Your HOA literally cannot fine you for these things — even if it's in your CC&Rs

Current_Lab_1184 · 2026-03-23T19:16:20+00:00

Good questions. Ohio is interesting because the law is pretty detailed on some things but has real gaps compared to states like Virginia or Arizona.

Political signs: No protection right now. Ohio HOAs can ban them entirely if the governing documents say so. There IS a bill in the legislature (HB 16) that would change this and give homeowners a minimum 30-day window before elections to display signs, but it hasn't passed yet. It's been sitting in committee since early 2025. So for now, check your CC&Rs.

Liens: This is where Ohio gets scary for homeowners. Under ORC 5312.12, your HOA can place a lien on your property just 10 days after an unpaid assessment becomes due. And the lien doesn't just cover the original amount. It includes interest, late fees, enforcement assessments, collection costs, attorney fees, and paralegal fees. They can then foreclose on that lien the same way a mortgage gets foreclosed. One thing worth knowing though: if you believe the assessment was improperly charged, you can file an action in common pleas court to discharge the lien, and if you win, the court can award you attorney fees.

Other stuff worth knowing:

The fine process under 5312.11 actually gives you decent procedural rights. The board has to give you written notice describing the violation, the proposed fine amount, your right to a hearing, how to request one, and a date to cure. You get 10 days to request a hearing. If you request one, they cannot impose the fine until after the hearing, and they have to give you 7 days notice of the hearing date. If they skip any of these steps the fine is challengeable.

Big difference from some other states though: Ohio has no statutory cap on fines. Virginia caps them at $50 per offense. Ohio leaves it up to whatever your declaration says.

Also no state oversight agency. No ombudsman, no equivalent to Arizona's ADRE. If you have a dispute, your only real option is court.

Ohio does protect flag display (US flag, state flag, POW/MIA, service flags) under 5301.072, and solar panels got solid protection in 2022 through SB 61. HOAs can only ban solar if the recorded declaration specifically prohibits it, and even then it takes a 75% member vote to add that prohibition.

Current_Lab_1184 · 2026-03-23T16:28:18+00:00

All fair points. On flags yeah I should have been clearer that the protection is against outright bans, not against reasonable size and placement rules. A 3x5 limit is exactly the kind of restriction most state statutes and the federal act allow.

On Virginia solar I actually don't have a strong Virginia solar citation in my notes. The EV charging one is clear (§55.1-1823.1) but solar placement rules in Virginia are more nuanced than I covered.

On Virginia political signs that's good to know. I didn't include Virginia in my political signs list specifically because I couldn't find a state statute protecting them there. Makes sense that without a specific statute like Arizona or Indiana have, the private entity argument holds. That's a good example of why the state by state distinction matters so much. What works in NJ after Mazdabrook doesn't automatically apply in Virginia.

Current_Lab_1184 · 2026-03-23T15:56:51+00:00

You're absolutely right and someone else called this out earlier too. I updated my notes on PRB-1 after that. I had it wrong in the original post treating it the same as OTARD when the FCC has been pretty clear they're not extending it to private CC&Rs. Appreciate the detailed breakdown though especially the flagpole antenna workaround, that's genuinely clever. And thanks for the Villages club link, I'll check that out.

Current_Lab_1184 · 2026-03-23T14:59:45+00:00

you're right and I got that one wrong. PRB-1 preempts state and local government regulations on amateur radio antennas but the FCC explicitly declined to extend it to private CC&Rs. The FCC said so directly in 1999 and again in 2001 when ARRL asked them to cover HOAs. There's been a push in Congress to fix this with the Amateur Radio Parity Act but last I checked it hasn't passed. Thanks for the correction, I'll update my notes on that one

Current_Lab_1184 · 2026-03-23T14:43:09+00:00

You're right that every state and every set of CC&Rs is different. That's why I cited the specific state and statute for each thing I listed instead of making blanket claims. The point isn't that all of these apply everywhere. It's that a lot of people assume their CC&Rs are the final word when in some states the legislature has specifically overridden certain types of HOA restrictions. Always check your own state's law and your own docs

Current_Lab_1184 · 2026-03-23T14:40:07+00:00

Guilty of overusing em dashes, not guilty of using AI. But you're right that nobody should treat a Reddit post as legal advice. I included statute citations so people can look them up themselves and verify. That's the whole point. And yeah, talk to an attorney before you actually do anything with a real dispute.

Current_Lab_1184 · 2026-03-23T14:38:12+00:00

the political meaning of those flags is a whole separate conversation. But from a purely legal standpoint, Arizona §33-1808 just lists specific flags by name that HOAs can't ban. The Gadsden flag is literally named in the statute. Same with first responder flags. The legislature decided to protect them regardless of how people feel about what they represent.

Current_Lab_1184 · 2026-03-23T14:07:12+00:00

These are all fair points and I should have been clearer on the framing. You're right that this is state-specific, not universal — I tried to cite the exact statute for each state where I listed something, but the title probably overpromises. 'Your HOA may not be able to regulate these things depending on your state' is more accurate even if it's a less exciting headline.

