HOA fines in Oregon: what the law says

My HOA hit me with a fine or fee

State law

What the statute says

Small claims limit

Oregon circuit court small claims department: $10,000 ceiling. ORS 46.405(3) provides that "[e]xcept as provided in this section," an action for the recovery of money, damages, specific personal property, or any penalty or forfeiture "may be commenced and prosecuted in the small claims department if the amount or value…

Read the full rule

claimed in the action does not exceed $10,000."

Below $750 the department is presumptively mandatory. ORS 46.405(2) uses the same list of actions and says they "must be commenced and prosecuted in the small claims department if the amount or value claimed in the action does not exceed $750" — but that subsection also opens "Except as provided in this section," so the exceptions below matter.

Statutory-fee exception. ORS 46.405(5): actions providing for statutory attorney fees in which the amount or value claimed does not exceed $750 may be brought in the small claims department "or may be commenced and prosecuted in the regular department of the circuit court." That subsection "does not apply to an action based on contract for which attorney fees are authorized under ORS 20.082." ORS 94.780(1) and ORS 94.719 (planned communities) and ORS 100.470 (condominiums) each provide statutory attorney fees, so a small association-fine claim is not necessarily confined to the small claims department. Whether a particular claim is one "providing for statutory attorney fees" turns on the basis actually pleaded, which the statute does not resolve.

Counsel generally cannot appear. ORS 46.415(4): "No attorney at law or person other than the plaintiff and defendant and their witnesses shall appear on behalf of any party in litigation in the small claims department without the consent of the judge of the court." The judge's consent is the exception written into the text. Where no attorney appears there are no attorney fees to shift, and the statute does not address how the fee provisions above interact with that department.

Two categories are excluded outright. ORS 46.405(4)(a): class actions may not be commenced and prosecuted in the small claims department. ORS 46.405(4)(b): neither may an action by an adult in custody, as defined in ORS 30.642, against another adult in custody.

The forum may be a justice court instead. "Except as provided in subsection (6) of this section, each circuit court shall have a small claims department" (ORS 46.405(1)); under ORS 46.405(6), a circuit court in the same city as a justice court need not have one if the two "enter into an intergovernmental agreement that provides that only the justice court will operate a small claims department," with procedures for referring cases. Which arrangement applies is set by that local agreement, not by the statute.

A jury demand moves the case out of the department. Under ORS 46.465(3)(a), if the defendant claims the right to a jury trial the clerk notifies the plaintiff, who must file a formal complaint within 20 days after that notice is mailed and serve summons and complaint; the cause then proceeds as other causes in the court. Under ORS 46.465(4)(a), if the defendant claims the right to a jury trial and does not prevail in the action, the court shall award the plaintiff reasonable attorney fees — and "[u]nless attorney fees are otherwise provided for in the action by contract or statutory provision," fees awarded under that paragraph may not exceed $1,000.

Attorney's fees

Two-way prevailing-party attorney fees apply in the enforcement suit itself. ORS 94.719: in any suit by a homeowners association to foreclose its lien or collect delinquent assessments, or any suit by the declarant, association or any owner to enforce compliance with ORS 94.550 to 94.783 or the declaration or bylaws or any rules adopted by the association, "the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees therein and in any appeal therefrom." ORS 100.470 is the identical condominium provision.

Read the full rule

This is genuinely two-edged and a letter should say so: an owner who loses a fine fight in court can be ordered to pay the association's legal fees, which is often larger than the fine.

Cap

Oregon sets no dollar ceiling on an association fine, but the power to fine is itself bounded.

Read the full rule

No maximum fine amount, no per-day or continuing-violation ceiling, and no cumulative maximum for fines levied by an association against an owner appears anywhere in ORS chapter 94 or ORS chapter 100. The dollar figures those chapters do contain are directed at other subjects — financial-statement review thresholds, an assessment threshold, an insurance deductible figure, filing fees, and the civil penalty described next.

The $1,000 figure is not a ceiling on fines. ORS 94.925 and ORS 100.900 each say "No civil penalty shall exceed $1,000 per violation," but that is a penalty the Real Estate Commissioner may impose, as provided in ORS 183.745. ORS 94.925 reaches violations of ORS 94.803 and 94.807 to 94.945 (timeshare provisions); ORS 100.900 reaches violations of ORS 100.015, 100.635 to 100.730 and 100.740 to 100.780 "or any of the rules adopted thereunder." Neither reaches an association fining an owner.

