Corrections and Updates
Last verified: October 26, 2026
This is the dated record of what changed on CommonKeel and why: prices that moved, statutes we re-read, scores that changed, and errors we made and fixed. Each page on the site shows only its current information and a Last verified date; the history lives here. Where we got something wrong, the entry says so plainly. If you spot an error, write to michael@commonkeel.com; corrections are the mail we most want.
Jump to: October 2026 · September 2026 · August 2026 · July 2026. How we work: Editorial standards · Methodology · Disclosure.
October 2026
- 2026-10-30 · /states/comparison/ · /states/ · the meeting notice deadline calculator · the state law dataset
We told Colorado boards that CCIOA requires a written election policy. It does not, and three other Colorado cells said a rule was not tracked when the statute sets one. The Colorado election cell read “Contested board elections by secret ballot counted by non-candidate owners; written election policy required” and cited C.R.S. 38-33.3-209.5. The responsible-governance policies that section requires cover collection of unpaid assessments, conflicts of interest, conduct of meetings, enforcement of covenants and rules, inspection of records, investment of reserve funds, adoption of policies, disputes, and the reserve study. There is no election policy among them, and the phrase does not appear anywhere in article 33.3. That claim is removed. The meeting notice cell read “Not tracked” where 38-33.3-308(1) sets a 10 to 50 day window for any meeting of the unit owners, and sets no advance period at all for a board meeting. The records cell read “Deadline not tracked” where 38-33.3-317(4.5) gives the association 30 calendar days from a certified-mail request before a $50 a day penalty starts on the 11th business day, and 38-33.3-316(8) gives it 14 calendar days to furnish a statement of unpaid assessments. The fines and lien cell read “Not tracked” with no citation at all; it now carries the $500 cap on total fines for one violation, the 30 day cure, the 72 hour cure for a public safety violation, the 8 percent interest cap and the rule that a fines-only debt cannot be foreclosed. All seven of those cells move from secondary to primary depth. Source: the official Colorado Revised Statutes 2026, Title 38, published by the Office of Legislative Legal Services and current through the Second Regular Session of the 75th General Assembly, read 2026-10-30. The finding a board can act on is 38-33.3-209.5(1.7)(b)(III): total fines for a single violation may not exceed $500, and the owner must get two consecutive 30 day cure periods before the association may take legal action. A Colorado board running an open-ended daily fine is outside the statute, because 209.5(1.7)(b)(I) also bars daily fines and daily late fees. The calculator gained two Colorado clocks, so the count of states with no recorded notice period falls from 9 to 8, and its clock total is corrected from 80 to 85 after yesterday’s Oregon entries. - 2026-10-29 · /states/comparison/ · /states/ · the meeting notice deadline calculator · the state law dataset
We told Oregon boards that their records deadline and their meeting notice periods were not tracked. ORS 94.670 sets two 10 business day clocks and ORS 94.650 sets a 10 to 50 day window. The Oregon records cell read “Deadline not tracked; association must keep records and make them available for owner examination (section title confirmed only)” and the meeting notice cell read “Not tracked; board meetings require notice and owner meetings have their own notice rules (section titles only)”. Both were written from section titles in the official chapter index rather than from the sections themselves. ORS chapter 94 and ORS chapter 100 were read in full at the official statutory text at oregonlegislature.gov on 2026-10-29. ORS 94.670(8)(a) gives an owner a written payoff statement within 10 business days of a written request, listing regular and special assessments, fines and other charges, accrued interest, late payment charges and the rates used, and 94.670(11) gives the same 10 business days for the declaration and bylaws, the recorded plat, the current rules, the most recent annual financial statement, the current operating budget, the reserve study and the architectural standards. ORS 94.650(4) requires notice of any meeting of lot owners not less than 10 or more than 50 days ahead, and 94.644(6) requires a board meeting to be posted at least 3 days ahead, but only in a planned community where the majority of the lots are the principal residences of the occupants, which is a limit the cell could not have carried before. All eight Oregon cells move from secondary to primary depth, including the fines and lien column, which read “Not tracked” with no citation at all. The finding a board can act on is in the condominium chapter: ORS 100.450(4)(d) bars an association from maintaining an action to foreclose its assessment lien or to recover a money judgment for unpaid assessments unless its Condominium Information Report and Annual Report are designated current under ORS 100.255, so a condominium board that has let the $25 Annual Report lapse cannot collect a delinquency through the courts until it is filed. A planned community board faces no equivalent bar. Three further things now published rather than implied: a fine reaches the assessment lien because ORS 94.709(5) makes fees, late charges, fines and interest enforceable as assessments unless the declaration or bylaws provide otherwise; a secret ballot in Oregon is opt in, because ORS 94.647(2)(b) requires secrecy envelopes only where at least 10 percent of owners petition at least 3 days before the scheduled mailing; and ORS 94.595(8)(b) lets a board skip a year of reserve funding only with the approval of all owners. The meeting notice deadline calculator carried no Oregon day count and labelled the state as read from a secondary source; it now carries three clocks and the state count of rows with no recorded period falls from 10 to 9. One thing we got wrong about our own work: our source register has recorded ORS 94.595 as read at primary text since 2026-09-01, while both reserve cells on the live page kept a secondary source marker and told readers the reserve substance rested on oregon.public.law and Justia. Nothing checks the live depth marker against the source register, so that stale marker stood for 58 days. Also recorded, because it limits what we can link to: Oregon publishes each ORS chapter as a single document with one element id and no per-section anchor, so an Oregon citation link opens the chapter and the section number is given in the cell. - 2026-10-29 · /software/best-hoa-software-self-managed/ · /software/hoa-software-directory/
KindHOA Board Automation now includes a community domain and 5 board email addresses. We priced them as $29.99 and $49.99 a year add-ons. Our KindHOA profile listed under “Paid separately” a managed community web address at about $29.99 a year and “Board Presence” (a domain plus a board@ address) at about $49.99 a year. Read at the vendor’s own pricing page on 2026-10-29, both are included with Board Automation and the phrase “Board Presence” no longer appears anywhere on the page, which now states “Community domain included (managed or bring-your-own)” and “5 board email addresses included”. What is still charged separately is an extra web address at $29.99 a year, DNS hosting at $29.99 a year, and extra board emails at $9.99 a year per 5. A 25-unit board budgeting from our page would have set aside $49.99 it does not owe. Three other published figures gained detail in the same read: Bank Sync at $9 a month or $89 a year covers 2 linked accounts with $4 a month for each extra to a maximum of 8; Mail Credits are $79.99 for 25 prepaid First-Class letters; and Busy Board is $14.99 a month per extra 5,000 board-mail sends. Two conditions are new on the page and go with the included domain: the 60-day trial still needs no card, but a card must be added to claim the domain and board emails, and on cancellation the site returns to a kindhoa.com address, board email pauses, KindHOA holds the domain until its registered year ends, and moving it elsewhere is $50. Everything else KindHOA publishes was re-read the same day and is unchanged, including $299 a year and $29 a month ($348 a year billed monthly), the $0 Good Neighbor tier, and the platform fees of 1.0 percent on cards and 0.8 percent on ACH capped at $5 on Board Automation and 1.2 percent and 1.0 percent capped at $8 on Good Neighbor. How we came to look: the vendor’s founder emailed us on 2026-10-28 stating the change and asking for a link. We verified the change at the vendor’s own page rather than taking it from the email, we corrected only what the page supports, and we did not change KindHOA’s rank, its score of 4.35, or its 2 of 5 on support and continuity, which rests on the company being a 2025 entrant run by a single developer and not on how fast it answers email. No link was added and no commercial arrangement exists with KindHOA; see our editorial standards. - 2026-10-28 · /software/payhoa-review-self-managed-hoa/ · /software/hoa-software-pricing/ · /software/smartwebs-alternatives/
