Relating To Condominiums.
HB106 revises Hawaii condominium law to create a more detailed process for enforcing association rules and resolving disputes over fines and assessments. The bill authorizes condominium associations to levy reasonable fines against unit owners or tenants for violations of declarations, bylaws, house rules, or regulations, but requires the association to provide advance notice, identify the rule violated, include the appeals process, and give the owner or tenant an opportunity to be heard. It also allows an aggrieved owner or tenant to appeal a fine to the small claims division of district court, and it limits when fines become enforceable and collectible.
The bill also restructures how condominium assessments are disputed and paid. It clarifies that common expense assessments generally must be paid first and cannot be withheld, while other charges such as fines, late fees, lien filing fees, and attorneys’ fees may be disputed before payment. It preserves and expands procedures for requesting written statements, mediation, court actions, and refunds if amounts are found unsubstantiated. In addition, it updates association powers and tenant-enforcement provisions, including the ability to fine tenants, pursue collection remedies, and apply payments in a specified order.
HB106 would amend multiple provisions of chapter 514B, Hawaii Revised Statutes, governing condominium associations, assessment collection, lien enforcement, and dispute resolution. It would create a new statutory section on fines and appeals, revise association authority to impose fines and collect charges, modify rules for applying owner payments, and update the assessment-lien statute to distinguish common expense assessments from other charges. The bill also amends the small claims jurisdiction statute to give the small claims division exclusive jurisdiction over cases arising under the new condominium fine-dispute section. If enacted, it would affect condominium associations, unit owners, tenants, managing agents, and district courts handling condominium-related disputes.
The bill’s stated purpose and structure suggest a generally pro-due-process and consumer-protection approach, balancing association enforcement authority with clearer notice and appeal rights for owners and tenants. The available materials do not include committee testimony or recorded votes, so there is no documented public debate in the provided record. Based on the text alone, the measure appears designed to standardize procedures and reduce ambiguity in condominium enforcement rather than to expand punitive authority without safeguards.
The main points of potential contention are the scope of condominium association enforcement power and the added procedural requirements before fines and certain charges can be collected. Associations may view the notice, hearing, mediation, and small-claims appeal requirements as limiting their ability to enforce rules quickly, while owners and tenants are likely to support the added protections against arbitrary or poorly documented fines. Another possible issue is the bill’s treatment of payment allocation and assessment disputes, especially the rule that common expense assessments must be paid first and the restrictions on withholding payment. The bill also shifts some disputes into small claims court, which may raise questions about forum, cost, and administrative burden.