The substantive standard is reasonableness, and it arrives with procedure attached. A homeowners association may, "after giving written notice and an opportunity to be heard, levy reasonable fines for violations of the declaration, bylaws, rules and regulations of the association" — ORS 94.630(1)(n). ORS 100.405(4)(k) grants a condominium association the same power in the same terms.

The fine must rest on a schedule or a resolution, and a delivery condition travels with part of that. Under ORS 94.630(1)(n)(A)-(B), the charge imposed or fine levied must be based on (A) "a schedule contained in the declaration or bylaws, or an amendment to either that is delivered to each lot, mailed to the mailing address of each lot or mailed to the mailing addresses designated in writing by the owners," or (B) "a resolution of the association or its board of directors that is delivered to each lot" by those same three routes. In (B) the delivery clause attaches to the resolution. In (A) it follows "an amendment to either" with no comma before it, so on the face of the text the condition attaches to an amendment; whether a schedule already sitting in the declaration or bylaws must also be delivered is not resolved by the wording. ORS 100.405(4)(k)(A)-(B) states the same rule for units, with "a resolution adopted by the board of directors or the association" in (B).

Neither grant is unconditional. ORS 94.630(1) opens "Subject to subsection (2) of this section and ORS 94.762, 94.763, 94.776, 94.778 and 94.779, and except as otherwise provided in its declaration or bylaws" — and Oregon Laws 2026 chapter 86, section 7 inserted "and section 4 of this 2026 Act" into that clause. ORS 100.405(4) opens "Subject to the provisions of the condominium's declaration and bylaws." A declaration or set of bylaws may therefore narrow, condition, or withhold the fining power, which makes the governing documents the first thing to read in any particular dispute.

Collection as an assessment is likewise conditional. "Unless the declaration or bylaws provide otherwise," fees, late charges, fines and interest imposed under ORS 94.630(1)(L), (n) and (o) are enforceable as assessments (ORS 94.709(5)); ORS 100.450(5) says the same for amounts imposed under ORS 100.405(4)(j), (k), (L) and (m).

What the text does not settle: the statutes do not define "reasonable." They give no figure for a single fine and no point at which repeated or continuing fines stop being reasonable, so no dollar amount can be read out of the statutory language — that boundary is left to a court. Nor does the text settle whether the delivery condition in ORS 94.630(1)(n)(A) and ORS 100.405(4)(k)(A) reaches a fine schedule contained in the declaration or bylaws themselves rather than in an amendment to either. The absence of a maximum is based on the text of ORS chapters 94, 100 and 46 and Oregon Laws 2026 chapter 86; it says nothing about local ordinances, Real Estate Agency rules, or judicial limits on penalty terms, and an individual declaration or set of bylaws may set a maximum of its own.

Related absences from the same reading, with the chain spelled out so the interest point is not overread. ORS 94.704(5)(b) provides that "[a]ny assessment or any installment of the assessment past due shall bear interest at the rate established by resolution of the board of directors," and no statute caps that rate — but by its terms that subsection governs assessments, not fines.

Read the full rule

An unpaid fine carries that board-set interest only because ORS 94.709(5) makes fines "enforceable as assessments," and ORS 94.709(5) applies only "[u]nless the declaration or bylaws provide otherwise," so in a community whose documents exclude fines from the assessment lien the chain breaks. There is likewise no statutory cap on late charges and no statutory grace period before a fine becomes delinquent. A demand letter should attack the amount as unreasonable on its facts and attack the procedure, and should not cite a cap that does not exist.

Lien

Yes, a fine can become a lien on the home — by default. ORS 94.709(5): "Unless the declaration or bylaws provide otherwise, fees, late charges, fines and interest imposed pursuant to ORS 94.630 (1)(L), (n) and (o) are enforceable as assessments under this section." ORS 100.450(5) is the condominium mirror, reaching fines imposed under ORS 100.405 (4)(j), (k), (L) and (m).