PayHOA now switches an AI assistant on by default and bills it from month four at half the plan rate, and our pages gave the cost of PayHOA without it. Read at the vendor’s pricing page on 2026-10-28: Gable AI “Comes switched on with every new account”, the first three months are free, and from month four it is billed with the plan. The figure is exactly half the plan rate in all eight banded tiers, in both billing columns, so a 25-unit association moves from $588 a year to $882 unless the board turns it off from its subscription page. The vendor publishes a figure per band and does not publish the half-rate pattern; that is our finding. All nine plan bands were re-read the same day and are unchanged, so no price we published was wrong, but a recurring charge that arrives by default belongs beside the cost of the product, and it is now on the review and in the normalized pricing table. The page also newly publishes the bank lockbox and resale documents at $0 to the association, and a full bookkeeping rate card, both recorded for the first time. The detail sits on a new page, PayHOA alternatives for a small self-managed association. Separate correction on the same day: our Smartwebs alternatives page said that dues collected through RunHOA carry Stripe’s own fees. RunHOA publishes no payment fee of any kind and does not say whether it adds one, so that was our inference presented as the vendor’s published position. The sentence now says what is and is not published. The same inference had already been corrected on the normalized pricing page on 2026-10-06 and was reintroduced when the newer page was written. Sources S796 to S800. - 2026-10-27 · /states/hoa-law-changes-2026/ · /states/
Our 2026 law-changes log had no Minnesota entry, although Minnesota enacted the largest single-state rewrite of the year on May 12, 2026. The log says it tracks the 22 states in our state requirements table, and Minnesota is one of them, so a Minnesota board reading that page in good faith would have concluded nothing had changed. Laws 2026, chapter 82 (S.F. No. 1750) amends 13 sections of the Minnesota Common Interest Ownership Act and adds two, and most of it takes effect January 1, 2027. The chapter was read in full at the marked session law text at revisor.mn.gov on 2026-10-27. The log now carries it as entry 5, the Minnesota section of the state hub carries a dated alert, and the detail sits on a new page, Minnesota HOA law changes on January 1, 2027. Nothing previously published about Minnesota was false; the rows on /states/ and /states/comparison/ state the law in force today, which is what they are for, and they stay as they are until the act takes effect. What was missing was any warning that it is about to change. Sources S792 to S795. - 2026-10-26 · /states/comparison/ · the state law dataset
We told Texas boards that owners there are entitled to vote by absentee ballot, electronic ballot or proxy, and that ballots are secret in contested elections. Both are wrong. An association has to offer only one of the three, and secret ballots are optional. The election cell read “Absentee, electronic and proxy voting; uniform ballot requirements; recount rights; ballot secrecy in contested elections” and carried our secondary-source marker. Tex. Prop. Code sec. 209.00592(a-1), read at statutory text on 2026-10-26, says that unless a dedicatory instrument provides otherwise an association is not required to provide an owner with more than one voting method, and that the owner must be allowed one of absentee ballot, proxy or electronic ballot. Sec. 209.0058(d) says an association may adopt rules to allow voting by secret ballot, and sets three safeguards if it does, including one observer per board candidate who is not entitled to see who cast any ballot. Nothing in chapter 209 makes secrecy a duty in a contested election. A Texas board that read our table and believed it had to run all three methods, or that owners had a statutory right to a secret ballot, was given the wrong answer by us. What sec. 209.0058 does require is a written and signed vote for five things: a vote cast outside a meeting, an election to fill a board position, adopting or amending a dedicatory instrument, a proposed regular assessment increase or special assessment, and removing a board member. Uncontested races need no written and signed ballot, and an electronic vote under sec. 209.00592 counts as written and signed. The column that said Not tracked. The fines and lien column for Texas had been published as “Not tracked” since the table was built, which is the emptiest cell any large state had. Texas has one of the most prescriptive fine and lien regimes in the country and it is now in the table at primary depth: the enforcement policy and fine schedule required by sec. 209.0061; the certified-mail notice, cure date and right to request a hearing by the 30th day under sec. 209.006; the hearing within 30 days on 10 days notice with one postponement of up to 10 days under sec. 209.007(c); the fixed payment order under sec. 209.0063(a), delinquent assessments first and fines fifth, so a payment cannot be absorbed by a fine to keep an owner delinquent; the payment plan of at least three months that an association of more than 14 lots must offer under sec. 209.0062; the lien clock under sec. 209.0094, first notice by first class mail or email, second by certified mail on or after the 30th day, and no lien filed before the 90th day after that second notice; the bar on foreclosing a debt consisting solely of fines or of attorney fees associated solely with fines (sec. 209.009); the expedited court order required before any foreclosure (sec. 209.0092(a)); and the 180-day redemption (sec. 209.011(b)). For condominiums, sec. 82.113 creates the lien by recording the declaration with no separate filing, but it is not a super priority lien: it yields to a first vendor lien or first deed of trust recorded before the assessment became delinquent, so zero months stand ahead of the mortgage, and redemption there is 90 days. The oversight cell was too narrow in one direction and missing a filing in the other. It read “None; enforcement through the courts, including justice courts for some records and meeting violations”. Sec. 209.017 is not limited to records or meeting violations: an owner may bring an action for a violation of this chapter, any violation, in the justice court of a precinct in which all or part of the subdivision is located. The cell also never mentioned the one state filing Texas does have. Under sec. 209.004 an association must record its management certificate in each county where the subdivision sits and must file it electronically with the Texas Real Estate Commission within seven days of filing it for recording, and the commission collects it only to publish the data. The penalty is financial, not administrative: under sec. 209.004(e) an owner is not liable for attorney fees incurred collecting a delinquent assessment, or interest on that assessment, where the fees were incurred or the interest accrued while the certificate was unrecorded or unfiled. Two other cells were incomplete and one carried an admission in the published text. The reserve funding cell ended with the words “(detail not re-verified)”, which should never have been shipped to a reader; sec. 82.157 is now read and the cell states what the resale certificate must contain, including the amount of reserves if any, and the 10-day deadline for the association to furnish it. The meeting notice cell gave only the 144-hour and 72-hour posting route; sec. 209.0051(e) offers an alternative route of mailing each owner not later than the 10th day and not earlier than the 60th day before the meeting, and on the posting route the statute requires posting and email, not either one. The negatives were tested, not assumed. Both chapters were read in full on 2026-10-26, chapter 209 at 110,945 characters and 40 sections and chapter 82 at 141,274 characters, and searched for the terms behind the row’s negative claims. The phrase reserve study appears nowhere in either chapter. The word reserve appears twice in all of chapter 209, once in the development period definition and once in a sentence letting an enforcement policy reserve the board authority to vary a fine, and neither is a reserve fund. The one reserve provision in chapter 82 is permissive: sec. 82.112(f) says a declaration may allow the accumulation of reserve funds. One applicability line that changes how the whole row should be read. Sec. 209.003(d) says chapter 209 does not apply to a condominium as defined by sec. 81.002 or 82.003. Every chapter 209 clock in the Texas row is therefore an HOA clock, and a Texas condominium board works from chapter 82, which itself applies to declarations recorded on or after January 1, 1994, with only the sections listed in sec. 82.002(c) reaching older condominiums. That list includes the assessment lien and the resale certificate but not the assessment section that permits reserve accumulation. The row now says so. All eight Texas cells move to primary depth, the row loses its four secondary-source markers, and the Texas row date moves to 2026-10-26. Sources S771 to S791. - 2026-10-25 · /states/comparison/ · the state law dataset
