed based on HOAs’ failure to follow these procedural requirements. (The Orlando Law Group)
Blocking Collection of a Special Assessment (Condominium / HOA Setting) In one Florida condominium case, a unit owner obtained relief in court preventing the association from collecting a special assessment, arguing lack of justification, failure to follow procedural rules, or mismanagement of funds. (Florida Condo & HOA Law Blog)
Avatar Properties Inc. v. Gundel — Illegal Assessment Under § 720.308 In this case, the trial court (later affirmed in part) held that the “Club Membership Fee” was an illegal assessment in a homeowners’ association context under Florida Statutes section 720.308 (which limits assessments and charges). The court ordered injunctive relief and substantial damages (nearly $35 million) under claims that the assessment violated statute. (FindLaw Case Law)

Florida Cases Where the HOA (Association) Won Against Homeowners

Isola Bella HOA v. Unit Owner — Unpaid Assessments In that same case mentioned above, the association’s claim for unpaid maintenance assessments succeeded, though the issue of who is “prevailing party” was contested. The court enforced the collection claim. (Justia Law)
Appellate Ruling Upholding ASSOCIATION’s Denial of Claims / Liability Insurance Context While not a classic “HOA vs homeowner” case, a Florida appellate court upheld an insurer’s refusal to cover an HOA (Catalina West) under a business policy in a wrongful death case, effectively defending the HOA’s position. (Insurance Business Asia)
Court Grants Injunction Denying Homeowners’ Motion for Relief (Palm Beach County Injunction Case) In Palm Beach County, property owners sought injunctive relief against an association. The court denied it, ruling in favor of the HOA. (Freeman Mathis & Gary)
HOA Favors in Maintenance / Repairs Enforcement In many Florida HOA decisions, courts have consistently upheld the authority of associations to enforce maintenance obligations or common‐area upkeep provisions in the governing documents, compelling homeowners to comply. (These are numerous though often unpublished.)
Enforcement of Covenants in Architectural or Exterior Alterations Florida courts have sustained HOA power to enforce CC&Rs when a homeowner makes exterior modifications (painting, windows, structures) without approval or in violation of permitted standards, assuming proper notice, process, and reasonableness. (This is a well-established principle in Florida HOA jurisprudence.)
Prevailing Party Attorney Fee Recovery by HOAs Because many HOA declarations and Florida Statutes allow the prevailing party in enforcement litigation to recover attorney’s fees, HOAs often win more than just compliance — they win fee awards. Courts have granted those when the homeowner loses or cannot show defense. (LS Carlson Law)
Enactment / Enforcement of Younger Assessments / Special Fees Florida courts have upheld assessments or fees where properly adopted under the governing documents and statutes. HOAs have succeeded in collecting assessments, enforcing liens, and foreclosing where homeowners fail to pay and defenses are weak.
Upholding Rule Enforceability Where Rules Are Reasonable When an HOA’s rule is deemed reasonable, courts have enforced fines, suspensions, and corrective orders against homeowners, provided the HOA gave notice, hearing, and followed due procedure. The homeowner’s challenge fails if they cannot show arbitrariness. (LS Carlson Law)
Association Success in Suits to Remove Unauthorized Structures HOAs in Florida have obtained court orders requiring homeowners to remove sheds, fences, additions, or exterior changes that were made without approval or contrary to governing design standards, when the association establishes violation and follows process.
Denied Records Request / Waived Claims Based on Technical Compliance by HOA In some instances, courts have ruled that a homeowner's request for records or claims must fail when the HOA properly complied with statutory demands or defense arguments, allowing the HOA to resist injunctions or penalties. (While fewer high profile ones are documented, this is part of the balancing in records cases.)

Observations & Practical Takeaways (Florida-specific)

Florida Statutes provide strong procedural protections for homeowners (e.g. 10 business days for record production, notice and hearing before fines, limits on fees). When HOAs ignore these, homeowners have successful claims. Many Florida HOA disputes settle rather than proceed to final appeals; the more blog or news cases you see are settlements or local rulings, not always final appellate authority. The “prevailing party” provisions in HOA documents and section 720.305 are powerful. Even in mixed outcomes, courts often divide fee awards based on who prevailed on significant issues. (LS Carlson Law) Conceptual defenses like “selective enforcement,” “unreasonable rules,” or “lack of due process” succeed in Florida where homeowners can show inconsistent application or procedural defects. Documentation, adherence to process, prompt compliance with statutory deadlines, transparency, and following your own governing documents are what make or break these cases.

