SB801 amends Hawaii’s condominium managing-agent law to add a new qualification for managing agents serving certain large residential condominium properties. Specifically, for residential condominium properties with more than 100 units in a county with a population over 500,000, the managing agent must also be a “community association manager,” defined in the bill as an individual holding a manager credential issued by a nationwide community association management industry trade group.
The bill leaves in place the existing requirements that managing agents be licensed real estate brokers or authorized corporations, register with the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, maintain a fidelity bond, and comply with reporting and fee obligations. It also preserves the existing framework for recovering losses caused by fraud or dishonesty through the fidelity bond and, if applicable, the real estate recovery fund. The measure is drafted as an amendment to section 514B-132 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes and is described as applying to large condominium properties in the state’s most populous county.
Impact
SB801 would narrow and strengthen the qualification standards for managing agents of large residential condominium properties in counties with populations over 500,000, effectively adding a credentialing requirement on top of current broker/corporate registration rules. In practice, this would affect condominium associations, managing-agent firms, and individual managers serving large high-rise or multi-unit residential properties, while leaving smaller properties and counties below the population threshold under the existing law. The bill would amend Hawaii Revised Statutes section 514B-132 and expand the state’s regulatory oversight of condominium management, though the stated effective date is July 1, 3000.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests generally favorable committee sentiment toward the bill, as it passed the Senate Commerce and Consumer Protection Committee 4-1 with amendments. The bill’s findings frame the measure as a consumer-protection and competency requirement intended to address perceived gaps in managing-agent expertise and to better protect unit owners and association boards from negligence, fraud, or mismanagement. No committee transcript is available here, so the record shows support for moving the bill forward but not detailed floor or committee debate.
Contention
The main point of contention appears to be whether existing managing-agent requirements are sufficient or whether an additional credential is necessary for large condominium properties. Supporters, as reflected in the bill findings, argue that volunteer association boards need more experienced and professionally trained managers, especially where large residential high-rises involve complex repairs, maintenance, and reserve obligations. Potential opponents or skeptics would likely focus on the added compliance burden, the limited geographic and size-based scope of the mandate, and whether requiring a credential from a nationwide trade group could restrict the pool of eligible managing agents or create unnecessary costs. The bill’s narrow applicability to large properties in counties over 500,000 also suggests a targeted approach that may have been designed to address concerns about overbreadth.