All eight Alaska source links opened the Alaska statutes front page, which loads Title 1, and our Alaska election cell said the act sets no cumulative voting rule. AS 34.08.150(d) sets one. Each of the eight cells in the Alaska row carried a link to statutes.asp with a chapter fragment. The site ignores that fragment and serves Title 1, general provisions, so a board that clicked the citation mark on any Alaska cell landed in a different title from the statute the cell cites. The sweep on 2026-10-24 found the pattern and left one question open, whether akleg.gov supports a link to a single section. It does, through the print view, and all eight links now open the section the cell rests on: 34.08.530 for reserves, 34.08.330 for the budget vote and for elections, 34.08.490 for records, 34.08.390 for meeting notice, 34.08.400 for board quorum, 34.08.320 for fines and the lien, and 08.88.161 for manager licensing. The claim we got wrong. The election cell read “There is no statutory secret ballot, written ballot or cumulative voting rule for board elections”. Two thirds of that is right and the last third is not. Under 34.08.150(d) the declaration may provide for cumulative voting only for the purpose of electing members of the executive board. So cumulative voting is available in Alaska only if your declaration already says so, it may not be adopted by board resolution, and it may not be used on any other vote. The same subsection bars a declarant from using cumulative or class voting to evade a limit the chapter places on declarants, and provides that units do not become a class because a declarant owns them. What was read, including the negative evidence. The whole of AS 34.08, all 87 sections and about 169,000 characters, was retrieved in the official print view today and searched for the terms behind the row’s negative claims. The phrases reserve study, executive session, secret ballot, written ballot, absentee and inspector of election appear nowhere in the chapter. The word ballot appears twice, both times in 34.08.255, the court route for confirming a declaration amendment approved by fewer than half the owners. Opened at statutory text today and read at the subsections the Alaska row cites: 34.08.010, 34.08.150, 34.08.320, 34.08.330, 34.08.370, 34.08.390, 34.08.400, 34.08.410, 34.08.450, 34.08.460, 34.08.470, 34.08.490, 34.08.530, 34.08.590 and 34.08.670, plus AS 08.88.161 and 08.88.175. Every other figure in the Alaska row held: the 10-to-60-day owner meeting notice by hand delivery or prepaid United States mail (34.08.390), the 30-day budget summary and the 14-to-30-day ratification meeting (34.08.330(c)), interest on past due assessments capped at 18 percent a year (34.08.460(b)), the 10-day resale certificate (34.08.590(b)) and the 10-business-day statement of unpaid assessments (34.08.470(h)), the five-day record return by a departing manager (34.08.490(b)), and the six-month lien priority limited to periodic budget common expense assessments (34.08.470(b)). The Alaska row date moves to 2026-10-25. Sources S754 to S770. - 2026-10-24 · /states/comparison/ · /states/ · the state law dataset
Five source links in the comparison table pointed at a reserve section while citing something else, and the cells behind them were thinner than the statutes. A sweep of every section-specific citation link in the table, 360 links across 49 rows and 8 topic columns, flagged five that did not point at any section the cell cited. Three were Utah: the meeting notice, open meeting and election cells all linked §57-8a-211, the reserve analysis section, while citing §57-8a-226 and Title 57 ch. 8a. Two were Maryland: the election and oversight cells both linked §11B-112.3, the reserve study section, the same wrong-link pattern corrected for the Maryland meeting cells on 2026-10-18 and the records cells on 2026-10-23. All five now point at a section the cell cites, and the sections were read in full at statutory text today rather than only relinked. Utah: §57-8a-214 was not on the site at all, and it carries two rules a board needs. Chapter 8a sets no day count for a meeting of lot owners, and a lot owner may require notice by mail by written demand even where the governing documents authorise email. §§57-8a-501 and 57-8a-216 were also read: a director must be a natural person at least 18 years old, and the bylaws must state the manner and method of officer election, qualifications, terms, removal and vacancy procedure, and must be filed for recording with the county recorder, so an owner who cannot get them from the board can get them from the recorder. The Utah election row moves off framework depth, with the limit stated on the page: corporate voting rules in Title 16 ch. 6a may also apply and were not read section by section. Maryland: the election cell read “Per governing documents read with the acts” at framework depth, which understated three HOA Act rules that protect a contested election, §11B-111.3(c) on distributing owner material in any manner or place the governing body distributes its own, §11B-111.4 on owner meetings in the common areas, and §11B-111.5 on petitioning the circuit court for a receiver where the board cannot fill vacancies to a quorum, and omitted the condominium rule that the bylaws are recorded with the declaration and must state the manner of selection and removal of the board (§11-104(a), (b)(1), (3)). The oversight cell read “No statewide agency”, which is true of a regulator and incomplete as an answer: a violation of either act is within the enforcement duties and powers of the Division of Consumer Protection of the Office of the Attorney General under Title 13 of the Commercial Law Article (§§11-130(c), 11B-115(c)), counties may add their own consumer-protection law under Commercial Law §13-103, and a local law applicable to an HOA development must be filed within 30 days in the county’s homeowners association depository while one applicable to condominiums goes to the Secretary of State (§§11B-115(e), 11B-113, 11-130(f)). The Maryland oversight cell keeps its secondary marker for one part only, the naming of the Montgomery and Prince George’s county programs, which has not been read at the county codes. Sources S742 to S753. - 2026-10-23 · /states/comparison/ · /states/ · the state law dataset
Maryland does set a records deadline. We published that it did not. The Maryland records cell in the comparison table read “Deadline not tracked; owner inspection under Condominium Act Title 11 and HOA Act Title 11B; each reserve study open to inspection (framework depth)”, and the Maryland section of the states hub read “owners have inspection rights ... (framework depth; the specific records sections were not fetched this pass)”. Both sections were read in full at statutory text on 2026-10-23, and both acts set clocks. On a written request to have copies of financial statements or minutes delivered, the association must compile and send them within 21 days where they were prepared in the 3 years immediately preceding the request, and within 45 days where they were prepared earlier (§§11-116(c)(1)(ii), 11B-112(a)(1)(iii)). Records must first be made available to a new owner no later than 15 business days after conveyance from the developer or declarant and a request (§§11-116(c)(2), 11B-112(a)(1)(ii)). A board that read our table and told an owner no deadline applied was given the wrong answer by us. Also added at primary depth: the six withholding grounds, the charge rules and the Courts Article copying cap, the condominium duty to keep records in Maryland or within 50 miles of the border, and the right of owners of at least 5 percent of the units to require an independent CPA audit once in any 12 months. The source link on both pages had pointed at §11B-112.3, the reserve study section, which is the same wrong-link pattern corrected for the Maryland meeting cells on 2026-10-18; it now points at §11B-112. Maryland election procedures remain at framework depth and are still marked as such. Sources S740 and S741. - 2026-10-22 · /software/hoa-software-pricing/ · /software/best-hoa-software-self-managed/ · /software/hoa-software-directory/ · /software/hoa-payment-processing/ · /software/hoa-online-voting/ · /finances/hoa-bookkeeping-software-or-bookkeeper/ · the software match tool
KindHOA Board Automation is $299 a year, not $300. We published $300 on seven pages. Read at the vendor’s own pricing page on 2026-10-22, which states verbatim that “Board Automation is $29/month or $299/year (best value; $348/year if paid monthly)” and carries the headline “One flat $29 a month or $299 a year”. The string “$300” appears nowhere in the page’s visible text or in its raw HTML. Our prior wording, from the 2026-10-01 monthly recheck, was “$0, or $300 a year prepaid”. We cannot date the vendor side, so this is recorded as what the page publishes today and not as a claim that the vendor changed the figure on a particular day. Four derived figures moved with it, all our own arithmetic: the per-transaction cost of the paid tier at 24 units and 168 transactions a year goes from $1.79 to $1.78; the per-unit-per-month figure at 200 units goes from $0.13 to $0.12; the 24-unit payments worked example total goes from $2,150.90 to $2,149.90; and the 100-unit all-ACH example on Board Automation goes from about $3,180 to about $3,179. Everything else KindHOA publishes was re-read the same day and is unchanged: the $0 Good Neighbor tier, $29 a month billed monthly, the $348 monthly-billed annual total, the 60-day trial with no card, the platform fees of 1.0 percent on cards and 0.8 percent on bank debit capped at $5 on Board Automation and 1.2 percent and 1.0 percent capped at $8 on Good Neighbor, Bank Sync at $9 a month or $89 a year, and postage at $3.99, $12.99 and $17.99 with 8 percent off on the paid tier. Found while building the Smartwebs alternatives page, which carries the corrected figure from publication. - 2026-10-19 · /tools/meeting-notice-deadline-calculator/
The meeting notice calculator told a Maryland board that no notice period was recorded for its state, and its Maryland source link pointed at the reserve study section. The tool restates what our 49-state table publishes, and the Maryland notice rule reached the table on 2026-10-18 without reaching the tool, so the tool still showed “No notice period recorded for Maryland” and “Not tracked”, with its citation link on Md. Real Prop. sec. 11B-112.3, the reserve study section. Maryland now carries five notice clocks, re-read at statutory text 2026-10-19: a regular or special meeting of a condominium council of unit owners on not less than 10 nor more than 90 days of written notice to the roster address, or electronic notice where sec. 11-139.1 is met (sec. 11-109(c)(4)), with no meeting on shorter notice than the section requires (sec. 11-109(c)(1)); special board meeting notice left to the bylaws or electronic transmission, with no day count (sec. 11-109(c)(5)); reasonable notice of every regularly scheduled open meeting of an HOA governing body, with no day count (sec. 11B-111(2)); no day count at all for a regular or special meeting of the lot owners; and the quorum-failure route, where the additional meeting falls at least 15 days after the first and carries its own notice at least 10 days ahead by delivery, mail, electronic transmission under sec. 11B-113.1, a newspaper published in the county, or the home page of the association website, stating the quorum and voting rules that then apply (sec. 11B-111(6)). The entry also records the two conditions sec. 11B-111(6) attaches to that route, which our table does not state: the notice of the first meeting must have said the procedure might be invoked and given the date, time and place of the additional meeting, and a majority of the lot owners present must vote to call it. The source link now points at sec. 11-109 and the downloadable notice-clock dataset carries the same five clocks. - 2026-10-18 · /states/comparison/ · /states/ · state law dataset