What the Florida Law and Commentary Say About Political Engagement

Statutory Right to Assembly / Meetings in Common Areas Florida Statutes § 720.304(2)(a) states that no covenant, restriction, bylaw, rule, or requirement may unreasonably restrict a parcel owner’s right to peaceably assemble or invite public officers/candidates to speak in common areas and recreational facilities. (Online Sunshine) That suggests a legislative policy in favor of allowing political or public officer speech events in association areas, as long as rules are not “unreasonable.”
HOAs Are Private Entities, Not State Actors Florida courts consistently treat HOAs as private contractual entities (i.e. creatures of contract) not subject to the First Amendment in the same way that governments are. That means constitutional free speech arguments are weaker against HOAs. (Hill Tannenbaum) In short: the fact that something is “political speech” does not automatically override private contract-based rules in an HOA.
Sign / Flag Limitations Florida law also limits how HOAs can restrict certain flags or types of displays. For instance, HOAs may not unreasonably restrict flags of the United States, the State of Florida, or military flags, among others. (Online Sunshine) But that protection is narrower than a full “political sign” right; HOAs still retain more control over general signage. (Rabin Parker Gurley Attorneys at Law)
HOA Power to Restrict Signs by Contractual Authority HOAs often include in their declarations or covenants broad sign restrictions. A homeowner who wants to challenge them typically must show that the restriction is inconsistent with the governing documents, was adopted improperly, or that its enforcement was unreasonable or discriminatory. (Fitzpatrick Lentz & Bubba, P.C.)
News Article Example: “Association should allow political event in clubhouse” In 2016, a columnist noted that a condominium’s board denied use of its clubhouse for a political event, and the commentator advised that the association should allow it (absent a valid contractual prohibition). However, the article does not report an actual lawsuit or judicial decision enforcing that principle. (News-Press)

So this reflects expectation or opinion, not a binding legal precedent.

Why a Clear Win Is Hard to Find (Yet)

Because HOAs are private, many disputes are resolved by internal negotiation, settlement, or dismissal rather than full appellate decisions. Many published decisions deal with standard covenant enforcement, assessment disputes, architectural decisions, or fines—not political or speech-based restrictions. Courts may decline to adopt sweeping decisions about speech vs contract when both sides settle or when the facts are very case-specific (e.g. particular bylaws, timing, meeting space availability). Even where Florida law gives a statutory assembly right, the phrase “unreasonably restrict” leaves open broad room for argument: what is “reasonable” depends heavily on facts (e.g. room scheduling, conflicts, cost, security, prior practice).

What a Strong Case Would Need to Show

If a homeowner in Florida wants to challenge an HOA’s refusal to permit a political meeting in a clubhouse or deny sign placement, the owner should build the following arguments (and evidence):

The governing documents (declaration, bylaws, rules) do not explicitly forbid such political use of the facility or signage, or the restriction is inconsistent or ambiguous. The HOA’s rule or decision is greater than what the governing documents authorize. The HOA’s rule or decision is unreasonably restrictive under § 720.304(2)(a) — meaning it goes beyond what is necessary to protect aesthetics, safety, or common use. The request for use of the common area is made in reasonable time, under reasonable terms, with safety and scheduling concerns addressed. The homeowner is willing to abide by neutrality (e.g. not implying endorsement by the HOA), clean-up, security, cost, scheduling, etc. Evidence that the HOA applied other rules inconsistently (i.e. allowed nonpolitical meetings or signage but denied political ones). That the HOA’s decision caused harm (denial of access, reputational damage, expense) and the homeowner sought injunctive or declaratory relief.

