Elections & Governance · Evergreen

Candidate Eligibility: Who Can Run for the HOA Board?

Election disputes almost always start with an eligibility question. The board that handles candidate vetting with discipline and documentation prevents most of them. The board that improvises invites every one.

The Bottom Line

Eligibility to serve on a community-association board is governed by three nested layers: the governing documents (declaration and bylaws); the applicable state statute; and the general nonprofit corporation statute (Texas BOC Chapter 22; Florida Chapter 617). The default position in most jurisdictions is that any owner in good standing can serve, subject to specific disqualification grounds — commonly delinquent assessments, certain criminal convictions, or co-occupancy of a single unit with an existing director. Florida condominium associations have specific statutory eligibility rules under § 718.112(2)(d), including delinquency-based disqualification. Texas residential subdivisions have specific candidate-solicitation rules under Property Code § 209.00593 for associations with more than 100 lots. Boards should publish eligibility criteria in advance, vet candidates against those criteria consistently, and handle disqualifications through a documented process — not on the night of the meeting.

Operational Context: Why Eligibility Disputes Are So Common

Elections are the most procedurally exposed activity a community association conducts. The decisions are time-sensitive, the participants are emotionally invested, and the consequences are personal. Candidates who are disqualified for cause sometimes accept the determination; many don’t, particularly when the disqualification feels like board self-preservation. The dispute that follows almost always traces to one of two failure modes: eligibility criteria that weren’t published in advance, or criteria that were applied inconsistently. Both are entirely preventable.

The board that runs a clean eligibility process starts by reading the declaration, the bylaws, and the statute together, identifying the eligibility requirements that apply to the association, publishing them in the notice that opens the candidacy window, vetting each candidate against the same checklist, and documenting each disqualification with a written, citation-supported determination. This is administrative work, not judgment work — and the discipline of doing it administratively is precisely what keeps it out of the courtroom.

The Three Layers of Eligibility Authority

1. The Governing Documents

The recorded declaration and the bylaws are the primary source of eligibility rules. Common provisions include:

• Ownership requirement. Most associations require that a candidate be a record owner of a lot or unit. Some allow tenants, beneficiaries, or trustees to serve in specific circumstances; many do not.
• Good standing requirement. Many bylaws require that a candidate not be more than a defined period delinquent on assessments, or not subject to a pending enforcement action.
• One-director-per-household rule. Some bylaws prohibit co-owners of a single lot or unit from both serving simultaneously, on the theory that household interests should be represented by one seat.
• Residency requirement. Some bylaws (less commonly today) require that directors reside in the community.
• Term limits. Some bylaws cap the number of consecutive terms a director may serve.
• Conflict-of-interest grounds. Bylaws sometimes disqualify candidates with active material conflicts (e.g., a candidate who is the principal of a vendor under contract with the association).

2. The Community-Association Statute

State community-association statutes layer additional eligibility rules on top of the governing documents. In Florida, § 718.112(2)(d) for condominium associations and the analogous provisions in Chapter 720 for HOAs impose specific eligibility constraints (covered below). In Texas, Property Code Chapter 209 imposes candidate-solicitation and election-procedure rules but does not, in most cases, impose categorical eligibility disqualifications beyond what the governing documents provide.

3. The General Nonprofit Corporation Statute

The general nonprofit corporation framework (TBOC Chapter 22 in Texas; Florida Chapter 617) sets baseline director-eligibility requirements that overlay the community-association rules. Generally, a director must be a natural person of legal age and capacity. Some states permit non-member directors if the bylaws so provide; many community-association bylaws do not.

Florida-Specific Eligibility Rules

Condominium Associations — § 718.112(2)(d)

Florida condominium statute is detailed and prescriptive on candidate eligibility. Key provisions:

• Co-ownership rule. Co-owners of a unit may not serve as directors at the same time, unless the association has a small board (typically fewer than five directors) or fewer than five total members, or unless the co-owners own more than one unit.
• Delinquency disqualification. A person who is delinquent in the payment of any monetary obligation due to the association is not eligible for board membership. Delinquency is statutorily defined and includes assessments not paid within a specified number of days after due.
• Felony conviction. A person convicted of any felony in Florida (or in any other jurisdiction) is generally not eligible to serve on a Florida condominium board unless civil rights have been restored for at least five years prior to the election.
• Director certification. Within 90 days of election or appointment, a director must certify in writing that they have read the association’s declaration, articles, bylaws, and rules and complete the four-hour DBPR-approved education curriculum, with one hour of continuing education annually thereafter.
• Election timing. Candidates must submit names in writing no less than 40 days before the election and may submit candidate information sheets no less than 35 days before. The second notice with ballot package goes to owners 14–34 days before the election.

A condominium board has very little discretion in applying these statutory eligibility rules. The board cannot waive them, and the board cannot impose additional eligibility requirements that conflict with them. Compliance is largely administrative.