Our Maryland meeting-notice cell said “Not tracked” and both meeting cells linked the reserve study section. Maryland has a hard notice rule we were not publishing: a condominium council of unit owners may not meet on less than 10 nor more than 90 days of notice. Both cells cited Md. Real Prop. sec. 11B-111 while their source links pointed at sec. 11B-112.3, the reserve study section, so a reader who clicked the citation landed on the wrong statute. Read at statutory text 2026-10-18: sec. 11-109(c)(4) sets the condominium council’s 10-to-90-day written notice, delivered or mailed to the roster address or sent electronically where sec. 11-139.1 is met; sec. 11-109(c)(5) leaves special board meeting notice to the bylaws or electronic transmission; sec. 11-109(c)(1) forbids a meeting on shorter notice than the section requires; sec. 11B-111(2) gives HOA members reasonable notice of every regularly scheduled open meeting, with no day count; and sec. 11B-111(6) sets the quorum-failure route, where the additional meeting falls at least 15 days later and carries its own notice at least 10 days ahead by delivery, mail, electronic transmission under sec. 11B-113.1, a newspaper published in the county, or the association’s website home page, stating the quorum and voting rules that then apply. The open-meeting cell stood at framework depth and now carries the statute: a condominium governing body meets openly at the time and place in the notice or bylaws except as sec. 11-109.1 allows (sec. 11-109(c)(6)) and HOA board and committee meetings are open to members or their agents (sec. 11B-111(1)); both acts allow a closed session only on the same eight grounds (secs. 11-109.1(a), 11B-111(4)); nothing outside those grounds may be acted on or discussed there, and the next meeting’s minutes must record the time, place and purpose of the closed meeting, the vote of each member by which it was closed and the authority relied on (secs. 11-109.1(b), 11B-111(5)); sec. 11-109.1(c) bars withholding the terms of a legal agreement the association is party to; and both acts require an owner comment period plus at least one meeting a year with an open agenda (secs. 11-109(c)(7), 11B-111(3)), the comment duty not reaching a governing-body meeting held before the owners elect the board in a condominium or hold a majority of the votes in an HOA (secs. 11-109(c)(7)(i), 11B-111(3)(i)). Both cells lose the secondary-source marker and move to primary depth, and the Maryland row date moves to 2026-10-18. - 2026-10-18 · state law dataset
The California records-access row in the downloadable dataset still linked Civil Code sec. 5200 while citing sec. 5210(b), the mismatch we corrected on the table on 2026-10-12. The deadlines themselves, 10 business days for current-fiscal-year records and 30 calendar days for the previous two fiscal years, were right; only the link was wrong, and it now points at sec. 5210. Found by a check of every section-specific citation link in the table and the dataset against the section each one cites; those were the only mismatches in the 49 rows. - 2026-10-17 · /states/comparison/ · /states/ · state law dataset
We described California oversight as the Secretary of State collecting biennial filings. That left out the two things a board needs: the filing is the association’s own duty, and an incorporated association that misses it loses its rights, privileges and powers as a corporation. The cell read “None; enforcement is private (IDR/ADR, courts). Secretary of State collects biennial SI-CID filings” and carried our secondary-source marker, and its citation link pointed at Civil Code division 4, part 5, chapter 1, article 1 rather than at the filing section. Read at statutory text 2026-10-17: Civ. Code sec. 5405(a) requires every association, incorporated or unincorporated, to submit identifying information to the Secretary of State on a prescribed form for a fee not to exceed $30; sec. 5405(b) sets the cycle, which for an incorporated association runs with the Corporations Code sec. 8210 statement, filed within 90 days of the original articles and biennially after that, and for an unincorporated association biennially in July; sec. 5405(c) requires a change of onsite office or responsible officer to be reported within 60 days; and sec. 5405(d) makes the penalty for missing the initial or biennial filing suspension of the association’s rights, privileges and powers as a corporation plus monetary penalties to the same extent as Corp. Code sec. 8810, which is a delinquency notice followed by certification to the Franchise Tax Board and a $50 penalty if nothing is filed within 60 days (Corp. Code secs. 8810(a), (b)). The part of the old wording that was right stays: no agency enforces the Davis-Stirling Act against a board and California has no HOA ombudsman. Three things the cell never carried are now in it. Alternative dispute resolution is a prerequisite to a superior court enforcement action only where that action is solely for declaratory, injunctive or writ relief or carries damages inside the Code Civ. Proc. secs. 116.220 and 116.221 limits (Civ. Code sec. 5930(b)), and it does not apply to a small claims action or to an assessment dispute, which is the action a board brings to collect (Civ. Code sec. 5930(c), (d)). California does not license community association managers, since Bus. and Prof. Code sec. 11501(a) says a manager “may not be required to obtain a real estate or broker’s license” and sec. 11502 sets only what a person must have done to be called a certified common interest development manager, so a board with a complaint about its manager has no state body to bring it to. And one agency does have a role, before the board exists: under Bus. and Prof. Code sec. 11018 the Real Estate Commissioner examines the subdivision and issues the public report that authorizes the sale of its lots. On currency, sec. 5405 was amended by Stats. 2026, Ch. 28, Sec. 14 (SB 170), effective June 29, 2026 and operative July 1, 2026; comparing the chaptered text with the section shows that amendment renamed the agency entitled to one restricted data field in subdivision (f) to the Business and Consumer Services Agency, and did not change the filing duty or the penalty. The cell loses its secondary-source marker, which was the last one in the California row. - 2026-10-17 · /states/ · state law dataset
The California rows in the downloadable dataset, and the elections line on the states hub, were still carrying wording this site corrected on the comparison table two to five days earlier. Found while editing the oversight entry above. The hub and the dataset both called the 30-day election clock a “voting period” and said the procedure had not been re-verified line by line; the statute runs that clock from ballot distribution to the voting deadline, which the comparison table has said since 2026-10-14. The dataset’s California meeting-notice entry still read “commonly 4 days, 2 days for executive session (not separately re-verified)” and its source link still pointed at Civ. Code sec. 4925 while citing sec. 4920, the mismatch corrected on the table on 2026-10-12. Both dataset entries now carry the published figures at primary depth with the sections that were read, and the reserve disclosure entry moves from secondary to primary to match the table. No figure on the comparison table changed in this entry; what changed is that the file you download and the hub page now say what the table says. - 2026-10-16 · /states/comparison/ · /states/
We told Oregon boards their state has no agency for community associations. That was wrong for condominium associations, which file an annual report with the Oregon Real Estate Agency. The oversight cell read “None; private enforcement through the courts” and carried our secondary-source marker, and the Oregon bullet on the hub read “none, Oregon has no state agency that regulates community associations”. The Real Estate Agency’s own pages, read 2026-10-16, say the Division “regulates the creation and sale of condominiums” and “also receives the annual reports filed by condominium unit owners associations”, and that condominium unit owners associations “must file Annual Reports with the Oregon Real Estate Agency”. The Annual Report fee is $25; the declarant files a $100 Information Report first, which sets the association’s annual due date. The part of the old wording that was right stays: no state body enforces either act against a board, and the Agency publishes no complaint or dispute process. The distinction that the old wording lost is the one an Oregon board needs. A condominium association has a yearly state filing it can fall behind on; a planned community association under ORS ch. 94 files nothing with the Agency. The statutory sections are ORS 100.260 (Condominium Information and Annual Reports; contents; fees) and ORS 100.265 (Annual Report; notification; filing). We read those headings on the Oregon Legislature’s own chapter 100 page but could not retrieve their operative text, so the cell gives them at heading depth and keeps the secondary-source marker. This cell was flagged as unverified in our own notes on 2026-09-26, when the same error was found and corrected for Minnesota, and it took until today to check it. - 2026-10-16 · /states/comparison/ · /states/