Read the full rule

Once a fine is enforceable as an assessment, ORS 94.709(1) gives the association a lien on the lot for the unpaid amount — the lien "includes interest, late charges, attorney fees, costs or other amounts imposed under the declaration or bylaws or other recorded governing document" and "is prior to a homestead exemption and all other liens or encumbrances upon the lot except: (a) Tax and assessment liens; and (b) A first mortgage or trust deed of record." Perfection is a DIFFERENT subsection — ORS 94.709(2), not (1): "Recording of the declaration constitutes record notice and perfection of the lien for assessments. No further recording of a claim of lien for assessments or notice of a claim of lien under this section is required to perfect the association's lien." The same subsection (2) supplies a precondition the owner can check before any foreclosure: "The association shall record a notice of claim of lien for assessments under this section in the deed records of the county in which a lot is located before any suit to foreclose may proceed under subsection (4) of this section," and that notice must contain, among other things, "A true statement of the amount due for the unpaid assessments after deducting all just credits and offsets"; under ORS 94.709(3) the notice "shall be verified by the oath of some person having knowledge of the facts" and be recorded and indexed. ORS 100.450(1), (2) and (3) are the condominium counterparts and split the same way — lien and priority in (1), perfection plus the notice-of-claim precondition in (2), oath and indexing in (3). Cite ORS 94.709(1) for the lien and its priority and ORS 94.709(2) for perfection and the recorded notice of claim; they are not interchangeable.

This default is defeasible in the owner's favor and worth checking: because ORS 94.709(5) and ORS 100.450(5) both begin "Unless the declaration or bylaws provide otherwise," a declaration that excludes fines from the assessment lien is controlling, and in that community a fine is an ordinary unsecured debt that cannot be foreclosed.

Read the full rule

Separately, ORS 94.709(4)(a) limits the life of the lien: "a lien may be continued in force for a period of time not to exceed six years from the date the assessment is due." A condominium association faces an extra precondition under ORS 100.450(4)(d): "An action to foreclose a lien under this section or recover a money judgment for unpaid assessments may not be maintained unless the Condominium Information Report and the Annual Report described in ORS 100.250 are designated current as provided in ORS 100.255." That status is checkable with the Oregon Real Estate Agency, and a lapsed report is a complete bar to the collection action while it stays lapsed.

Cap detail

Read the full rule

Lien detail

Read the full rule

Scope limits

These matter more in Oregon than in most states, because a large share of older subdivisions sit outside or only partly inside the Planned Community Act.

Read the full rule

Under ORS 94.570(1)-(2), the Act applies to a planned community created before January 1, 2002 under the Act, and to a Class I planned community created on or after that date; it applies to a Class II planned community created on or after that date except for ORS 94.595 and 94.604. Under ORS 94.570(3), for a Class III planned community, or one that is exclusively commercial or industrial, created on or after January 1, 2002, the Act applies only "if the declaration of the planned community so provides." Class I means at least 13 lots (or a reserved right to exceed 12) plus an estimated annual assessment, including required reserves, exceeding $10,000 for all lots or $100 per lot. Class II means not Class I, at least five lots, and an estimated annual assessment exceeding $1,000 for all lots. Class III is anything that is neither — typically a very small or very low-budget community, and in that case the statutory fine rules may simply not apply. The Oregon Condominium Act has no equivalent class system; it reaches property submitted to ORS chapter 100.

The most dangerous scope trap is ORS 94.572(1). For a Class I or Class II planned community created before January 1, 2002 that was NOT created under the Act, a listed set of statutes — including ORS 94.630(1), (3) and (4), 94.670, 94.709, 94.719 and 94.780 — applies only "to the extent that those statutes are…

