SB 406, the “Georgia Property Owners’ Bill of Rights Act,” creates a new state registration and oversight framework for owners’ associations, including homeowners’ associations, condominium associations, and similar property-owner groups. The bill requires most owners’ associations to register with the Secretary of State, file governing documents and financial information, renew annually, update material changes, and maintain records for at least ten years. It also authorizes the Secretary of State to inspect records and to deny, suspend, or revoke registration, or limit an association’s ability to collect fines or fees, when the association violates the chapter or fails to comply with filing and recordkeeping requirements.
The bill also establishes a set of substantive rights for property owners in these developments. It gives owners rights to inspect association records, receive insurance information, attend meetings, access common areas and their property, and challenge discriminatory practices. It restricts how associations may apply owner payments, requiring payments to be credited first to regular assessments, then special assessments, then specific assessments, and only then to other fees and fines. It also prohibits nonregistered associations from collecting fines, fees, or accelerated assessments, and bars all associations from refusing partial payments or imposing accelerated assessments.
SB 406 further changes Georgia property law governing homeowners’ association liens, foreclosure, and amendment procedures. It extends the notice period before foreclosure from 30 to 60 days, raises the minimum delinquency threshold for foreclosure, excludes certain fines and specific assessments from the foreclosure calculation, and extends the lien lapse period from four to six years. It also adds new notice and attorney-fee protections before associations can recover attorney’s fees, requires courts to review those fees for reasonableness, and allows certain dispossessory records to be sealed from public access when a tenant prevails or satisfies the judgment.
The bill’s general sentiment appears strongly supportive in both chambers, as reflected by the large vote margins on final passage in the House and Senate. The title and structure of the bill suggest it was framed as a consumer-protection measure aimed at increasing transparency, accountability, and due process in owners’ association governance and enforcement. The near-unanimous Senate votes on passage and concurrence indicate broad legislative support, though the House vote shows some opposition.
The main points of contention likely center on the scope of state regulation over private associations and the practical limits placed on collection and foreclosure tools. Associations may view the registration requirement, record inspections, fee limits, and payment-application rules as burdensome or as interfering with covenant enforcement and financial management. Property owners, by contrast, would likely support the added notice, hearing, and record-access protections, as well as the tighter foreclosure standards and attorney-fee safeguards. The bill also creates a choice for some associations to opt out of registration, but those nonregistered associations lose the ability to collect fines, fees, or accelerated assessments, which may itself be a significant point of debate.
SB 406 would add a new chapter to Title 43 regulating owners’ associations and would amend multiple provisions in Title 44 governing property owners’ developments, liens, foreclosure, amendment procedures, and attorney’s fees. It would create a registration system under the Secretary of State, impose annual renewal and recordkeeping duties, and authorize administrative enforcement actions against associations and their officers. It would also alter foreclosure timing, lien thresholds, and payment priority rules, and would add owner rights and procedural protections that affect how associations collect assessments and enforce covenants.
The overall sentiment around the bill appears favorable and reform-oriented. The bill passed the Senate and House by wide margins, suggesting broad bipartisan agreement that owners’ associations should face greater transparency and due-process requirements. The framing as a “Property Owners’ Bill of Rights” indicates a consumer-protection approach that likely resonated with many legislators, even if some members opposed the measure or specific amendments.
The most likely areas of contention are the new state oversight regime, the limits on association collection powers, and the increased procedural burdens before foreclosure or attorney’s fees can be pursued. Owners’ associations and their advocates may object to mandatory registration, financial disclosure, record inspections, and restrictions on fines, accelerated assessments, and lien enforcement. Property owners and tenant advocates are likely to support the bill’s notice requirements, payment-priority rules, fee reasonableness review, and expanded access to records. The vote history also suggests that while the final bill had broad support, at least some amendments and provisions were contested.