Michigan: “no state agency” understated what the Condominium Act says, and our citation link pointed at the reserves section. The cell read “None; governance disputes resolved privately or in the courts” and linked MCL 559.205, which is the reserve fund section, not an oversight provision. Read 2026-10-16: the act names an “administrator”, defined at MCL 559.103 as “the department of consumer and industry services or an authorized designee”, and MCL 559.205 lets that administrator set minimum reserve-fund standards by rule. So the act does contemplate a state administrator. What it does not give is a route for your complaint: LARA’s own condominium guidance states that it “has no authority to take complaints or enforce any requirements of the Condominium Act”, and that “Only a court can order an association to comply with the Act, administrative rules, and bylaws.” LARA does publish the Condominium Buyer’s Handbook, and for a complaint about a developer it forwards the complaint with a Notice of Available Remedies, while stating it “has no authority to investigate a complaint further”. The cell now says both halves and links the LARA guidance. - 2026-10-16 · /states/comparison/ · /states/
Ohio and Connecticut: the “no oversight body” answer held up, and both cells now cite the right source. Both were carrying our secondary-source marker, and the Ohio cell linked Ohio Rev. Code sec. 5311.081, the condominium reserves section, for a claim about oversight. Ohio, read at the official code 2026-10-16: chapter 5312 has 16 sections and none creates an agency, an ombudsman or an administrative complaint route. Enforcement is a “civil action for damages, injunctive relief, or both” with court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees (sec. 5312.13); the association “may sue or be sued as a separate legal entity” (sec. 5311.20); an owner who believes a charge was improper sues to discharge the lien in the county court of common pleas (sec. 5311.18). The Ohio cell loses the secondary-source marker, because it is now read from the statute. Connecticut, read 2026-10-16: the Department of Consumer Protection states that its Real Estate Unit “does not hold hearings regarding condo complaints” and that “All complaints related to HOAs and condo regulations are addressed in court”. We added the one state route that does exist and that the old cell left out, because it is the route a board with a management problem would use: a community association manager must hold a certificate of registration under Conn. Gen. Stat. sec. 20-451(a), issued by the department on the authorization of the Real Estate Commission (sec. 20-453(a)), and the department takes complaints about registered managers. The statute says “certificate of registration”, not licence, which is the term to use when you write to them. - 2026-10-16 · /finances/hoa-tax-return-form-1120-h/
Our new Form 1120-H page went live yesterday showing another page’s title. The page carried two title tags: a leftover “HOA Audit vs Review vs Compilation: State Rules and Cost” from the page it was built from, and its own “HOA Tax Return: Form 1120-H or Form 1120, and When It Is Due”. Browsers and search engines take the first one, so anyone who found the tax page saw the audit page’s name in the tab and in search results, and two different pages on this site claimed the same title. The stray tag is removed. Nothing in the body of either page was affected. Our deploy check compares the bytes we publish against the bytes we built, which cannot catch a mistake that is already in the file we built. - 2026-10-14 · /states/comparison/
Our California elections and reserve-disclosure cells were written from a secondary source and were missing two rules a California board has to follow. Both cells carried our secondary-source marker. The elections cell read “Secret double-envelope ballots, independent inspector of elections, minimum 30-day voting period (procedural details not re-verified line by line)”. Civil Code Article 4 (secs. 5100 to 5145) was read at full statutory text on October 14, 2026. Nothing in the old wording was false, but it left out two operative rules. First, a board may adopt an operating rule to run the election by electronic secret ballot, except on a regular or special assessment (sec. 5105(i), added by AB 2159 of 2024). Second, where the governing documents require a quorum and the election does not reach it, the association may reconvene at least 20 days later and the quorum to elect directors is then 20 percent (sec. 5115(b)(6)). The phrase “minimum 30-day voting period” was also looser than the statute: sec. 5115 sets 30 days from ballot distribution to the voting deadline (c), and two separate 30-day notice clocks before that, one for the nomination procedure and deadline (a) and one for the ballot return details, candidate list and counting meeting (b). The cell now carries all of this, and the citation link points at the full article rather than sec. 5100 alone. The reserve-disclosure cell read “Disclosure-based: annual budget report must include reserve summary, percent funded and the Assessment and Reserve Funding Disclosure form”. Secs. 5300, 5565 and 5570 were read at full statutory text the same day and confirm every part of that, and add four things the cell did not say: the report goes out 30 to 90 days before the fiscal year ends (sec. 5300(a)); a reserve calculation may not assume a return on cash reserves more than 2 percent above the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco discount rate on the day of the calculation (sec. 5300(b)(7)); the reserve summary counts only cash and cash equivalents, prints in boldface, and states the funding deficiency per unit (sec. 5565); and a component with more than 30 years of remaining life may be dropped from the reserve calculation only if both the study and the disclosure summary say so (sec. 5570(b)(2)). Both cells have lost the secondary-source marker. The California row’s verified date moves from 2026-08-14 to 2026-10-14. No figure already published on the page was withdrawn. - 2026-10-12 · /states/comparison/, /states/ and /tools/meeting-notice-deadline-calculator/
Two California source links pointed at sections that do not carry the rule printed beside them, and our board meeting notice entry had never been read at the statute. The records-access cell cited Cal. Civ. Code sec. 5210(b) and linked sec. 5200, which defines what an association record is and says nothing about how long the board has to produce one. Sec. 5210 was read at full statutory text on October 12, 2026 and confirms the published figures without change: 10 business days for records prepared in the current fiscal year (sec. 5210(b)(1)) and 30 calendar days for the previous two (sec. 5210(b)(2)). Only the link was wrong, and it now points to sec. 5210. The meeting-notice cell cited sec. 4920, linked sec. 4925, and read “General notice commonly 4 days, 2 days for executive session (not separately re-verified)”, carrying our secondary-source marker. Sec. 4920 was read at full statutory text the same day. It sets notice at least four days before a board meeting (a); at least two days for a nonemergency meeting held solely in executive session (b)(2); no notice for an emergency meeting under sec. 4923 (b)(1); a longer period where the governing documents require one, which reaches emergency and executive-session meetings only if the documents say so (b)(3); delivery by general delivery under sec. 4045 (c); and an agenda in the notice (d). The four-day figure itself did not change. The cell now states the statutory rule, links sec. 4920 and no longer carries the secondary-source marker. The meeting notice deadline calculator takes the same entry, so it now models the two-day executive-session clock alongside the four-day clock (75 clocks across 49 states, previously 74), drops California from the list of states it labels as read from secondary sources, and the downloadable meeting-notice-rules.json carries the same change. - 2026-10-10 · /finances/reserve-study-guide-small-associations/, /software/hoa-software-directory/ and /research/hoa-software-pricing-dataset/
We published a reserve study cost figure of 0.84% that its stated source does not contain. Three pages said that Association Reserves’ own cost article puts “an average professional study at about 0.84% of an association’s annual budget”. Read again on October 10, 2026, both the article at reservestudy.com and the firm’s PDF of the same title state a rule of thumb and not an average: “the cost is typically less than 1% of the Association’s annual budget” for a Full study, with an update with a site visit at 50% to 80% of a Full study and an update with no site visit at 25% to 50%. The figure 0.84% appears in neither, and a ceiling is not an average. All three pages now carry the published wording, the two update percentages the article also gives, and an inline note at the figure. The same reading is the basis of the new reserve study cost estimator, which states both anchors as ceilings and ranges and not as a single number. The 2026-08 pricing dataset download files still carry the old wording in their Association Reserves record and have deliberately not been altered, because a dated release that changes after publication is worse than one that is wrong on the record; the dataset page says so and the next release will carry the correction. - 2026-10-08 · /software/hoa-software-directory/