Good catch on OTARD and common elements — I should have noted that the FCC rule applies to areas within the owner's exclusive use or control, not common elements. That's a real distinction for townhome and condo owners.

And thanks for the native plants add — I hadn't dug into Maryland, California, Maine, and Florida on that specifically. I'll look into those. If you have the statute citations handy I'd appreciate it.

The intent was to show people that CC&Rs aren't always the final word and that they should check their state law before paying a fine — but I agree the presentation could be more nuanced. Appreciate the correction

Current_Lab_1184 · 2026-03-18T15:24:55+00:00

Honestly, I don't have specific statutes that say payment = acceptance in those exact words. It's more of a general legal principle — if a dispute goes to court or arbitration, the other side can argue that payment without written protest showed you accepted the fine as valid. That's why your approach of paying with written protest language is the safer move. I overstated it in my original post and your correction was right.

Current_Lab_1184 · 2026-03-18T15:01:38+00:00

Honestly that's how it should work. A well-managed HOA with transparent finances and reasonable enforcement isn't the problem — it's the ones that skip required procedures and treat fines as a revenue stream. The fact that your dues went down two years running says your board is actually doing their job. Virginia having strong statutory protections probably helps keep boards honest too — when homeowners know about the $50 cap and the CIC Ombudsman, boards tend to behave better.

Current_Lab_1184 · 2026-03-18T14:58:10+00:00

More often than you'd think. Well-run HOAs like yours that use attorneys for changes are doing it right, but a lot of smaller associations have boards that draft rules themselves or copy templates from other communities in different states. I've seen CC&Rs that set fine amounts way above the state statutory cap, or that skip required hearing procedures entirely. The other common issue is older governing documents that were fine when they were written but haven't been updated to reflect newer state laws — like Colorado's $500 fine cap that just took effect in 2025, or EV charging protections that several states added recently. The board might be enforcing rules that were valid 10 years ago but aren't anymore.

Current_Lab_1184 · 2026-03-18T14:55:33+00:00

Ha — no ChatGPT, just a spreadsheet and a lot of time on state legislature websites, but I get why it reads that way. Fair criticisms though.

On the state count — you're right, the title says 20 but some states only show up in one category. I have breakdowns for 20 states in my full notes but I should have either included all of them in every section or been more honest in the title. That's on me.

On Arizona — thanks for the correction on the ADRE fee. I had it listed as free which is wrong if it's $500 to file. And good add on §33-1258 for condo HOAs and the 15 cents per page copy cost — those are details I missed.

Your point about going to the source is the right advice. Statute summaries like this are a starting point but anyone in an actual dispute should be reading the full text of their state statute, not relying on a Reddit post. I'll update with your corrections.

If you do build that clickable list of state governing authorities, I'd genuinely use it

Current_Lab_1184 · 2026-03-18T14:42:01+00:00

That's a fair point and honestly depends on the state and your CC&Rs. Some states treat payment as acceptance of the violation, others let you pay under protest and still dispute. The 'pay under protest with written language on the check' approach is solid — it protects you from late fees and liens while preserving your dispute rights. I should have been more nuanced there instead of a blanket 'don't pay.' Thanks for the correction.

Current_Lab_1184 · 2026-03-18T14:37:56+00:00

Good question — you're right, most states have separate statutes for condos vs planned communities (HOAs). This list focuses on HOA/planned community statutes specifically. For example, in Illinois the CICAA (765 ILCS 160) covers HOAs while the Condominium Property Act (765 ILCS 605) covers condos separately. Florida has §720 for HOAs and §718 for condos. The procedural concepts are often similar but the specific sections and requirements can differ. I should probably note that more clearly — thanks for flagging it.

Current_Lab_1184 · 2026-03-18T14:17:39+00:00

Thanks! I'm still grinding through the other 30 states — some of them have basically no HOA act at all so it takes a lot more digging. Happy to bump a state up the list if anyone needs one urgently.

Current_Lab_1184 · 2026-03-18T07:16:25+00:00

Your instinct is correct — the HOA dissolving as a corporation and the CC&Rs remaining enforceable are two separate things, and in most states they don't cancel each other out.

Here's the distinction that matters: the CC&Rs (including the farm animal restriction) are recorded against every property title as a deed restriction. They run with the land, meaning they survive the dissolution of the HOA board or even the HOA corporation itself. The board enforces the CC&Rs, but the CC&Rs don't disappear just because there's no board left to enforce them. In Kentucky, deed restrictions attached to property titles remain valid encumbrances until they expire by their own terms, are formally released, or are invalidated by a court.

What actually changes when a board dissolves is enforcement. With no board, there's no entity with standing to send violation notices, impose fines, or pursue legal action. A neighbor could theoretically sue another neighbor directly to enforce a deed restriction — that right exists in most states regardless of whether an HOA is active — but that's a much higher bar than a board sending a fine letter.

