Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hoa Dispute Resolution topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
HOA dispute-resolution bill stalls after debate over costs and balance of rights
Summary
House Bill 11‑23, which would create a structured informal negotiation process between unit owners and homeowners associations, failed to advance in the Senate committee after sustained opposition from HOA groups and concerns about costs; the committee later postponed the bill indefinitely.
House Bill 11‑23, a measure that would require an HOA to provide an informal negotiation process and give unit owners a 60‑day window for an executive-session meeting before litigation, failed to win committee approval and was subsequently postponed indefinitely.
Senator Exum, the sponsor, described the bill as intended to resolve disputes outside court by authorizing an informal negotiation (to be held at a regularly scheduled HOA meeting or a convened special executive session within 60 days) and preserving court as a final option. The re-engrossed version had removed some earlier mandatory negotiation and mediation language; sponsor and committee amendments sought to clarify several points.
Opponents representing the Community Associations Institute, the Colorado Bar Association ADR section and several large HOAs told the committee the re-engrossed bill was substantially weakened on third reading in the House and now contains permissive language that will not achieve its original mediation goals. They warned the bill imposes administrative and postage costs on associations, could force mediation expenses onto association budgets, and removed previously negotiated exceptions for collections and other matters.
Proponents — including the NAACP state conference, National Action Network Colorado and homeowner-advocate groups — argued a statutory process is necessary because, they said, many homeowners (particularly low-income and BIPOC residents) face unreasonable fines, lack of HOA responsiveness, and risk of displacement without a low-cost path to resolve disputes. Proponents urged that a requirement to place disputes on a meeting agenda and offer informal negotiation would reduce litigation and keep families in their homes.
The sponsor offered amendment L10 to clarify that mediation would be optional after an unsuccessful informal negotiation and to require an association that has a dispute with an owner to offer the owner the opportunity for informal negotiation. L10 was adopted without objection, but the committee later polled the bill: the motion to advance the measure failed on a 4–3 vote. The committee then voted to postpone HB 11‑23 indefinitely.
Committee members cited competing concerns: a desire to address abusive HOA practices and protect homeowners, counterbalanced by the prospect of statewide administrative costs, the removal of previously negotiated exceptions, and the re-engrossed bill’s loss of mandatory mediation language.
After postponement, the bill will not move forward this session unless reintroduced or reconsidered by the legislature.