Condo Control’s cheapest band is labelled “under 50 units”, not “0 to 99 units”. The directory row read “$67.50 a month at 0 to 99 units”. Read again at condocontrol.com/pricing on October 8, 2026, the vendor labels that figure the “starting price for under 50 units”, and the next band in the page markup is “Your plan (100–199 units)” at $135. Every dollar figure in the row is unchanged ($67.50, $135, $270, $405, $540, custom quote above 500), and there is still no band between 50 and 99 units, so an association of 60 or 80 units has no published price either way. Only the label on the first band was wrong. - 2026-10-06 · /software/hoa-software-pricing/
We put a dollar figure on RunHOA’s payment costs that RunHOA has never published. The worked example on this page said a 100-unit association on RunHOA “pays about $1,839 (Stripe $1,440 plus the $399 subscription)”, describing RunHOA as a vendor “which publishes no platform fee of its own”. Read again at runhoa.com/pricing on October 6, 2026, RunHOA publishes no payment fee of any kind: it names Stripe as the gateway, states no rate, and says nothing about whether it adds a charge on top. The $1,839 was our inference that the platform fee is zero, presented as a cost a board could budget on. The sentence now says no comparable figure can be given, treats the $399 subscription as the floor, and tells the reader to ask for the payment fee in writing. The same edit adds a Condo Control row to the usage-fee table, read at Condo Control’s own support site on October 6, 2026: card payments carry Stripe’s 2.9% + $0.30 plus a $2.00 Condo Control service fee, the resident pays them, and no ACH or bank-debit fee is published. New page the same day: HOA dues payment processing. - 2026-10-05 · /operations/delinquent-dues-collection-workflow/
Our example of how a partial payment is applied was the reverse of Florida’s rule. The collection-policy checklist on this page said “Many states dictate the order (e.g., to the oldest assessments first, before fees or interest)”, and named no state. Fla. Stat. sec. 718.116(3), read at the state’s own compilation on October 5, 2026, requires the opposite order for a condominium: a payment must be applied first to accrued interest, then to the administrative late fee, then to collection costs and reasonable attorney fees, and only then to the delinquent assessment. The bullet now carries the Florida rule with the citation and links to a new worked example on the same page, which shows that a $225 payment on a four-month arrears of $900 leaves an assessment balance of $808.30 rather than $675. The “misapplying partial payments” bullet further down the page carried the same reversed assumption and was corrected in the same edit. We did not source the original wording and are not able to name a state that uses the oldest-assessments-first order, so no replacement example is given for it. - 2026-10-04 · /tools/hoa-software-match/, /software/best-hoa-software-self-managed/
The match tool left out a platform our own comparison ranks second. KindHOA has been scored 4.35 and ranked second of ten on the comparison since September 10, 2026, and it was not an option in the match tool, so the two pages contradicted each other for 24 days. It is now scored there by the same published rules: it sits between PayHOA and RunHOA on the all-in-one path, takes the largest bonuses of any option for a very small association and a minimal budget (it is the only platform we rank with a permanent $0 tier), and carries the heaviest penalty of any option when a board says it wants an established track record, because it scores 2 of 5 on support and continuity. Its result card states the platform fee of 0.8% to 1.2% that KindHOA adds to every online payment on top of Stripe, and that the company launched in 2025 and is run by one developer who describes it as a side project. The comparison page said the tool “does not yet include KindHOA”, which is no longer true and has been corrected; the same sentence now names the one ranked platform the tool still omits, Neigbrs by Vinteum. The tool also now publishes the full list of thirteen options it chooses among, which was not visible to a reader before. All 576 answer combinations were re-tested after the change. - 2026-10-02 · /templates/board-meeting-agenda-minutes/
The agenda template does not keep a meeting under an hour. The page said these templates give you “a timed agenda that keeps the meeting under an hour”. The time column in Board_Meeting_Agenda_Template.docx adds up to 87 minutes across its 10 rows, or 77 minutes without the optional executive session. Read from the file on October 2, 2026. The page now prints the 10 rows with their times and the total, says that deleting the executive session row brings it to 77 minutes, and says that the shorter copy-and-paste agenda further down the page runs 52 minutes across seven items. The same edit corrected the body text, which described the Word file as having seven parts when it ships 10 rows, and the FAQ answer that repeated it. - 2026-10-02 · /templates/hoa-chart-of-accounts/
A description line in the chart of accounts sample ledger contradicted its own amount. In HOA_Chart_of_Accounts.xlsx the January 10 deposit of $9,400 was described as “Owner payments deposited, 23 of 24 units”. January assessments billed were $9,640, so a $9,400 deposit leaves $240 outstanding, which is less than the monthly dues of any of the three unit types ($340, $410 and $470). Twenty-three units paying in full would have left at least $340 outstanding. The line now reads “Owner payments deposited, 23 units in full, unit 14 part paid”, which matches both the amount and the $50 late fee the sample assesses on unit 14 five days later. No figure changed: total debits and credits are still $91,947 each, the operating fund still closes January at $17,990 and the reserve fund at $50,437. Re-download the file if you want the corrected wording. - 2026-10-01 · /software/hoa-start-review-self-managed-hoa/, /software/best-hoa-software-self-managed/, /software/hoa-software-pricing/, /software/hoa-software-directory/, /tools/hoa-software-match/, /software/, /operations/hoa-website-resident-portal-checklist/, /research/hoa-software-pricing-dataset/
HOA Start no longer publishes any price. These pages said HOA Start published “Professional from $39/mo, Premium from $49/mo, White-Glove from $149/mo”, that violation tracking and ARC/work orders were Premium features, that the mobile app cost “$500 one-time (lifetime)” on Professional, and that extra texts cost $25 per 1,000. Its pricing page, read October 1, 2026 as rendered and as raw HTML, shows no dollar figure. It sells one plan, HOA Start Complete, with every feature (violation tracking, ARC requests and a mobile app included), priced by number of homes, with optional Guided Onboarding and Concierge support at unpublished prices. On the comparison, HOA Start’s price-transparency score falls from 3 to 2 under the published rubric and its total from 4.10 to 3.95; its rank (fourth) is unchanged. The directory, the software hub, the match tool and the portal checklist now say no price is published, and HOA Start is dropped from the 25-unit price range on the directory. The 2026-08 dataset file is a dated snapshot and keeps the old row, with a note on the dataset page. - 2026-10-01 · /software/quickbooks-online-for-hoas/, /software/hoa-software-directory/, /tools/hoa-software-match/
QuickBooks Online prices went up on three plans. We published Essentials $75, Plus $115 and Advanced $275 a month, read from the rendered page on September 1 and 2, 2026, when Intuit’s server HTML carried higher figures that its page then rewrote. On October 1, 2026 the rendered page and the HTML agree: Simple Start $38, Essentials $85, Plus $140, Advanced $340, with 50% off for 3 months shown ($19, $42.50, $70, $170). The directory’s note that QuickBooks shows different prices in its HTML and on screen was removed because it no longer holds. The match tool had said only that Simple Start was $38 “before the announced August 2026 increase”; it now lists all four. - 2026-10-01 · /software/hoa-software-pricing/, /software/hoa-software-directory/, /software/, /research/hoa-software-pricing-dataset/
AppFolio now shows a community-association price. We said no price was visible to a reader and that the page code carried “$0.80/unit/month” on Core and “$0.85/unit/month” on Plus for community associations. On October 1, 2026, with the page’s market filter set to Community Associations, Core is the only tier and reads “Starting at $0.85/unit Per Month”, with a stated minimum spend and a 50-unit minimum; the page code now carries one association offer at $0.85. The directory’s list of vendors that publish no price swaps AppFolio out and HOA Start in, so the count stays at eleven. - 2026-10-01 · monthly price recheck
Re-read at the vendor’s own page and unchanged: PayHOA (all nine bands), RunHOA ($399 a year), Condo Control (five self-managed bands, driven through the selector), Buildium (from $62, $192 and $400 a month), TownSq (all three bands, by real clicks) and KindHOA ($0, or $300 a year prepaid). - 2026-10-01 · /templates/
The templates hub said it held “ten working files”. It holds twelve. The chart of accounts and general ledger was published on September 28, 2026 and was listed on the hub without changing the count; the violation log has been downloadable from the violation process page since July 9, 2026 and was never listed on the hub at all. Both now appear in the file list, and the page says that the Board Starter Pack zip holds ten of the twelve, because both files came after the pack was built. The same rebuild gives every file its format, its size, a one-line statement of what it is best for and an explicit statement of what it does not do, all read from the published files on October 1, 2026, and answers the PDF question: no file here is a PDF, and Word and Excel both export one.
