HAVE YOU EVER DREAMED OF TERMINATING YOUR HOA?
- Eric M. Glazer
- 4 hours ago
- 4 min read
Florida condominiums have long had a statutory process to terminate the condominium form of ownership, typically requiring at least 75% approval of the voting interests. Homeowners’ associations, however, never had a clear statutory mechanism to dissolve.
Pending before the Florida Legislature is HB 657. Among other provisions, it creates a formal process allowing HOA members to terminate their association and extinguish the declaration of covenants.
On paper, that sounds simple.
In practice, it represents a major structural shift in Florida community law.
Before walking through what the bill does, there’s a bigger question worth asking:
Is the answer to problems within some HOAs to eliminate them altogether… or to fix them?
And is this reform about empowering owners, or could parts of it unintentionally allow boards or management structures to escape accountability?
HB 657 - HOA TERMINATION OVERVIEW
The proposal creates a statutory mechanism to terminate an HOA and extinguish its covenants when continuation no longer serves the owners’ or public interest, subject to member approval and court oversight.
It is conceptually modeled after condominium termination statutes, but tailored to HOAs.
LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE
The bill states that HOA covenants burden land and restrict alienation. In some circumstances, continued enforcement no longer benefits owners. The state therefore has a policy interest in preserving property values, protecting homestead rights, preventing covenants from impairing productive land use, and allowing termination where continuation is impractical or unlawful.
However, while Florida has thousands of HOAs, most do not suffer from widespread dysfunction.
What we hear far more often is not:
“We want to get rid of our HOA.”
What we hear is:
“Our board won’t answer questions.”
“Our board isn’t transparent.”
“Our board isn’t doing its job.”
Those are accountability problems. Not existence problems.
METHOD OF TERMINATION
An HOA may be terminated only through a formal Plan of Termination that must be approved by the membership and reviewed and authorized by a court or community association court program.
VOTING REQUIREMENTS
Approval requires at least two-thirds of the total voting interests.
If the vote fails, no new termination plan may be considered for 18 months.
OWNER INITIATED PROCESS
A petition signed by 20% of voting interests forces consideration of termination.
If the board refuses to call a meeting, members may petition the court to compel compliance.
The bill also includes anti-obstruction provisions. Boards may not refuse to call meetings, hide records, or use association funds to campaign for or against termination.
Violations could result in fines, removal, and personal liability for attorney’s fees.
COURT OVERSIGHT
After membership approval, the plan goes to court for procedural review.
The court must respond within 45 days.
If the court does not respond within that time, the plan is automatically approved.
TERMINATION TRUSTEE
Upon recordation, title to association property vests in a termination trustee, typically the board unless another trustee is designated.
BOARD DUTIES DURING WIND DOWN
The board must wind down the association’s affairs. This includes:
• paying debts
• resolving litigation
• selling assets
• collecting receivables
• completing the termination process
DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS
Once debts are satisfied, remaining assets are distributed among the members.
Owners are not personally liable for new debts incurred during termination but remain liable for assessments that existed before the termination vote.
WHAT HAPPENS TO THE COMMUNITY?
This is where the conversation becomes more complicated.
If an HOA is terminated, the infrastructure in the community does not disappear.
Someone still has to maintain the private roads.
Someone still has to manage stormwater systems.
Someone still has to insure common property and maintain drainage, lighting, landscaping, and recreational facilities.
Pools, clubhouses, tennis courts, pickleball courts, lakes, and other shared amenities do not magically take care of themselves.
In many HOA communities, roads and drainage systems are private infrastructure. Local governments do not automatically step in and assume those responsibilities.
During debate on this bill, lawmakers raised another important issue: many HOAs have agreements and operational relationships with their local municipality.
These can involve stormwater systems, drainage infrastructure, roadway connections, or other shared responsibilities.
Because of that, an amendment was requested that would require local municipalities to be notified if an HOA termination plan is proposed.
If an HOA disappears, cities and counties may suddenly need to determine:
• What agreements existed with the association
• What infrastructure responsibilities were shared
• Who is responsible going forward
Those issues must be sorted out before termination can realistically occur.
And one thing is certain.
If responsibilities shift from an HOA to a local government, those costs do not disappear.
They simply move somewhere else.
Often that means taxpayers end up paying for them.
THE BIGGER QUESTION
If a majority truly wants to eliminate their HOA, that may be their right.
But everyone must understand the implications.
Termination permanently alters governance, insurance structures, infrastructure responsibility, and property rights.
For many communities, the issue is not the existence of the HOA.
The issue is accountability.
If boards are not accountable, the solution may be to strengthen elections, transparency, education, and enforcement of fiduciary duties.
Florida law already provides a mechanism to remove bad board members.
Homeowners can vote them out or recall them with a majority vote.
Most homeowners are not asking for less accountability.
They are asking for more.
BOTTOM LINE
HB 657 introduces a structural option Florida HOAs have never had before.
It is being touted as a way to eliminate an HOA when owners are unhappy with their board.
If that becomes its primary purpose, it will be a dangerous failure before it even begins.
The purpose of termination statutes in the condominium world is typically to allow an entire property to be sold to a developer who wants to redevelop the land.
That is a very different scenario than dissolving an entire community simply because people are frustrated with their board of directors.
If owners in an HOA are unhappy with their board, the solution is not to dismantle the entire community structure.
The solution is accountability.
Vote them out.
Recall them.
Replace them with better leadership.
You do not terminate the entire association because you do not like the board.
So the real question becomes this:
Do we dismantle the system…
or do we demand that it operate properly?
Should HB 657 Become Law?
Yes
No
CONTACT SENATOR BRADLEY AND TELL HER HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT THIS BILL:
Learn more about HB 657 mandatory litigation (Part 1)
Comments