Summary#
SB 476, “Revise Ohio Planned Community and Condominium Law,” is an introduced bill that would amend Ohio’s condominium and planned-community laws and add new provisions. Its stated goal is to revise those laws; the text does not guarantee particular results. The supplied bill text ends partway through a planned-community provision, so some changes listed in the bill’s title cannot be reviewed here.
- Associations would have to hold annual budget votes and maintain reserves, subject to different waiver rules for condominium and planned-community associations.
- New meeting rules would generally let owners attend and participate in board discussions, with exceptions for executive sessions and matters about specific owners. The bill also sets rules for meeting notice, minutes, and board proxies.
- Associations would have to give owners evidence and a chance to request a hearing before imposing certain damage charges or enforcement assessments.
- The bill would let associations prohibit short-term rentals if prospective buyers receive adequate notice, but owners already prohibited from renting before the new rule takes effect could resume.
- The bill would create a process for certain owners to challenge an association’s failure to meet specified duties, including paying dues into court escrow or asking a court to order the association to act.
- Boards would have powers over association business, including hiring, contracts, property, fees, rules, and legal actions. The bill also sets a 49% cap on any one owner’s voting power.
What it means for you#
- Condominium and planned-community owners: You would generally be able to attend and participate in covered board discussions. You would receive notice of meetings, and minutes would be available. Owners could request a hearing to challenge certain proposed charges, but the request must be made within 10 days of receiving notice.
- Owners and association boards: Before certain charges, boards would have to provide a description of the issue, supporting evidence, the proposed amount, hearing information, and—where applicable—a cure date. If a hearing is requested, it must be held before the charge is imposed.
- Owners affected by association noncompliance: For the specified duties, an owner in good standing could give written notice and, if the association does not fix the problem in time, deposit dues with the court or seek a court order. The condominium provisions provide escalating damages if an association disobeys a court order.
- Condominium owners: You would have to give the association contact information for yourself and occupants, and information about a unit manager, within 30 days of acquiring the unit; you would also have to report changes.
- Short-term renters and owners: Associations could prohibit rentals with adequate notice to prospective owners. But an owner whose rental use was already prohibited before the law takes effect could resume it under the bill.
- Planned-community owners: The bill would require the association to maintain specified insurance, to the extent reasonably available and applicable. The supplied text describes property, liability, directors-and-officers, and funds-protection coverage.
Money#
No publicly available information on the bill’s estimated public cost.
- Associations would have to budget for reserves; planned-community associations would also have to maintain the listed insurance.
- The bill permits a court clerk to charge a 1% fee on dues deposited in escrow. The association or owner may also face court costs; some cases may include damages or attorney’s fees.
- The bill does not provide estimates for association costs, owner assessments, court costs, or public administrative costs.
What is unclear#
- The supplied text does not include the full bill or the parent laws, so current-law comparisons and the bill’s remaining planned-community provisions could not be verified.
- The planned-community law would say non-director owners may not attend board meetings unless the board allows it, while the new meeting provision says owners may attend and participate. The text does not resolve this conflict.
- “Adequate notice” for rental bans and “good standing” for owner remedies are not defined in the supplied text.
- The bill does not explain how owners would challenge a board’s hearing decision or what review process would apply.
- The bill is introduced, not law; the supplied material gives no effective date.
Case for#
- A possible argument for the bill is that owners would get more access to association decisions through meeting participation, notices, and minutes.
- Requiring evidence and a chance to be heard before certain charges could make those charges more transparent and contestable.
- Reserve budgets and funds-protection insurance could help associations plan for major repairs and protect association money.
- The court process could give owners a way to seek action when an association fails to meet specified duties.
Case against#
- The bill gives boards broad powers over property, rules, fees, and legal actions, while the supplied text does not set out a general appeal process for board decisions.
- The meeting provisions appear inconsistent, which could make owners’ rights to attend board discussions uncertain.
- Required reserves and insurance could increase association expenses and, in turn, owners’ dues or assessments; the bill gives no cost estimates.
- Allowing owners previously barred from short-term rentals to resume them could conflict with restrictions an association had already imposed.