September 2026
- 2026-09-26 · /states/comparison/, Minnesota row
We said Minnesota has no oversight body. It has had one since 2025. The Minnesota row said the state’s oversight body was “None; disputes resolved privately or in the courts”, cited to “None (no state agency)”. Minn. Stat. sec. 45.0137, enacted by 1Sp2025 c 4 art 7 s 2, establishes a common interest community ombudsperson inside the Department of Commerce. The row now records what that office does and what it cannot do: plain-language explanations of governing documents, resources and referrals, and informal mediation on request, with no power to investigate, order, fine or give legal advice, so enforcement of chapter 515B is still private. The statute was read at the Office of the Revisor on 2026-09-26. Three further corrections to the same row, found in the same check: the meeting notice cell said “Not tracked” and now carries the period from sec. 515B.3-108, read in full (21 to 30 days before an annual meeting, 7 to 30 days before a special meeting, hand delivered or by US mail); and three citation links pointed at the wrong section, two cells citing sec. 515B.3-108 while linking to sec. 515B.3-118, and the election cell citing chapter 515B while linking to the reserves section. The open meeting cell stays “Not tracked”: sec. 515B.3-108 does not say whether meetings are open to unit owners, and the rest of the chapter has not been read to citation depth on that point. The CSV download carries the same corrections and no other row changed. - 2026-09-26 · home page
The home page described the state law comparison table as a “34-state comparison table” that answers the same six questions “for every state”. Both halves were wrong. The table has covered 49 states since September 21, 2026, and the table, its CSV download and its own page have said 49 throughout; the home page was never updated with the last fifteen. And it does not cover every state: Mississippi has no row, because no enacted text of either governing act is published on a state server. The home page now says 49 states and links to the table, which names the gap. The same rebuild replaced the nine-card grid on the home page with a task list that links straight to each file, calculator and page, so the paragraph that carried the old figure no longer exists. - 2026-09-23 · /templates/hoa-dues-spreadsheet/ and Board Starter Pack
The defect reported here yesterday has been fixed in the file itself rather than only described on the page. HOA_Dues_Tracker.xlsx shipped with its payment lookup fixed to Payment_Ledger rows 2 to 171 and its Dues_Status and Aging_Summary ranges stopping at 30 units, so an association posting monthly dues lost every payment past row 171 from its balances, silently, in under six months, and a 31st unit never appeared at all. The workbook now covers 250 units and 6,000 payment rows, which is two full years of monthly dues at 250 units. Blank unit rows return blank rather than a phantom $0 balance, and the Late highlight and every Aging_Summary formula were widened to match. The figures shown in the worked example on the page are unchanged: recalculated from the new file, the sample still reports $45,600 billed, $43,175 collected, $2,425 outstanding and a 94.7% collection rate. The copy inside board-starter-pack-v1.zip was replaced in the same change. A workbook downloaded before this date still has the old ranges, whether on its own or from the starter pack; the page explains both how to get a fresh copy and how to widen the ranges by hand. - 2026-09-22 · /templates/hoa-dues-spreadsheet/
Two descriptions of the HOA Dues Tracker workbook were wrong and have been corrected against the file itself. The page said the Late flag was based on the grace period; no formula in the workbook reads the Grace Period cell, and a unit is flagged Late as soon as its balance due is above zero. The page also said “you never delete history, you just keep adding rows” without qualification; the payment lookup on Dues_Status is fixed to Payment_Ledger rows 2 to 171 and the Dues_Status and Aging_Summary ranges stop at 30 units, so payments entered past row 171 are left out of every balance with no warning, which a 30-unit association reaches in under six months. The page now carries the limits and the instructions for widening the ranges. Smaller corrections on the same page: the journal tab is named Payment_Ledger, not Payments; the Units tab has no contact column; the aging buckets are measured in months behind (up to 1, 1 to 2, 2 to 3, over 3), not in days (current / 30 / 60 / 90+). The workbook file itself is unchanged at version 1.0. - 2026-09-15 · /research/
The state law comparison table is described as covering 34 states. The research hub had said 22, the count on the day the table was first published; twelve states were added on September 11, 13 and 14 and the hub was not updated with them. The table itself, its CSV download and its own page have said 34 since September 14. - 2026-09-10 · /software/best-hoa-software-self-managed/
KindHOA added as the tenth ranked platform (4.35, second place) after the vendor asked to be scored and its public pages were checked on this date; no commercial relationship. Consequential changes: the FAQ answer to “cheapest credible option” previously read “RunHOA at $399/year flat” and now explains that KindHOA’s $0 and $300 tiers are cheaper on subscription but carry a 0.8–1.2% platform fee on online payments; RunHOA’s profile no longer calls it “the cheapest credible all-in-one we found with published pricing”; ranks 3 to 10 shifted down one. The pricing comparison gained a KindHOA row and fee entry. The Software Match tool does not yet include KindHOA. - 2026-09-08 · Site-wide
Site-wide: correction notes and changelogs were moved off individual pages to this page. Each page now shows one Last verified date. The Contact page states the working address; the placeholder form was removed. New pages: the special assessment calculator and the state law comparison table. - 2026-09-08 · /software/best-hoa-software-self-managed/
Condo Control's weighted score reads 3.85 everywhere; the section badge and the PayHOA vs Condo Control table still showed the pre-rescoring 3.70. HOA Start text ($25 per 1,000) and print/mail (from $1.80 per letter) rates are published inside its collapsed feature table; the page had said they were no longer shown. - 2026-09-08 · /software/
Eleven of the thirty vendors in our dataset publish no price; the hub said twelve (the dataset moved to eleven on August 30). - 2026-09-08 · /operations/hoa-website-resident-portal-checklist/
Added a Google Workspace referral link for board mailboxes and updated the page's relationship statement accordingly (CommonKeel earns a referral fee under Google's programme; software vendors named on the page still have no paid relationship). - 2026-09-07 · /contact/
The page now states the working address michael@commonkeel.com. From July 3 to September 7 it said the contact form and public email were being set up; the address had worked since July 13. - 2026-09-06 · /privacy/
The policy now states which services are active: Google Analytics 4, Microsoft Clarity, Cloudflare Web Analytics and the Kit newsletter form. From July 28 to September 6 it said analytics were not yet active and the newsletter box collected nothing; both were wrong from July 28. - 2026-09-06 · /research/hoa-software-pricing-dataset/
Buildium publishes an AggregateOffer ($62 to $400) and three Offers in its pricing page's structured data; the August 20 sweep had missed it. Its on-page calculator computes Growth at $252/mo (100 units), $722 (500) and $6,500 (5,000). - 2026-09-05 · /research/hoa-software-pricing-dataset/
DoorLoop's structured-data prices are gone; reader-visible prices unchanged. The $99/$189/$239 figures are the monthly-billing state of its pricing toggle. Vote HOA Now and ClickPay re-verified quote-only. - 2026-09-05 · /states/hoa-law-changes-2026/
The suggested citation said updated August 25; the content date is August 27. No entry changed. - 2026-09-05 · /tools/reserve-contribution-calculator/
The two hand-verified test cases ($6,000/yr; $6,417.05/yr, $22.28 per unit per month) are now visible on the page. No formula or default changed. - 2026-09-03 · /research/hoa-software-pricing-dataset/
HOA Member Services Pro is $297/yr and HOA Team $347/yr again; the $148.50/$173.50 shown on September 2 lasted about a day. Personal plans ($12.70/mo, $97/yr) never moved. - 2026-09-01 · /software/quickbooks-online-for-hoas/
QuickBooks Online list prices: Simple Start $38, Essentials $75, Plus $115, Advanced $275 per month. The page had published projected post-August prices of $85, $140 and $340, which were wrong. - 2026-09-01 · /states/
New Jersey: board meetings carry no statutory owner right to be heard (participation is at the board's discretion, N.J.S.A. 45:22A-46(a)); section 45:22A-45.1 is the act's findings and creates no records right; the ballot rules we had listed are not in the enacted statute and were withdrawn. Maryland: the condominium assessment-cap override in 11-110(b)(1)(ii) applies only in Prince George's and Montgomery counties, not statewide. Washington: RCW 64.90.365(1)(h) already applies the reserve-study duty to pre-2018 associations; the 2028 date is not when that duty begins. - 2026-09-01 · /software/hoa-software-pricing/
AppFolio re-verified: no reader-visible price; structured data still carries $0.80 and $0.85 per unit per month.
