In today’s high-tension environment in the United States, even the most minor disputes threaten to morph into something bigger. Community association professionals and volunteers have a responsibility to make sure that disputes are resolved amicably and internally. When they aren’t, disputes escalate, the press often gets involved, and legislators take note. All of that could lead to potentially harmful legislation.
CAI is tracking 88 bills in 2026 related to association dispute resolution across the country. These range from proposals to establish new ombudsperson programs, establishing a bill of rights specific to community associations, and new alternative dispute resolution requirements for associations. Here’s a round up:
Hawaii, Maryland, and New York introduced legislation to establish a new ombudspersons office in 2026.
Maine and Washington state introduced legislation empowering the state’s attorney general to investigate association-related complaints.
While Florida has an existing ombudsperson specific to condominiums, legislation was introduced in 2026 that would add a second ombudsperson’s office to handle HOA-related disputes.
Illinois and Utah discussed legislation modifying existing ombudsperson programs. CAI’s Utah Legislative Action Committee worked closely with legislators to craft fixes that work for all stakeholders. The Utah legislation successfully passed, creating a final product that addresses not just the ombudsperson office, but also clarifies specific rules around flags, and defines association property, storage of boats and other vehicles, and declarant turnover. The bill also clarified that the ombudsperson office does not have an attorney-client relationship with individuals who engage the office and specifies what materials must be published by the office on its website.
CAI’s Minnesota, Georgia, and North Carolina LACs worked hard to halt or amend legislation designed to set new standards for association dispute resolution among other provisions. These efforts saw mixed results with the Minnesota and Georgia bills passing in a form that is ultimately not in line with CAI’s public policies.
Specifically, many provisions of Minnesota bill SF 1750 include vague language and undefined terms, creating ambiguity that may result in increased litigation. Even with improvements, the cumulative effect of the final law introduces additional procedural and operational requirements that will require continued adjustment by associations and management companies and will likely result in increased costs for associations. As the legislation takes effect, ongoing follow-up surveys, stakeholder feedback, and data collection will be critical to evaluating the legislation’s real-world impact.
Georgia SB 406 requires property owners associations to register with the state, creates a process for the secretary of state to handle complaints filed by owners, and sets rules for how associations operate, renew registration, and handle foreclosures and disputes. This bill represents a major shift in how the state regulates community associations and will make it more difficult to recruit volunteer board members, leading to higher costs, lawsuits, and unintended harm to Georgia’s community associations. Representatives of the Georgia LAC continue to work with the secretary of state’s office on creating rules and processes on how to best implement this legislation.
CAI continues to emphasize that the community association housing model works best when it is empowered to self-regulate. As noted in CAI’s newly adopted Ombudsperson Public Policy, CAI primarily advocates for legislation that empowers community associations to adopt an internal alternative dispute resolution process. This approach is preferrable to creating a new state bureaucracy to investigate what in many states amounts to a limited number of complaints annually.
CAI encourages communities to adopt fair alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to resolve disputes outside of state legislative requirements, particularly in appropriate cases where such measures can facilitate efficient and equitable resolution. Alternative dispute resolution procedures can facilitate a neutral, cost-effective forum where homeowners and board members can meet on equal footing and hold a real dialogue. CAI members also have access to the CAI Exchange, where industry leaders can share best practices in handling disputes that may arise.
CAI encourages all community association boards to take the time to adopt the CAI Civility Pledge, and commit to fostering dialogue, understanding, and belonging. It is up to all of us to proactively promote civility and fair dispute resolution procedures in our communities and recommit to the shared goal of making community associations a great place to live.
Use this article to teach how local governance disputes can trigger state legislation. Have students identify the policy tools mentioned—ombudsperson offices, attorney general investigations, alternative dispute resolution mandates—and compare how states proposed them. Then ask small groups to draft a short internal dispute-resolution protocol for a hypothetical association, specifying timelines, neutral facilitation, and documentation. Finally, discuss how early, civil resolution might reduce the perceived need for new laws, and what trade-offs exist between local autonomy and state oversight. This builds civic literacy and practical conflict-resolution skills.
Related resource: https://opus5video.com/
Use this article to teach how local disputes can trigger state legislation. Have students identify the dispute-resolution options their own association already has, then compare them with the ombudsperson and ADR proposals described in Hawaii, Maryland, New York, Maine, Washington, Florida, Illinois, and Utah. Ask small groups to draft a short internal resolution process covering notice, mediation, and documentation, and discuss how early, civil resolution might reduce the perceived need for new laws. This connects civility, governance, and advocacy in one practical exercise.
Related resource: https://slayer2.org/
This article offers a strong case study for teaching how local governance disputes can trigger state-level regulation. A concrete classroom suggestion: have students trace one state’s bill from initial complaint through legislative outcome, identifying which stakeholder actions escalated or de-escalated the issue. Then ask them to draft a short internal dispute-resolution protocol an association board could adopt to address similar conflicts before they attract legislative attention. This builds practical skills in conflict management, policy analysis, and civility while showing how private governance decisions connect to public lawmaking.
Related resource: https://animebreaker.org/
Use this article to teach how local governance disputes can trigger state legislation. Have students identify the dispute-resolution mechanisms mentioned, then compare them with their own state’s laws. Ask small groups to draft a short internal civility policy for a community association, specifying steps before formal complaints or legal action. Finally, discuss how unresolved conflicts invite outside regulation, and have students write a brief memo advising a board on resolving disputes early to reduce legislative risk.
Related resource: https://collagemaker.org/
Use this article to teach how local governance disputes can trigger state legislation. Have students identify the dispute-resolution mechanisms mentioned, then compare them with their own state’s laws. Ask small groups to draft a short internal policy—such as mediation steps or a hearing process—that a community association could adopt before conflicts escalate. Follow with a structured debate on when legislative intervention is justified versus when self-governance works better. This builds skills in policy analysis, civility, and practical drafting while showing how professional associations track and respond to bills.
Related resource: https://stealanegg.net/
A practical classroom approach: have students compare the Utah and Minnesota outcomes as a mini case study in legislative negotiation. Ask them to identify which specific drafting choices—defined terms, clarified roles, published materials—made Utah’s bill workable while Minnesota’s vague language created problems. Then assign small groups to draft three concrete amendments that would resolve ambiguity in a hypothetical dispute-resolution bill. This teaches how precise statutory language, stakeholder engagement, and early internal dispute resolution connect to avoiding overreach, while building skills in policy analysis and collaborative problem-solving.
Related resource: https://worksheetgenerator.org/
Use this article to teach how local governance disputes can trigger state legislation. Have students trace one state example, such as Utah, and identify which stakeholder concerns shaped the final bill. Then ask small groups to draft a short internal dispute-resolution protocol for a hypothetical association, specifying timelines, neutral facilitation, and documentation. Compare protocols across groups and discuss how clearer, earlier resolution might reduce the perceived need for new laws. This builds practical skills in negotiation, policy analysis, and civic reasoning while showing how private governance and public oversight interact.
Related resource: https://loottoforge.org/
The point about Minnesota SF 1750’s vague language driving litigation is the part worth focusing on, since undefined terms tend to get resolved in court rather than at board meetings. Before the next legislative session, boards could log every dispute they resolve internally, with the date, issue, and outcome, over a few months. That record gives a concrete, local counterargument when similar bills come up, showing what associations already handle without a state process. It also helps spot which recurring issues actually need clearer rules.