Read the full rule

consistent with any governing documents of the planned community." In such a community the governing documents win where they conflict, so the notice-and-hearing and published-schedule conditions cannot be asserted as unconditional statutory rules. Effective June 5, 2026, section 5 of chapter 86, Oregon Laws 2026 added "and section 4 of this 2026 Act" to that same list, which means the new fire-hardening rule is itself subject to the governing documents in those communities — an untested and internally awkward result, but it is what the amended text says, so do not promise a pre-2002 non-Act owner that section 4 voids their restriction outright. Before printing ORS 94.630(1)(n) as binding, establish when the community was created and whether it was created under the Act. ORS 94.573 lets the owners in such a community vote to conform the governing documents to the statutes. Separately, ORS 94.673(1) provides that a homeowners association of a subdivision that received preliminary plat approval before July 1, 1982 must comply with ORS 94.640(1), (3), (4) and (8), 94.644 and 94.670 only after an owner submits a written request that it do so, and ORS 94.673(2) provides that the board "is not subject to ORS 94.780 unless the association fails to comply with subsection (1) of this section after receiving a written request from an owner" — so in those communities the written request is the step that turns the duty on.

Records rights

Both acts give the owner an inspection right and a duplication right, and both are qualified in the same sentence that grants them.

Read the full rule

ORS 94.670(9)(a): "Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, the association shall make the documents, information and records described in subsections (1) and (4) of this section and all other records of the association reasonably available for examination and, upon written request, available for duplication by an owner and any mortgagee of a lot that makes the request in good faith for a proper purpose." ORS 100.480(9)(a) is the condominium equivalent. Three limits belong with that right: the standard is "reasonably available," not immediate; the request must be made "in good faith for a proper purpose"; and subsection (9)(b) lets the association withhold enumerated categories, including documents and matters considered by the board in executive session held under ORS 94.644(2), which can reach fine-related material. Under ORS 94.670(12) and ORS 100.480(12) the board may also adopt reasonable rules on frequency, time, location, notice and manner of inspection and charge a reasonable copying fee including reasonable personnel costs. Unlike the subsection (8) and (11) duties, subsection (9) carries no day count at all. Used with the two 10-business-day deadlines, this is still the practical route to the fine schedule or resolution, proof it was delivered or mailed, the minutes reflecting the vote and any open-meeting ratification, the hearing notice, and the ledger showing how the fine was booked.

Withholding grounds are limited and enumerated — ORS 94.670(9)(b) and ORS 100.480(9)(b) permit withholding only records concerning personnel matters or a person's medical records; contracts, leases and other business transactions currently under negotiation; communications with legal counsel relating to those matters…

Read the full rule

and to the association's rights and duties regarding existing or potential litigation or criminal matters; disclosure that would violate law; documents or reports compiled for consideration in a properly held executive session; matters considered in such an executive session; and the files of individual owners other than the requesting owner's own file. Note the last one cuts in the owner's favor: an owner is entitled to their own individual owner file subject to the withholding grounds that still apply to parts of it (ORS 94.670(9)(b)(G) removes only one ground for the requesting owner's file; (C) legal-counsel communications and (E)/(F) executive-session material can still be withheld), which is where fine notices, hearing records and violation correspondence usually live. A blanket refusal citing "attorney-client" or "board confidentiality" over an owner's own violation file does not match the statute.

No offset warning

An owner may not withhold or offset an assessment because the association is not performing. ORS 94.704(10)(b): an owner "may not claim to offset an assessment for failure of the association to perform the association's obligations." ORS 100.530(2) is the condominium equivalent: "An owner may not claim an offset…

Read the full rule

against an assessment for failure of the association to perform its obligations." Both subsections also bar claiming exemption from liability for contribution toward the common expenses by waiving use or enjoyment of the common property or common elements, or by abandoning the lot or unit.

Fines are enforceable as assessments unless the governing documents say otherwise. "Unless the declaration or bylaws provide otherwise," fees, late charges, fines and interest imposed under ORS 94.630(1)(L), (n) and (o) are enforceable as assessments (ORS 94.709(5)); ORS 100.450(5) says the same, phrased "Unless the declaration or bylaws provides otherwise," for amounts imposed under ORS 100.405(4)(j), (k), (L) and (m).

An assessment carries a lien. Under ORS 94.709(1), when a homeowners association levies an assessment against a lot the association has a lien on the lot for unpaid assessments, and the lien includes "interest, late charges, attorney fees, costs or other amounts imposed under the declaration or bylaws or other recorded governing document." ORS 100.450(1) is narrower in scope: its lien includes those amounts "levied under the declaration or bylaws," with no reference to other recorded governing documents.