August 2026
- 2026-08-30 · /research/hoa-software-pricing-dataset/
Ian H. Graham Insurance publishes four bindable crime-coverage premiums ($287 to $490; $364 to $623 in FL and NY) for existing D&O policyholders, so it moved from None to Partial and the headline became 11 vendors publishing nothing and 8 partial. Text-Em-All's lowest credit band is 6 cents (not 5). TownSq concierge add-on is $99/mo up to 300 units and $20/mo above. - 2026-08-29 · /states/
New Jersey: the 10% reserve-deficiency cure rules were repealed August 21, 2025 by P.L. 2025, c.132 and replaced by an election between full funding and 85% funding with a bold owner notice, capped at five fiscal years; the page had published the repealed rules. Maryland: the HOA reserve-study threshold is $10,000 in repair or replacement cost (2025 Chs. 518/519); the degree-or-equivalent route to preparing a study was struck in 2022 and was never law; the initial-study phase-in is five fiscal years, not three. - 2026-08-28 · /research/hoa-software-pricing-dataset/
CINC Systems' pages now contain no dollar figure (the $11B statistic is payment volume, not a price); Vantaca /pricing returns 404; its $0.54 per door rate is stated in a vendor blog for management companies only. Association Reserves $499/$399 re-verified. - 2026-08-28 · /finances/self-managed-vs-management-company-cost/
Added Vantaca's Impact Calculator assumption of $130 per door per year ($10.83 per month), about 30% below the lowest published rate card on the page. - 2026-08-27 · /states/hoa-law-changes-2026/
Florida's 2026 statute edition is published: section 720.3033 is identical to 2025; section 718.112 differs only in six renumbered cross-references. The page had said the 2025 edition was current. HB 657 still died and is not law. - 2026-08-27 · /start/
Director-education citations re-read in the 2026 Florida Statutes: no operative change. - 2026-08-25 · /finances/fannie-mae-condo-reserve-requirements-2026/
Freddie Mac Guide 5701.5 read at source in its current (10%, effective August 3, 2026) and future (15%, effective January 4, 2027) versions; the Freddie Mac side is no longer labelled reported, not verified. - 2026-08-24 · /states/hoa-law-changes-2026/
Georgia SB 406 (Act 715): the Act takes effect January 1, 2027 and Section 7 on July 1, 2026; the two official sources were both right. Georgia records sections 14-3-1601 to 1606 were unchanged in 2025 and 2026; four provisions (copying-cost cap, fee shift, and two others) newly published on the hub. Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac entry added: Limited Review retired and baseline funding disallowed for applications on or after August 3, 2026; reserve minimum rises from 10% to 15% for applications on or after January 4, 2027. - 2026-08-23 · /research/hoa-software-pricing-dataset/
ElectionBuddy's two pricing pages disagree about what the $797 tier covers (20,000 voters vs 351 to 500 voters); unresolved and shown as such. - 2026-08-21 · /research/hoa-software-pricing-dataset/
HOA Member Services $297/$347 read at source; its affiliate agreement contradicts its affiliate marketing page. Vinteum publishes $.79 without a leading zero, which an earlier read missed. - 2026-08-19 · /research/hoa-software-pricing-dataset/
AppFolio's pricing page carries eight per-unit prices in structured data ($0.80 Core, $0.85 Plus per unit per month) that no visitor sees; still classified as publishing none. - 2026-08-17 · /operations/leaving-hoa-management-company/
Washington: communities created before July 1, 2018 are not without a turnover duty; RCW 64.32.170(9), 64.34.372(11) and 64.38.045 require the managing agent to deliver records immediately. The page had implied older communities had no statutory duty. - 2026-08-16 · /operations/leaving-hoa-management-company/
Nevada: no regulations have been adopted under NRS 116A.620(8), so the 30-day turnover rule applies, and NAC 116A.325(6) imposes the same 30-day duty. - 2026-08-15 · /research/hoa-software-pricing-dataset/
DoorLoop's pricing page became a unit-count calculator; the earlier row was wrong that $3/unit was an overage (it is a computed display) and that no list prices existed ($99/$189/$239 do). The dataset page itself was published this day. - 2026-08-14 · /software/best-hoa-software-self-managed/
Condo Control's price-transparency score rose from 2 to 3 and its weighted total from 3.70 to 3.85 after its five-band rate card was read; rank unchanged at 4. Neigbrs prices restored to verified at source (the August 1 carousel flag was our reading error). - 2026-08-14 · /software/hoa-software-pricing/
Condo Control publishes five self-managed bands ($67.50 to $540 per month); normalised to $810/yr at 25 units, $1,620 at 100, $3,240 at 200. Earlier entries said nothing was published above the entry band, which was our reading error. - 2026-08-14 · /software/condo-control-review-self-managed-hoa/
Five-band rate card ($67.50 to $540 per month) published; the page had said $67.50 was the only figure. - 2026-08-14 · /states/hoa-law-changes-2026/
California SB 410 amends five Davis-Stirling sections, not four (Civ. Code 4528 added); two 5551 changes published (required first page; section narrowed to three or more attached units). - 2026-08-13 · /states/
Georgia: the Condominium Act has no records-inspection section; the inspection right is in the Nonprofit Code, 14-3-1601 to 1606, with a five-business-day notice rule. - 2026-08-11 · /software/hoa-software-pricing/
Neigbrs by Vinteum Basic $0.79 and Premium $1.99 per unit per month confirmed on the vendor page; the August 1 unverified label was a rendering artefact and was withdrawn. - 2026-08-10 · /states/
Georgia rewritten: SB 406 ends its no-oversight status; Secretary of State registration is required from January 1, 2027 to collect fines, file liens or foreclose. - 2026-08-09 · /states/
California: current Civ. Code 5200 is as amended by SB 410 (2025), not SB 323 (2019) as attributed; SB 410 makes balcony inspection reports association records kept for two inspection cycles. - 2026-08-08 · /finances/self-managed-vs-management-company-cost/
Added what a management fee buys: roughly 80% labour and 2 to 5% software on a vendor's own figures, cross-checked against the one published rate card. - 2026-08-06 · /research/hoa-software-pricing-dataset/
PayHOA's $2.50 lockbox fee is no longer on its pricing page. LeapAP publishes its pricing model on its FAQ but no dollar figures. - 2026-08-05 · /software/condo-control-review-self-managed-hoa/
Three prices taken from third-party software directories were removed; they conflicted with each other and with the vendor's own page. - 2026-08-03 · /software/hoa-start-review-self-managed-hoa/
HOA Start's text overage ($25 per 1,000) and print/mail rate (from $1.80 per letter) are published inside the collapsed feature table; from July 25 the page had said they were no longer published. - 2026-08-02 · /tools/management-cost-comparison-calculator/
Added 20, 50 and 150-unit presets with sourced figures. The pre-filled management rate became $25.50 per unit per month (published for a 40-owner association); it had been an unsourced $18. The hybrid option gained a payment-processing input it had lacked. - 2026-08-02 · /finances/self-managed-vs-management-company-cost/
The page now publishes sourced management-fee evidence (one published per-door rate card: $40.50 per owner per month at 10 owners down to $15.50 at 200) and models 20, 50 and 150 units. It previously published no management figure. - 2026-08-01 · /finances/self-managed-vs-management-company-cost/
40-unit example software range is $399 to $780 per year; the earlier $588 low figure was PayHOA's 0 to 25-unit tier and did not apply at 40 units. - 2026-08-01 · /finances/reserve-study-guide-small-associations/
Colorado: a board that terminates its manager is covered by the new 45-day records-return duty in C.R.S. 38-33.3-317(9) (HB26-1099, effective August 12, 2026); the page had said self-managed associations were outside it. The act excludes only an association that never retained a manager. Washington: RCW 64.90.545(2) exemptions amended June 11, 2026 (middle-housing exemption); audit threshold rose from $50,000 to $100,000. - 2026-08-01 · /operations/leaving-hoa-management-company/
Same Colorado correction: boards leaving a manager are covered by the 45-day duty and the $250 per business day penalty, not excluded. - 2026-08-01 · /states/
Illinois: 765 ILCS 605/19's source line is P.A. 102-921, and the purpose requirement survives for the member list and ballots; 605/18 contains no owner comment right, which was withdrawn. Washington SHB 2354 changes added. Two false independence statements on the home and About pages were corrected the same day.
July 2026
- 2026-07-31 · /finances/reserve-study-guide-small-associations/
All state rows except Georgia re-read against official statute text; no change found in CA, VA, WA, IL, NV, TX, AZ, NC, SC. - 2026-07-30 · /research/hoa-software-pricing-dataset/
Association Reserves terms recorded: the DIY kit excludes revisions and uPlanIt access; uPlanIt ($399) is seasonal, sales final, creditable toward a professional study. - 2026-07-29 · /software/hoa-software-pricing/
Smartwebs reverted to quote-only; the $99/month CORE starting price recorded on July 8 is no longer published. Same correction on the comparison page, the software-match tool and the vendor page. - 2026-07-27 · /states/
Utah and Hawaii added at primary statute-text depth (22 states). Michigan, Connecticut and Pennsylvania upgraded to primary text on July 26. - 2026-07-25 · /software/hoa-software-pricing/
HOA Start verified: Professional from $39, Premium from $49, White-Glove from $149 per month billed annually; violation tracking and ARC/work orders sit in Premium. - 2026-07-18 · /states/
Ohio, Oregon and Minnesota added (July 18), Maryland (July 19), New Jersey (July 20). Original twelve states verified July 3, 2026. - 2026-07-03 · /templates/
Board Starter Pack v1 and its workbooks (dues tracker, budget workbook, calendar, scorecard, minutes, agenda, checklists) released. No file inside the pack has changed since; later page edits added descriptions only.
Entries before September 8, 2026 were consolidated from the notes that previously appeared on the individual pages.