Uniform common‑interest ownership act pitched as clarity for HOAs; sponsor and ULC cite broad stakeholder process

Representative Alana Griffith told the committee House Bill 619 would adopt the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act (a model act drafted by the Uniform Law Commission) to govern creation, management, purchaser protections and termination of common‑interest communities such as HOAs and condominiums. She described the bill as the product of multi‑year interim committee work involving developers, owners, title companies, realtors and attorneys.

Sponsor summary: Griffith outlined the bill’s structure: definitions and general provisions; applicability and creation of common interest communities; management provisions (bylaw‑like rules specific to common‑interest contexts); an owners’ bill of rights and purchaser protections; and transitional provisions to move from the existing Unit Ownership Act to the new scheme over a multi‑year transition period. She noted that the bill is tailored to residential communities, allows opt‑ins for certain commercial arrangements, and contains developer and purchaser protections that were negotiated nationally.

Support: Representatives of the Uniform Law Commission, Community Associations Institute, Gallatin College, county sheriffs and municipal groups testified in favor, emphasizing that the model act resolves long‑running conflicts and provides a predictable framework for owners, boards, purchasers, lenders and developers. Jane Sterneke (ULC) and others noted the act's careful drafting and national consensus backing; Community Associations Institute said members had asked for such comprehensive statutory guidance.

Opposition and concerns: An opponent from development (Zachary Oakland) objected to specific thresholds and definitions — for example, a provision that defines master‑planned communities by a 500+ acre/500‑unit threshold — and raised concerns about separate conveyance of common elements and federal takings challenges for older developments not structured under the new distinctions. The sponsor said she would review the developer comments and welcomed suggested technical amendments.

Committee disposition: The hearing involved extended background and many technical questions from committee members about transition timelines, applicability to existing communities, and interplay with other HOA‑related bills. The sponsor asked for a due pass and signaled willingness to consider amendments to address developer concerns; no floor action or vote was recorded in the transcript.