In community associations, authority is never an abstract concept. Boards of directors are charged with overseeing the operations of a shared community, managing finances, enforcing governing documents, and making policy decisions that affect every resident and owner. Unit owners, however, are not passive participants. They fund the association through fees, they live under the rules established by the governing documents, and they often have strong opinions about how their communities should be run. When owners believe a board has overstepped its authority, or conversely, when they attempt to override a lawful decision, disputes can quickly escalate into bitter conflicts. In such disputes, the role of the lawyer becomes essential, offering both clarity and structure. Attorney Carole Briggs has long emphasized that understanding the precise legal boundaries of board authority is the key to preventing these conflicts from spiraling into costly litigation.
The Nature of Board Authority in Community Associations
To appreciate the challenges inherent in disputes between boards and owners, one must first understand the foundation of board authority. In the District of Columbia, as in most jurisdictions, boards derive their power from two primary sources: the association’s governing documents and statute. Various governing documents, depending on the type of community association, such as the Declaration Bylaws, Proprietary Leases, along rules and policies, state what a board may and may not do. These documents are then reinforced by the statutory framework that authorizes associations to delegate to boards with certain enumerated powers, such as levying assessments, maintaining common areas, and enforcing restrictions.
Yet, authority is not unlimited. Boards must act within the scope of the powers granted to them, and even when acting within those powers, they must exercise them consistently with fiduciary obligations. Courts have long emphasized that authority must be exercised in good faith, with loyalty to the community, and with reasonable care. Owners who challenge board actions often frame their claims around alleged violations of these duties, making it critical for boards to anchor every decision in both governing documents and statutory requirements.
Common Grounds for Owner Challenges
Disputes over authority typically arise in predictable ways. Owners may object to special assessments or fee increases, arguing that the board has exceeded its financial powers. They may resist enforcement of rules, such as restrictions on pets, parking, or short-term rentals, claiming the board has misapplied or overextended its authority. In some cases, owners challenge the board’s control over architectural guidelines, asserting that decisions are arbitrary or discriminatory.
Another frequent flashpoint occurs when boards amend rules or policies without proper procedure. Even if the substantive change is reasonable, a failure to comply with procedural requirements—such as adequate notice or quorum thresholds—can undermine the legitimacy of the decision. Owners may then mobilize to resist compliance, leading to protracted disputes. For lawyers advising boards, the lesson is clear: procedure is as critical as substance. Ensuring that decisions are procedurally sound is often the strongest defense against claims of overreach.
Judicial Deference and Its Limits
Courts generally apply what is known as the “business judgment rule” when reviewing board decisions. This doctrine grants boards a degree of deference, recognizing that elected directors are in the best position to make policy choices for their communities. As long as a decision is made in good faith, within the scope of authority, and in furtherance of the association’s best interests, courts are reluctant to second-guess it.
However, this deference has limits. When owners can demonstrate that a decision was made in bad faith, was arbitrary, or was outside the powers granted by the governing documents, courts are more willing to intervene. For instance, a board that imposes penalties without authority in the governing documents, or that singles out certain owners for enforcement while ignoring others, risks judicial invalidation of its actions.
Thus, boards must be mindful that their authority is not a blank check. Lawyers advising boards should consistently remind them that transparency, consistency, and adherence to process are not just best practices—they are shields against liability.
Strategies for Boards to Reaffirm Authority
When owners challenge board decisions, the instinct may be to respond defensively. Yet escalation often only deepens divisions. Legal strategy must therefore focus on reaffirming authority without alienating the community. One of the most effective methods is clear communication. Boards should articulate the legal basis for their decisions, citing the specific governing provisions that authorize their actions. When owners understand the source of authority, they are less likely to view decisions as arbitrary or personal.
Another strategy involves the use of facilitated dialogue. While boards must not compromise on legal obligations, they can often resolve disputes by explaining their reasoning and considering owner input. A lawyer’s presence in these settings can help frame discussions around the law rather than emotions, underscoring that the dispute is not personal but structural. By doing so, boards demonstrate their commitment to fairness while preserving their rightful authority.
Finally, consistent enforcement is essential. Boards that apply rules sporadically invite challenges grounded in claims of selective enforcement or discrimination. A uniform approach demonstrates that authority is exercised fairly and legally, reducing the credibility of owner objections. Lawyers can assist by reviewing enforcement procedures and ensuring they comply with statutory and contractual obligations.
The Role of Legal Counsel in Boundary Setting
Attorneys advising boards must do more than simply respond to disputes; they must actively define and protect the boundaries of authority. This requires ongoing engagement rather than crisis management. Counsel can review governing documents regularly, identifying ambiguities that might invite owner challenges. They can also provide training to board members, ensuring they understand both the scope and the limits of their powers.
In cases where authority is unclear, legal counsel can guide boards through amendment processes to clarify responsibilities and prevent future disputes. For example, if the governing documents are silent on certain enforcement mechanisms, boards should not improvise. Instead, they should work with counsel to amend the documents, following the proper procedures, so that authority is clearly established and defensible. In this way, attorneys serve as both guardians of the present and architects of more stable governance frameworks.
Preventing Escalation Through Proactive Governance
The ultimate goal of legal strategy in these disputes is not simply to win arguments but to preserve the stability of the community. Escalated conflicts erode trust, polarize neighbors, and may depress property values. By proactively defining boundaries and adhering to them, boards reduce the likelihood of owner challenges in the first place. Proactive governance involves setting clear policies, documenting decision-making processes, and demonstrating accountability at every step.
When owners see that decisions are grounded in law, consistently applied, and transparently explained, they are far less likely to challenge authority. Lawyers play a central role in building this culture of compliance, providing not only legal defense but also preventative guidance. The measure of success is not the number of disputes resolved in court but the number of disputes prevented altogether.
Final Thoughts
When owners challenge board authority, the dispute is rarely just about rules—it is about legitimacy, fairness, and governance. Boards that understand their legal boundaries and adhere to them consistently are best positioned to maintain stability in their communities. For attorneys advising these boards, the task is to ensure that authority is both exercised and perceived as lawful, balanced, and just.
In the District of Columbia and beyond, the legal framework provides boards with robust powers, but those powers are effective only when applied with care, transparency, and fidelity to process. Owner challenges will always arise, but they need not destabilize a community. With clear legal boundaries, proactive strategies, and guidance rooted in both law and fairness, boards can reaffirm their authority while preserving trust. In doing so, they not only avoid litigation but also strengthen the fabric of their communities for the long term.