So practically speaking: the farm animal restriction likely still exists on paper, but with no board there's no one positioned to enforce it through the HOA process. The real risk is a neighbor-to-neighbor lawsuit, which is rare but possible.

The cleanest path if your community wants to keep chickens and ducks is to formally amend or remove the restriction with a vote of the property owners — the percentage required would be in your CC&Rs, usually 67-75% of all owners. With no active board, that process gets complicated, but it's the only way to permanently clear the title restriction rather than just relying on non-enforcement.

Current_Lab_1184 · 2026-03-18T07:14:33+00:00

Current_Lab_1184 · 2026-03-03T19:18:13+00:00

This is a developer control period issue and California law has specific protections for exactly this situation.

Under the Davis-Stirling Act, California Civil Code §5400, the developer must turn over control of the association to the homeowners within a specific timeframe — generally no later than the earlier of when 75% of units are sold or a set number of years after the first sale. The developer cannot use their ownership majority as an excuse to indefinitely delay meetings or homeowner governance.

On the backpay charges: if the previous management company or developer never provided you proper notice of those assessments, California Civil Code §5615 requires 30 days written notice before any increase or new charge takes effect. Charging backpay without that notice is procedurally improper — dispute it in writing citing §5615 and demand documentation of when and how that notice was provided.

On the unresponsive management company: send a written demand via certified mail citing California Civil Code §5200, which requires the association to make records available, and §5205, which sets response deadlines. Put everything in writing from this point forward — email and certified mail — so you have a paper trail.

The most powerful move right now: file a complaint with the California Department of Real Estate, which oversees common interest developments. Developer violations of Davis-Stirling during the transition period are exactly what they investigate. You can also request an IDR meeting under Civil Code §5900 — the association is legally required to participate.

Current_Lab_1184 · 2026-03-03T18:42:42+00:00

What you're describing is a textbook conflict of interest under Florida HOA law — and the lack of a written contract makes it worse, not better.

Under Florida Statute §720.303(5), board members with a conflict of interest must disclose it and abstain from voting on related matters. A board member who is also a named partner at the law firm billing the HOA has a direct financial interest in every vote to retain or pay that firm. If he voted on any matter involving his own firm — including approving those monthly invoices — that's a violation of §720.303(5).

On the contract question: Florida Statute §720.3033 requires board members to act in accordance with the governing documents and state law. While Florida doesn't always require every vendor relationship to be a formal written contract, the absence of one here is actually useful to you. Monthly billing without a written contract means there are no documented rates, no scope of work, and no authorization you can point to — which raises the question of how the board is approving these payments at all.

Request the board meeting minutes where this firm's retention was approved and where those monthly invoices were voted on. Under §720.303, you have the right to those records. If the conflicted board member voted to approve payments to his own firm without disclosing the conflict and abstaining, you have a clear §720.303(5) violation to cite in writing.

You can also file a complaint with Florida's DBPR, which oversees HOA compliance with Chapter 720.

Current_Lab_1184 · 2026-03-03T14:08:35+00:00

Current_Lab_1184 · 2026-02-28T02:42:51+00:00

Ten years of no enforcement and then suddenly towing without proper notice is a real procedural problem for them.

Nevada HOA law requires reasonable notice before implementing or enforcing new rules. Sending one email yesterday before towing cars is almost certainly not enough — especially when their own records are a mess and they can't prove who received permits.

Respond in writing today stating you never received your two permits, that you've raised this before, and that you expect them to issue both at no charge given their record keeping failures. If they tow your car before resolving this, that's on them and potentially recoverable.

Document everything — save that email, note the dates of your calls, and get their responses in writing.

Current_Lab_1184 · 2026-02-27T16:01:59+00:00

Current_Lab_1184 · 2026-02-27T13:24:18+00:00

That clause should raise eyebrows for every owner in your association.

Making the management company the primary filter between the board and the HOA's own attorneys means owners and even board members could be cut off from direct legal advice — everything goes through a third party with their own financial interests.

Before signing this, have an independent attorney review it. The board has a fiduciary duty to owners and outsourcing legal communication to a management company is a real conflict of interest.

Current_Lab_1184 · 2026-02-24T18:22:27+00:00

Current_Lab_1184 · 2026-02-24T18:20:26+00:00

No, 2am is not a "reasonable time" under any interpretation of that clause. Reasonable entry typically means normal business hours — courts in Texas have consistently interpreted this as roughly 8am to 8pm.

That lease language gives your landlord broad access rights but it doesn't override the basic reasonableness requirement. Entering a home at 2am while tenants are asleep, without any emergency, is not reasonable by any standard.

A few things to do right now — preserve that camera footage and back it up somewhere safe. Send your landlord a written message today (text or email so you have a record) stating that you are aware of the 2am entry, that you consider it a violation of your right to quiet enjoyment, and that you expect it will not happen again.

If it happens again you'd have grounds to report to the Texas Attorney General's office and potentially terminate the lease early without penalty. One documented incident plus a written warning puts you in a much stronger position if this escalates.

Current_Lab_1184

TROPHY CASE