In partnership with
For years, Florida homeowners have complained that when an HOA board goes bad, the system gives them rights on paper and frustration in practice. They can object, petition, recall, mediate, and sue — but in many cases the board still controls the money, the records, the rules, and the clock. That is why HB 657 mattered so much this legislative session. It was not just another HOA cleanup bill. It was an unmistakable sign that Florida lawmakers are now willing to challenge the basic power structure of community associations.
Let’s be clear up front: HB 657 did not become law. The bill passed the Florida House on March 5 by an overwhelming 108-2 vote, then died in the Senate Rules Committee on March 13, the scheduled last day of the 2026 regular session. Its Senate companion, SB 1498, also stalled, dying in Appropriations. So there is no immediate statutory upheaval. But if you think that means the threat — or the opportunity — has passed, you are reading the room wrong. A bill does not move this far, and with that kind of margin, unless it is tapping into real anger, real pressure, and real political momentum.
The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Juan Porras, framed the issue bluntly. He called HOAs, in their current form, a “failed experiment” and argued that too many Floridians have no effective recourse against unnecessary fines, liens, secrecy, or abusive board conduct. That language was not subtle, and it was not accidental. It reflected a growing belief in Tallahassee that the current enforcement structure works tolerably well when boards are honest and competent, but falls apart when they are not. In that sense, HB 657 was not merely about policy mechanics. It was a political response to the perception that too many homeowners are trapped inside systems that can punish them more easily than they can police them.
What made HB 657 explosive was not a simple board-recall tweak. It was the fact that the bill would have created a legal pathway to terminate an HOA itself under specified conditions. According to the official House bill analysis, the process would begin when a parcel owner submitted a petition for a plan of termination signed by at least 20% of the voting interests. The board would then be required to hold a meeting of the members within 60 days. If the proposed plan was approved by at least two-thirds of the total voting interests, it would then be submitted to the new community association court program — or another court of competent jurisdiction — for review. If accepted and recorded, the plan would become effective. That is a serious process, not a stunt. It is also a radical concept in practical terms: it tells homeowners that if the association structure itself is the problem, the state may allow them to unwind it.
That provision alone would have changed the psychology of power inside many communities. An HOA board that knows owners have a credible statutory termination mechanism behaves differently than one that assumes the membership has nowhere to go. Even if very few communities ever completed the process, the leverage shift would have been real. The bill also provided for an 18-month waiting period before another termination plan could be considered if the first one failed, which suggests lawmakers were trying to balance owner empowerment with a safeguard against constant destabilization. Again, whether one likes the bill or hates it, the signal is unmistakable: Tallahassee was exploring how to give homeowners a nuclear option.
The second major feature of HB 657 was just as consequential, though less flashy: it would have replaced the existing presuit mediation framework with a more formal dispute system centered on optional community association court programs. Under the bill analysis, circuit courts could create and administer these programs, with designated judges handling disputes under Florida’s condominium, cooperative, and homeowners’ association laws. The programs would have authority over enforcement actions, termination proceedings, and statutory disputes. Importantly, the analysis says the costs of creating, operating, and enforcing these programs would be funded through a general revenue appropriation to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. That means this was not just a private litigation shift. It was a proposed public-policy decision to move community-association conflict into a more structured, state-backed forum.
Supporters argued that reform was overdue. They pointed to repeated complaints that current remedies are too weak, too slow, and too easy for bad actors to evade. Florida Politics highlighted Porras’ argument that many owners today effectively hear, “Sue me,” when they try to enforce their rights. That frustration did not arise in a vacuum. The broader public conversation around HOA reform has been fueled by well-publicized cases involving fraud, theft, concealed records, and governance breakdowns in association communities. In that environment, a bill like HB 657 starts to look less like an attack on all HOAs and more like a legislative reaction to a system lawmakers believe has too many blind spots.
Opponents, however, raised legitimate concerns, and those concerns help explain why the bill ultimately stalled. Community-association advocates warned that eliminating presuit mediation could push more disputes into court, which usually means more lawyers, more procedural combat, and more cost. WUSF quoted Community Associations Institute CEO Travis Moore warning that the minute you put “court” in front of the issue, attorneys and expenses follow. Others asked the obvious practical question: what happens after an HOA is terminated? The roads still need maintenance. The pool still needs cleaning. The insurance still has to be carried. The stormwater system still has to function. Bay News 9 quoted a Tampa Realtor who worried that the bill sent a strong message to bad actors but offered too little certainty about how communities would manage shared assets and obligations after dissolution. Those are not trivial objections. They go to the heart of whether reform can be both populist and workable.
HB 657 also included another provision with long-term significance: it would require homeowners’ and condominium associations to include, or vote to include, so-called Kaufman language in their governing documents so their rules automatically remain subject to current and future state law. That may sound technical, but it cuts to an increasingly important fight in Florida. Lawmakers are showing less patience for associations that act as though old governing documents can override or outlast state policy reforms. In plain English, the Legislature was asserting that associations are creatures of statute, not little sovereign republics.
So what is the outlook? For this session, the answer is simple: no new law, no immediate operational change, no court program rollout, and no statutory HOA termination process. But for anyone in the CAM, HOA, real estate, or development world, the deeper lesson is more important than the final vote count. HB 657 showed that lawmakers are actively testing far more aggressive oversight of community associations than many in the industry assumed possible. And because the bill passed the House 108-2, this issue is not going away. Expect the ideas inside HB 657 to come back in revised, narrower, and more politically disciplined form — perhaps with more guardrails on dissolution, more clarity on post-HOA maintenance, and more refined dispute-resolution language.
The straight-shooting takeaway is this: HB 657 failed as a bill, but succeeded as a warning. Homeowner frustration has become legislative fuel. The old assumption that HOAs are politically untouchable is gone. If boards, managers, and association advocates want to avoid a more disruptive reform package in the future, they would be wise to treat this year’s near miss as a serious wake-up call. Because in Florida, the next version may not die on the calendar.
Please help support this newsletter by simply clicking on the advertising link below and making sure you are subscribed to the newsletter. This is at no cost to you but helps offset the cost of bringing this information to you for FREE!
You Can't Automate Good Judgement
AI promises speed and efficiency, but it’s leaving many leaders feeling more overwhelmed than ever.
The real problem isn’t technology.
It’s the pressure to do more with less — without losing what makes your leadership effective.
BELAY created the free resource 5 Traits AI Can’t Replace & Why They Matter More Than Ever to help leaders pinpoint where AI can help and where human judgment is still essential.
At BELAY, we help leaders accomplish more by matching them with top-tier, U.S.-based Executive Assistants who bring the discernment, foresight, and relational intelligence that AI can’t replicate.
That way, you can focus on vision. Not systems.
Book Shelf from Brett Vogeler: amazon.com/author/bvogeler
Need a roadmap? Reply in the comments section or send us an email for assistance. 360 Perspective Partners offers Professional Licensed Business, Commercial and Investment Brokerage Services along with providing Professional Licensed Community Management Services in Central Florida: https://my360perspective.com/
Contact me directly at [email protected]. To see our other useful Newsletters on this topic and others: https://realestate-business-broker-guru.beehiiv.com/
Stay ahead of the curve. Forward this to a colleague who needs to ride the wave and be sure to SUBSCRIBE for continued real estate and business content.