Clarify and Expand Political and Civic Rights in HOAs

Florida Statute § 720.304 recognizes a limited “right of assembly” in common areas, but the language is weak and vague. Recommendation:

Amend § 720.304(2)(a) to state that “no homeowners’ association shall prohibit or unreasonably restrict peaceful assembly, political speech, or candidate engagement within common areas, including use of meeting rooms or clubhouses on equal terms with other noncommercial activities.” Require associations to publish a neutral Common Area Use Policy that applies equally to all viewpoints — religious, political, or civic. Establish a rebuttable presumption that denial of use for lawful political purposes is per se unreasonable unless based on documented safety or scheduling conflicts.

Establish a Homeowner Bill of Rights

Current statutes scatter individual protections across multiple sections of Chapter 720 and Chapter 718. They should be consolidated. Recommendation:

Enact a Homeowner Bill of Rights section guaranteeing:

Access to records within 10 business days with automatic statutory damages for delay. Equal access to newsletters, digital forums, and bulletin boards for any candidate or homeowner issue statements. The right to post at least one sign expressing political or social opinion on private property (within size and safety limits). Whistleblower protections for homeowners who report board misconduct or management fraud.

Mandatory Education and Certification for Board Members

Most HOA board members have no training in contract law, fiduciary duty, or financial management. Florida requires condominium board education but not for homeowner associations. Recommendation:

Require every HOA director to complete a certified online course on fiduciary responsibility, records compliance, budget preparation, and conflict of interest rules within 90 days of election. Impose continuing education every two years as a condition of eligibility for re-election.

Strengthen Enforcement and Oversight Mechanisms

At present, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR) oversees condominiums but not most HOAs. Homeowners often must hire private attorneys to enforce simple rights. Recommendation:

Extend DBPR’s jurisdiction to include HOAs under a dedicated Community Association Division. Create a low-cost Homeowner Ombudsman Office with power to issue advisory opinions, investigate misconduct, and mediate disputes before they escalate to litigation. Require all HOAs to submit annual financial filings to the Division to ensure transparency and detect misuse of funds early.

Reform the Business Judgment Rule for HOA Boards

The Business Judgment Rule currently shields HOA directors from personal liability so long as actions are within authority and not in bad faith. In practice, this can excuse neglect, favoritism, or incompetence. Recommendation:

Amend Chapter 720 to codify a Reasonable Reliance Standard: immunity applies only if a director’s decision is based on documented facts, professional advice, or a reasonable inquiry. Require written minutes showing the basis for significant financial or disciplinary actions to preserve the immunity. Impose personal liability for gross negligence, willful ignorance, or violation of statutory duties (similar to standards in corporate governance).

Modernize Rules on Fines, Liens, and Foreclosure

HOAs can impose liens and foreclose over relatively small fines — an area rife with abuse. Recommendation:

Prohibit foreclosure for non-assessment fines under $2,500 unless repeated willful violation is proven after notice and hearing. Require independent hearing committees trained in procedural fairness rather than ad-hoc neighbor panels. Cap attorneys’ fees recoverable by HOAs in minor enforcement matters to avoid predatory escalation.

Promote Fiscal Transparency and Independent Auditing

Many Florida HOAs manage millions in reserves yet face minimal auditing. Recommendation:

Mandate annual independent financial audits for any HOA with revenue above $500,000. Require publication of an online annual financial summary for member access. Authorize state penalties for failure to maintain separate reserve accounts.

Define “Reasonable” Rulemaking and Enforcement

Courts frequently rely on vague “reasonableness” standards when judging HOA rules. Recommendation:

Statutorily define reasonableness as “a rule that bears a direct and proportionate relationship to the legitimate purpose of protecting property values, aesthetics, or safety, and which applies uniformly.” Shift the burden of proof to the HOA when a homeowner shows selective or inconsistent enforcement.

Limit Management Company Conflicts of Interest

Large management firms often dominate HOA decision-making and may influence vendor contracts. Recommendation:

Require disclosure of all vendor relationships and commissions. Mandate competitive bidding for contracts exceeding $50,000 annually. Prohibit management companies from serving as both property manager and vendor supplier to the same association.

Encourage Mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution

Mediation under Florida law exists but is underutilized. Recommendation:

Make mediation mandatory for all HOA disputes under $50,000 before any lawsuit may be filed. Create certified community mediators funded by modest HOA registration fees. Require mediation outcomes to be summarized in writing to promote precedent and consistency.

Paul TruesdellOctober 9, 2025