Condominiums and Homeowners Associations - Elections, Financial Statements, and Enforcement
SB 758 makes a series of changes to Maryland law governing condominiums and homeowners associations (HOAs). The bill sets new standards for association elections, requiring that the collection, counting, and certification of ballots for governing-body elections be handled by independent parties who are not candidates and do not have conflicts of interest. It also allows associations to use third-party vendors or commercial technology platforms for elections, and it protects good-faith volunteers from personal liability for election conduct.
The bill also expands owner access to association records and financial information. It prohibits charging unit owners or lot owners for in-person examination of financial statements or for receiving financial statements electronically, while allowing reasonable copying fees within existing court-cost limits. In addition, it requires associations to make reasonable accommodations for unit-owner organizing activities and bars retaliation against owners exercising rights under law or governing documents. Any association rules that conflict with these election requirements are made void and unenforceable.
On the enforcement side, the bill broadens the role of the Division of Consumer Protection in the Office of the Attorney General. It expressly includes unit owners and lot owners within the definition of “consumer” for purposes of condominium and HOA enforcement, and it authorizes the Division to enforce violations of the relevant title and adopt regulations. Local governments are also permitted to enact consumer-protection laws or ordinances affecting condominiums and developments, subject to existing state-law limits.
The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history was strongly favorable and noncontroversial: the bill passed both chambers unanimously. No committee transcript excerpts were provided, and there is no recorded opposition in the materials supplied. The unanimous votes suggest broad agreement that the bill modernizes association governance, improves transparency, and strengthens owner protections without generating significant partisan or stakeholder conflict.
The main points of contention that could arise from the bill’s substance are the limits it places on association control over elections, records access, and fees, as well as the expanded enforcement authority given to the Attorney General’s consumer-protection division. Those changes may be of particular interest to condominium boards, HOA boards, property managers, and association counsel, but the available legislative record does not show active dispute in this case.
The bill amends the Real Property Article provisions governing condominiums and homeowners associations by adding election procedures, record-access rules, and enforcement authority. It changes §§ 11-109, 11-116, 11-130, 11B-112, 11B-115, and adds new § 11B-118, while renumbering the existing HOA election-related section. The practical effect is to impose statewide minimum standards on association elections, limit fees for access to financial statements and records, and make inconsistent governing-document provisions unenforceable. It also expands the Division of Consumer Protection’s authority to enforce condominium and HOA consumer-protection violations and to adopt implementing regulations.
The bill appears to have been received positively and passed with unanimous support in both chambers, indicating broad legislative consensus. The available record shows no recorded opposition in floor votes and no committee transcript material suggesting controversy. Overall, the sentiment is that the bill is a consumer-protection and governance-reform measure aimed at improving fairness, transparency, and accountability in association operations.
The most notable potential contention points are the bill’s restrictions on how condominium and HOA elections may be run, especially the requirement for independent parties and the limits on who may serve in that role, which could affect property managers and association administrators. Another possible area of concern is the prohibition on charging owners for certain records access and the expansion of Attorney General enforcement authority, which may be viewed by associations as increasing compliance burdens and reducing local control. However, the legislative history provided does not show these issues producing measurable opposition.