or 
lines to the right of the URL bar at the top of your browser
House Passes HOA, Common Interest Community Policy Reform Bill
The bipartisan bill includes broad consumer protections and limits on homeowners association practices, along with a provision affecting local development approvals.
On April 30, the Minnesota House of Representatives passed HF1268/SF 1750*, a sweeping bill aimed at reforming homeowners associations (HOAs) and common interest communities (CICs).
The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Kristin Bahner (DFL-Maple Grove) and Sen. Eric Lucero (R-St. Michael), is commonly referred to as the “Homeowners Association Bill of Rights.” It passed on a bipartisan 100-34 vote.
Senate companion
A version of the bill passed the Senate last session on a 44-22 vote, but the language was significantly revised as it moved through the House this year. Because the House and Senate versions differ, the bill will return to the Senate for consideration. If brought to the floor, the Senate is expected to take up the House version, which could send the bill to the governor for signature.
Notable provisions
The legislation includes a range of policy changes aimed at increasing transparency and protecting homeowners. Key provisions would:
- Establish conflict-of-interest standards.
- Prohibit excessive fines and fees.
- Require association rules to be reasonable.
- Create alternative dispute resolution options.
- Limit the use of property foreclosure as an enforcement tool.
- Require associations to adopt a schedule of fees, fines, and charges.
- Make it easier to dissolve a common interest community or homeowners association.
- Eliminate certain parking restrictions, such as prohibitions on parking work vehicles in residential driveways.
The bill also includes a provision with potential implications for cities. Section 14 would prohibit cities and counties from requiring the creation of an HOA — or common property necessitating one — as a condition for approving residential building permits, conditional use permits, or planned unit developments, unless requested by the developer or required by state or federal law.
The House considered an amendment to remove this local government preemption provision. Despite ongoing concerns raised by local governments, the amendment failed on a bipartisan 47-86 vote.