HOAs — Chapter 720

Florida HOA eligibility is less prescriptive at the statute level. Governance documents do most of the work. Chapter 720 imposes the broader corporate-fiduciary and disclosure framework (including § 720.3033 on conflicts of interest), and certain election-procedure requirements apply, but specific candidate disqualification grounds are generally set by the bylaws.

Texas-Specific Eligibility Rules

Residential Subdivisions — Property Code Chapter 209

The Texas statute does not generally impose categorical candidate disqualification grounds. The governing documents control. The most significant statutory addition is the candidate-solicitation framework at § 209.00593, which applies to associations with more than 100 lots:

• At least 10 days before disseminating ballots, the association must provide notice soliciting candidates, with instructions to request placement on the ballot and the deadline to submit the request.
• The deadline for candidate requests may not be earlier than 10 days after the notice.
• Notice must be mailed to each owner or posted in a conspicuous manner on common property (or other approved locations) and e-mailed to each owner who has registered an e-mail address.
• The association must include on each ballot the name of every eligible candidate who timely submitted a request.

Texas condominium associations under Chapter 82 follow the eligibility rules in their bylaws and the relevant condominium-statute provisions.

Common Texas Bylaw Disqualifications

While the statute imposes few categorical disqualifications, common Texas bylaws include:

• Delinquency on assessments beyond a specified period (often 60 or 90 days).
• Being subject to an active suspension of voting rights for any reason permitted by the documents.
• Not being an owner of record (some bylaws permit spouses, beneficiaries, or trustees; many do not).
• Conviction of certain crimes within a defined look-back period — this provision is increasingly disfavored in newer documents and should be evaluated for Fair Housing Act disparate-impact risk before application.

The Conviction Question: Tread Carefully

Bylaws (and some statutes) sometimes disqualify candidates with certain criminal convictions. Boards applying these provisions should be cautious for several reasons:

• Florida’s specific framework at § 718.112(2)(d) requires restoration of civil rights for at least five years prior to election in the condominium context. This is a fairly clear statutory rule.
• Texas bylaws-based provisions are not statutorily required and may be more vulnerable to challenge, particularly when they reach offenses unrelated to the candidate’s fitness to serve.
• Disparate-impact concerns under the Fair Housing Act may apply if the conviction-based disqualification produces a discriminatory effect on a protected class. HUD guidance on criminal-history screening in housing decisions (2016) is directly relevant.
• Verification is procedurally tricky. Boards should not run informal background checks; if conviction-status is to be considered, the process must be structured, documented, and consistently applied.

Counsel involvement is recommended for any disqualification on conviction grounds.

The Co-Owner Question: Who Counts as “The Owner”?

When a lot or unit is owned by a married couple, a family trust, an LLC, or two co-tenants, the question of who can run for the board becomes nuanced. The general framework:

• Husband-and-wife co-ownership. Many declarations treat the couple as a single owner with one vote. Some bylaws permit both to run for the board (subject to one-director-per-household rules); others permit only one.
• Trust ownership. Beneficial owners are usually identified in the deed or the trust instrument; the eligibility question turns on whether the bylaws permit the beneficial owner or the trustee to serve. Most bylaws permit one or the other — rarely both.
• LLC or entity ownership. A natural person designated by the entity is typically eligible if the bylaws permit entity-owner representation. Some bylaws disqualify entity-owned units from board service entirely.
• Multiple unit ownership. Some bylaws (particularly older condominium bylaws) permit one director per ownership group regardless of how many units they own; some permit one director per unit owned.

These are document-specific questions. The committee or the board should resolve them by reading the bylaws — not by inference.

The Eligibility-Vetting Workflow

1. Publish eligibility criteria in advance. The candidate-solicitation notice should include the eligibility checklist. Owners should know what they need to satisfy before they submit a candidacy.
2. Request written candidacy with required attestations. The candidacy form should include attestations on each eligibility element (ownership, good standing, no disqualifying conviction within scope, no conflict of interest).
3. Verify each element. The election committee (or the secretary) verifies ownership of record against the deed records; good standing against the assessment ledger; conflicts against the vendor list and director-disclosure forms.
4. Document the determination. Each candidate’s file should contain the candidacy form, verification documents, and a written determination of eligibility or disqualification with a citation to the governing-document section or statute relied on.
5. Notify the candidate. A candidate who is determined ineligible should be notified in writing, with the basis stated and the opportunity to cure (where curable, e.g., paying outstanding assessments) within a defined window.
6. Maintain the records. The election file remains part of the association’s records for the statutory retention period.

Why This Matters

Eligibility disputes set the tone of the election. An owner who feels they were improperly disqualified often becomes the leading source of post-election litigation, regardless of the merits of the underlying eligibility question.

Selective application is the failure mode. Disqualifying one candidate for delinquency while overlooking another candidate’s delinquency is the structural pattern that produces successful election challenges. Consistency is the entire defense.

