Legislative Update: 4 Recent Case Law Decisions on HOA Governance Authority
Homeowners’ associations (HOAs) court cases may be easy to ignore, but they are often critical to the future of the industry. The decisions that result from these court cases ultimately shape the way legislation is interpreted and defined.
To reduce litigation and effectively manage financial risks, HOA governance, and enforcement policies, it’s important that boards are aware of what’s happening in the courts across the country. Here are four recent rulings that challenge community associations’ authority to self-govern.
Architectural Controls Court Case in Georgia
The Cotton v. Vinings Estates Community Association, Inc. case was decided by the Georgia Court of Appeals in May 2026.
The Issue
In this case, the Cottons built an outdoor pool structure complete with electricity and plumbing, even though it violated the community’s architectural standards. The building was too tall and too large, and it included utilities, which are prohibited under the community’s architectural controls.
The HOA repeatedly denied their requests for modification and issued warnings and fines. Eventually, the HOA sued the homeowners, seeking injunctive relief and payment of unpaid fines and attorney fees.
The Verdict
The court sided with the HOA, awarding it $6,475 for unpaid fines and $73,000 in attorney fees against the homeowner. It also required the homeowners to remove the structure and restore the property to its original condition. The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict.
Board-Created Rules Court Case in New York
The Zinno v. Waterford Village Association, Inc. case was decided by the New York Supreme Court in January 2026.
The Issue
The Zinno family lives in New York, where winters are long and cold. One winter, the HOA homeowners built a seasonal, plastic-lined ice rink in their front yard. The next year, the HOA created a rule banning seasonal ice rinks. Over the next two years, the Zinnos continued to build the ice rink and accumulated nearly $2,000 in fines.
The Zinnos sued the HOA, claiming violations of the original declaration and bylaws, and challenging the fines. The HOA countersued, also alleging violations and seeking payment of outstanding fines.
LEARN MORE: “Top Frequently Asked Questions About HOA Violations”
The Verdict
The New York State Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the homeowners, making the outstanding fines null and void. The community didn’t clearly prohibit ice rinks in the declaration or bylaws, so the court considered the board’s ban an amendment to the permitted use of property.
In New York, amending the governing documents requires formal approval by a majority of homeowners, and the board cannot solely amend these documents without homeowner support. This ruling shows that boards in New York cannot use board-approved rules to create new restrictions that alter the original covenants.
Foreclosure Court Case in New York
The Shorehaven Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Campbell case was a notable decision from the New York Appellate Division in April 2026.
The Issue
An HOA homeowner, Campbell, faced foreclosure for unpaid dues. She reached an agreement with her HOA to pay approximately $21,455 over 24 months, in monthly installments of $893. The agreement didn’t address legal fees or incorporate the HOA bylaws.
Within two months, Campbell paid the full amount owed. However, she allegedly defaulted on her payment obligation. The HOA added nearly $4,000 in legal and publication fees under the agreement and continued foreclosure proceedings.
The Verdict
The court ruled in favor of the homeowner. By satisfying her debt before the actual foreclosure sale, they ruled that the lien is effectively rendered void, and the HOA waived the right to continue the foreclosure sale. This also invalidated the HOA’s claim to add unearned fees.
It’s crucial for a board to exercise business judgment wisely, obtain proper legal advice, and weigh possible consequences before using HOA resources to pursue litigation.
Reasonable Time Court Case in Oklahoma
The Howard v. Barrington Homeowners Association, Inc. case was decided by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in March 2026.
The Issue
HOA homeowners, the Howards, sued their association, alleging improper use of dues, unlawful sale of a common storage unit, failure to hold proper elections and meetings, and allowing illegal activities on the premises.
Before filing the lawsuit, the homeowners communicated their concerns to the board through a pre-suit demand, requiring the board to sue certain directors. Just as soon as the demand was sent, the homeowners filed a lawsuit in the Oklahoma County District Court.
In the meantime, the board worked to rectify some of the issues. They rescinded the contested sale and scheduled meetings appropriately. Still, the homeowners argued that the HOA didn’t act in good faith.
LEARN MORE: “Understanding the Fiduciary Duties of an HOA Board”
The Verdict
Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the HOA, citing poor evidence from the plaintiff (homeowners) and that the pre-suit demand didn’t provide a reasonable time for the board to investigate, as required in these types of lawsuits.
How These Cases Affect HOA Boards
The legislative landscape emphasizes transparency, fair enforcement, clear communication, and proactive risk management. To avoid legal issues, HOA boards should prioritize:
- Reviewing the governing documents
- Updating enforcement and disclosure policies
- Evaluating insurance coverage
- Confirming compliance with new state mandates
- Working closely with your HOA management company and legal counsel to minimize risk
The Bottom Line
Recent case law decisions highlight the need for HOA industry professionals to stay informed and engaged. Today, Associa is actively working with legislators to maintain clear self-governance authority. As the only community association management company with a full-time government affairs staff, we participate in legislative advocacy day-to-day and help shape the laws that impact the community association industry.
This article is for informational purposes only and is based on publicly available data. Additional insights reflect best practices informed by Associa’s government affairs experience. Always consult a professional HOA attorney for legal guidance.
Reviewed for accuracy by Associa community association experts.