Can the Homeowners Stand Their Ground with the HOA?

To show their prowess, lawyers try to sprinkle magical dust with a cease-and-desist letter, brokering a compromise, or strategically complying with the opponent’s requirements. Alternatively, the client needs the attorney to “show his teeth” and forcefully lead action or bring litigation. In these scenarios, decisive action provides apparent relief from acrimony, uncertainty, or doubt. This website focuses on the variety of dispute resolution techniques that an attorney may be able to assist the homeowner with.

In today’s article, I address a particular approach in HOA, condominium or neighbor disputes that does not require commitment to quick settlement or finding the fastest route to the courthouse. Can the homeowners stand their ground with the HOA? For many property owners, the best course of action may be sticking up for themselves and seeing what happens next. For example, a homeowner may believe that the accessory structure on their property that the HOA complains about today ought to remain because years ago she received an approving email or letter from a HOA representative. In another hypothetical, the declaration may not subject property to HOA regulation of trees and shrubs, because the restrictions do not speak to such things. The homeowner may not believe that a Notice of Violation for an unapproved tree planting is a legitimate violation. Elsewhere, the association may tolerate other expressive signage or decorations but find fault with the display of a particular flag chosen by the homeowner.

The person issuing the letter, email or notice may feel strongly that the “offending” item ought to be removed, and may be an officer, director, committee member or manager of the association. The homeowner may be uncertain whether she should accommodate that person’s wishes (for the sake of peace and certainty), aggressively defend themselves through a counterattack (in consideration of what they are dealing with), or find middle ground.

There are three general ways of looking at these sorts of HOA, condominium and neighborhood controversies. The first approach is that the leaders ought to take strong and direct action in dealing with miscreants. “Violators” inspire other violations. Objections to use of HOA notices of violations, fines, and other heavy-handed approaches are met by arguments that there are people upon whom due process would be wasted, and they must be prevented by legal means from ruining things for everyone. The second idea is that all problems can be solved through “restorative justice,” managing the feelings of others, and collaborative, communitarian ideals. The third is the idea that society’s institutions, including business, government, education and also community associations are corrupted in some important way. Thus, in any dispute one ought to assume that the individual being pressured or sued is probably innocent (unless proven otherwise), because this is what institutionalism does.

With HOA’s and condominiums, the second, “collaborative” view dominates the discourse. The concept of a community association is that it is a local mediating institution that makes decisions deliberatively by votes of committees or the membership. However, a “collaborative” approach does not always result in an agreement. People become frustrated by a sense of wasted time. Many HOA committees like to be “informal, while prepared to move on or impose punitive measures if they see fit. When collaborative approaches fail, boards and committees tend to rely more on executive sessions or email communications. The focus evolves into using the deliberative process in a way to manage various voices and factions within a community.

It is possible to go too far in valuing “concord” over toleration of personal dignity. I was reading something about civil unrest in the United Kingdom by journalist Sam Ashworth-Hayes. He was talking in a May 11, 2025 article about the place of free speech within the UK in the context of controversies about migrant policy. Ashworth-Hayes writes,

If you set out with the goal of minimising (sic) the risk of conflict between groups, then you will tend to police those who are easily policed, rather than those who infringe on the rights of others. . . .

Your rights, in other words, are directly related to the perceived threat your group poses. If you are largely peaceful, you will face the full force of the law as it attempts to avoid clashes between groups. If police officers are worried that a riot will result from confrontation, an offender will likely walk free. And the wider war on free speech results from the same dynamic.

Of course, disputes within HOA’s are not the same as political controversies in other countries where the fear of rioting is a factor. But the human dynamics are not dissimilar. HOA’s and condominiums tend to bring their enforcement powers down on those whom they can make a public example of. Thus, “concord” is achieved by picking sides. Ashworth-Hayes makes an important point: How one is treated in a controversy is often a product of how one presents oneself. Always seeking a “collaborative” solution is noble. But if you are completely within your rights, and someone wants you to change, if you enter into mediation with them, you may have to compromise on something important that you were never obligated to. By appearing to be helpless and weak, others will treat you like you are, rather than respecting your vulnerability.

For many homeowners, the best immediate course of action in their dispute with their HOA may be to stay the course with whatever alteration or usage they have going on, politely decline to comply with a request that is not based on a rule that must be followed, and to leave the door open to negotiation about other matters. For some people, this will not work, because some people cannot tolerate any sort of uncertainty or ambiguity in their dealings with others. Standing one’s ground may me that participation in community meetings or activities may be awkward, because they have a dispute with someone that has never been “resolved.” However, if they simply give in or escalate the conflict, the sense of alienation would not be avoided.

In discussing such an approach, the landowner may ask what sort of threats or action they may face if they simply stand their ground on something. The big threats could mean a notice of violation, a fine, a lien, foreclosure, lawsuit, or suspension of common element usage rights. However, if the homeowner is in the right, the association may be reluctant to take any sort of punitive or legal action just to satisfy a complainer. For example, an association may not have the will or resources to spend tens of thousands of dollars on pursuing a lawsuit. They may believe that filing a lien and pursuing foreclosure would open themselves up to getting sued. These concerns introduce a level of uncertainty. But the homeowner usually knows the people involved well enough to understand whether the risk is high. In other cases, standing one’s ground is not recommended because the homeowner would lose the case and suffer some sort of financial loss.

Can the homeowners stand their ground with the HOA? They may need an attorney. The homeowner’s attorney performs an important role in evaluating a course of action built around firmly but politely declining the unfounded demands of an association or neighbor. An attorney may represent the other side. The client may have never “disobeyed” a legal letter before. The risks or opportunities afforded by staying on the course may be unclear to the homeowner. The attorney may have dealt with many HOA notices or cease and desist letters before and may understand something about what is happening that the owner lacks the experience to pick up on. It may be necessary to investigate to determine how firm of a footing the client or the opponent seems to be. Attorneys sometimes communicate things to the opponent for the purpose of drawing a response that allows the client to be advised of potential further action or non-action.