House Bill 657, filed for the 2026 Florida Legislative Session, proposes extensive amendments to Chapters 718 and 720, Florida Statutes, governing condominiums and homeowners’ associations. While several portions of the bill would materially change dispute resolution procedures and enforcement mechanisms, the bill’s statutory authorization for termination of homeowners’ associations warrants particular attention due to its potentially far-reaching and destabilizing consequences.
Boards and managers should carefully evaluate the practical and legal implications of this proposal, particularly as it relates to long-standing community infrastructure, contractual obligations, and land use approvals that frequently depend on the continued existence of an association.
1. Statutory Authorization for HOA Termination
Significant Legal and Practical ImplicationsThe most consequential provision of HB 657 is the creation of Section 720.319, which establishes a statutory mechanism for terminating a homeowners’ association through a defined plan of termination process.
Under the proposed statute:
- Courts may approve termination plans, appoint receivers, and order dissolution of associations
- A termination process may be initiated by as little as 20 percent of the voting interests
- Termination may be approved by two-thirds of the total voting interests
- Voting rights may not be suspended for delinquent owners for purposes of termination
While the bill provides procedural steps for termination, it does not fully account for the interconnected legal and regulatory structures that rely on the continued existence of homeowners’ associations.
Potential Impacts on Communities
From a practical perspective, termination of a homeowners’ association may have consequences extending well beyond governance preferences, including:
- Property values: Many communities are marketed, financed, and appraised based on the existence of an association responsible for maintaining common infrastructure and enforcing standards.
- Existing contractual obligations: Associations are frequently parties to long-term contracts for landscaping, security, stormwater maintenance, utilities, and management services, which may not be easily assignable or terminable.
- Permit and regulatory compliance: Planned Unit Developments (PUDs), Development of Regional Impact (DRI) approvals, and local government permits often require a functioning association to maintain roads, drainage systems, retention ponds, signage, and other common facilities.
- Infrastructure responsibilities: Termination raises unresolved questions regarding responsibility for roads, stormwater systems, private utilities, recreational facilities, and other improvements that are not owned or maintained by local governments.
- Insurance and risk allocation: The dissolution of an association may disrupt insurance coverage structures relied upon by lenders, owners, and third parties.
The bill’s termination framework does not clearly address how these obligations are preserved, reassigned, or enforced post-termination, creating significant uncertainty for communities and local governments alike.
2. Expanded Personal Exposure for Officers and Directors
The bill identifies certain actions related to termination proceedings as “unlawful” and authorizes penalties against officers and directors, including:
- Civil fines of up to $5,000 per violation
- Removal from office by court order
- Personal liability for legal fees incurred by petitioning members
These provisions represent a significant expansion of potential personal exposure for volunteer directors and may affect board participation and decision-making.
3. Changes to Presuit Mediation and Arbitration Requirements
HB 657 removes or modifies existing presuit mediation requirements applicable to many association disputes and shifts resolution into arbitration or newly authorized community association court programs.
Presuit mediation has historically served as a structured, lower-cost mechanism to resolve disputes before litigation. The proposed revisions may:
- Increase the number of disputes proceeding directly to formal litigation or arbitration
- Reduce opportunities for early, informal resolution
- Increase legal costs borne by associations and owners
- Create procedural uncertainty during the transition period
Boards and managers should be aware that removing presuit mediation as a gatekeeping mechanism may have unintended consequences for association budgets and insurance exposure.
4. Mandatory Governing Document Language for Homeowners’ Associations
The bill would require homeowners’ associations to include a statement in their governing documents declaring that the association is governed by the Florida Condominium Act, or to hold a membership vote to adopt such language by a date certain.
From a legal standpoint, this requirement presents several issues:
- Homeowners’ associations are governed by Chapter 720, not Chapter 718
- Mandating language that conflicts with the statutory framework may create ambiguity
- Inconsistent or inaccurate governing document language can increase litigation risk
- Boards may be placed in the position of enforcing documents that conflict with statute
Requiring associations to affirmatively adopt potentially inaccurate statutory references raises questions regarding legislative intent and practical application.
5. Creation of Community Association Court Programs
HB 657 authorizes judicial circuits to establish community association court programs with jurisdiction over disputes arising under Chapters 718, 719, and 720.
These programs would be empowered to:
- Enforce statutory rights
- Compel compliance by associations and boards
- Impose civil penalties
- Appoint receivers
- Order dissolution of associations
- Award attorney’s fees and injunctive relief
While specialization may offer efficiencies, the bill leaves several operational and procedural questions unresolved, including uniformity across circuits, funding mechanisms, and appellate considerations.
PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR BOARDS AND MANAGER
If enacted as drafted, HB 657 would introduce substantial uncertainty into Florida community association governance, particularly with respect to:
- Long-term viability of homeowners’ associations
- Stability of property values within deed-restricted communities
- Compliance with land use approvals and development conditions
- Continuity of essential services and infrastructure maintenance
- Willingness of owners to serve as volunteer directors
Boards and managers should recognize that termination of an association is not merely an internal governance decision, but one that may have external legal, financial, and regulatory consequences affecting owners, lenders, service providers, and local governments.
Legislative Engagement Encouraged
HB 657 remains proposed legislation. Boards, managers, and homeowners who have concerns regarding its potential impact are strongly encouraged to communicate with their elected representatives during the legislative process.
Constituents may identify and contact their legislators using the following resources:
- Florida House of Representatives – Find Your Representative:
https://www.myfloridahouse.gov/FindYourRepresentative
- Florida Senate – Find Your Senator:
https://www.flsenate.gov/Senators/Find
CONCLUSION
HB 657, if enacted, would represent a substantial restructuring of Florida community association law. While legislative reform in this area is ongoing, careful consideration should be given to whether the proposed changes achieve their stated objectives without creating additional legal uncertainty or operational challenges for associations.
Our firm will continue to monitor this bill and provide updates as the legislative session progresses. Associations with questions regarding the potential implications of HB 657 should consult legal counsel for guidance tailored to their specific circumstances.