Statutory eligibility rules cannot be waived. A Florida condominium board cannot, for example, decide to overlook the felony-conviction restriction or the delinquency disqualification. Doing so produces invalid elections, not friendly accommodations.

The Fair Housing overlay is real. Eligibility criteria that produce disparate effects on protected classes can convert a routine board election into a Fair Housing complaint. This is most acute for conviction-based provisions; it can also apply to residency, occupancy, or income-related criteria.

Best-Practice Guidance

1. Adopt a standing eligibility checklist.

Develop a one-page checklist that captures every eligibility element under the governing documents and statute. Use the same checklist every election.

2. Publish it with the candidacy solicitation notice.

Owners should never be surprised by an eligibility rule. The notice that opens the candidacy window should include the eligibility criteria and the procedure to challenge an eligibility determination.

3. Use an election committee, not the sitting board.

Wherever the bylaws and budget permit, run candidate vetting through an independent election committee. This is a structural defense against perception of incumbent self-protection. Florida statute requires an independent committee for fining and creates analogous expectations in the election context.

4. Provide a cure window for curable disqualifications.

Delinquency is often curable. Notifying the candidate of the determination with sufficient time to cure (e.g., pay the outstanding assessments) and re-confirm eligibility is the equitable and defensible posture.

5. Document every determination with citation.

Each eligibility decision — eligible or ineligible — should be supported by a written record citing the specific bylaw, declaration provision, or statute relied on.

6. Treat conviction-based provisions cautiously.

Run any conviction-based disqualification through counsel. Confirm the provision is in force, that the conviction falls within scope, that civil-rights status (where applicable) is verified, and that the application is consistent across candidates.

7. Resolve close calls before the meeting.

Eligibility disputes raised on the floor of the annual meeting almost always escalate. Resolve them administratively, with notice and a record, in the weeks leading up to the election.

Common Mistakes & Pitfalls

Actionable Takeaways

1. Read the declaration and bylaws together; extract every eligibility element into a written checklist.
2. For Florida condominiums, confirm compliance with § 718.112(2)(d) co-ownership, delinquency, conviction, and certification rules.
3. For Texas associations with more than 100 lots, calendar the § 209.00593 candidate-solicitation notice deadline.
4. Publish eligibility criteria with the candidacy-solicitation notice.
5. Adopt a candidacy form with attestations on each eligibility element.
6. Stand up an election committee with the verification responsibility — not the sitting board.
7. Provide written determination letters with citations for every disqualification.
8. Include a cure window for delinquency-based disqualifications where the governing documents permit.
9. For conviction-based provisions, engage counsel before application and confirm Fair Housing exposure has been considered.
10. Maintain the election file for the statutory retention period.

Related CIC-SC Resources

• Texas Candidate Solicitation Requirements Under § 209.00593
• Florida Condominium Board Election Process Under § 718.112(2)(d)
• Inspector of Elections — Role, Selection, and Responsibilities
• Electronic Voting in HOA Elections — Rules and Requirements
• How to Handle a Contested Election
• Member Petition Rights — What Owners Can Require Boards to Do
• Board Officer Elections — Who Chooses the Officers and How?
• Fair Housing Act — What HOA Boards Must Know
• Texas Business Organizations Code Chapter 22 — What HOA & Condo Boards Must Know

References & Sources

1. Common Interest Community Standards Council, Fundamentals of Association Management — chapter on Elections, Member Rights, and Governance Procedure.
2. Florida Statutes § 718.112(2)(d) — Condominium board elections, candidate eligibility, certification, and education.
3. Florida Statutes Chapter 720 — Homeowners’ Association elections and governance.
4. Florida Statutes § 617.0808 — Removal of directors; relevant to eligibility loss during a term.
5. Texas Property Code Chapter 209 — Texas Residential Property Owners Protection Act.
6. Texas Property Code § 209.00593 — Election of Board Members; candidate solicitation procedures for associations of more than 100 lots.
7. Texas Property Code § 209.00591 — Composition of board; related election framework.
8. Texas Business Organizations Code Chapter 22 — Nonprofit corporation framework for Texas community associations.
9. HUD, Office of General Counsel Guidance on Application of Fair Housing Act Standards to the Use of Criminal Records by Providers of Housing and Real Estate-Related Transactions (April 4, 2016) — disparate-impact framework for criminal-history-based decisions.
10. Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601–3631.

Tags: candidate eligibility · HOA board election · § 718.112(2)(d) · § 209.00593 · co-owner candidacy · delinquency disqualification · felony conviction · election committee · candidacy form · Fair Housing

CICSC publishes this article for educational and informational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, engineering, insurance, or financial advice and does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Statutory references and operational frameworks are intended to support informed governance, not to substitute for advice from qualified legal counsel and other professional advisors familiar with your jurisdiction and your association's facts. CICSC, its authors, and its members assume no liability for actions taken in reliance on this content.