Priority is high but not absolute. Under both sections the lien "is prior to a homestead exemption and all other liens or encumbrances" on the lot or unit except tax and assessment liens and a first mortgage or trust deed of record. ORS 100.450(1)(b) then adds an "unless" running the other way, and its conditions are cumulative: the association's lien can outrank a recorded first mortgage or trust deed only where (A) the condominium consists of fewer than seven units, all of which are to be used for nonresidential purposes; (B) the declaration provides that the lien of any mortgage or trust deed of record is subordinate to the association's lien; and (C) the holder executed a separate subordination attached to the declaration as an exhibit.

So non-payment converts a procedural dispute into a lienable debt that accrues interest and can carry a fee award, whether under the governing documents or under ORS 94.719, ORS 94.780(1) or ORS 100.470. Paying while continuing to press the statutory objections keeps the dispute from becoming a collection matter; the statutes create no right to withhold pending the outcome.

Condominium owners have one check on the collection side. ORS 100.450(4)(d): an action to foreclose the lien or to recover a money judgment for unpaid assessments "may not be maintained unless the Condominium Information Report and the Annual Report described in ORS 100.250 are designated current as provided in ORS 100.255." Whether those reports are currently so designated is a fact held by the Oregon Real Estate Agency, and the subsection blocks only those two actions — the lien itself continues to exist and unpaid amounts continue to accumulate.

What the text does not settle: these subsections speak to offsetting an assessment. Whether they also foreclose an owner's challenge to the validity of the underlying fine — no written notice, no opportunity to be heard, a schedule or resolution never delivered — is not addressed in either ORS 94.704(10)(b) or ORS 100.530(2).

Penalty or remedy

For a planned community there is a direct statutory remedy with mandatory fees. ORS 94.780(1): "Failure of the declarant, association, any association member or any other person subject to ORS 94.550 to 94.783 to comply with applicable sections of ORS 94.550 to 94.783 is cause for suit or action to remedy the violation or to recover actual damages.

Read the full rule

The prevailing party is entitled to reasonable attorney fees and court costs." That converts a procedural failure — no written notice, no hearing, no delivered fine schedule, no answer within 10 business days — into an affirmative claim. There is no statutory multiplier and no statutory damages amount; recovery is actual damages plus fees and costs.

Planned communities have an express damages-and-fees remedy. ORS 94.780(1) makes failure of the declarant, the association, any association member or any other person subject to ORS 94.550 to 94.783 to comply with applicable sections of ORS 94.550 to 94.783 "cause for suit or action to remedy the violation or to…

Read the full rule

recover actual damages," and "[t]he prevailing party is entitled to reasonable attorney fees and court costs."

That claim carries a short limitations period. ORS 94.780(3): "A suit or action arising under this section must be commenced within one year after the discovery or identification of the alleged violation." One year runs from discovery, not from the fine's due date, so time spent inside an association's internal appeal process counts against it.

An exemption applies to older subdivisions. Under ORS 94.673(2), "[a] homeowners association board of directors is not subject to ORS 94.780 unless the association fails to comply with subsection (1) of this section after receiving a written request from an owner." Subsection (1) covers a subdivision that received preliminary plat approval before July 1, 1982, which must comply with ORS 94.640(1), (3), (4) and (8), 94.644 and 94.670 if an owner submits a written request, the subdivision otherwise conforms to the description of a planned community under ORS 94.550, and it is not otherwise exempted under ORS 94.570. In such a community the written request is the step that turns the duty — and the ORS 94.780 exposure — on.

Condominiums have no counterpart to ORS 94.780. The general compliance provision in the Condominium Act is ORS 100.545, under which failure to comply with the bylaws, the administrative rules and regulations adopted under them, and the covenants, conditions and restrictions in the declaration or deed "shall be grounds for an action maintainable by the association of unit owners or by an aggrieved unit owner" — with no damages clause and no limitations period of its own. ORS 94.777 is its near-verbatim planned-community twin and is equally bare. A condominium owner therefore does not hold a one-year ORS 94.780 claim.

Condominium owners do hold a statutory fee-shift. ORS 100.470 provides that in a suit or action by the association of unit owners to foreclose its lien or to collect delinquent assessments, and in any suit or action by the declarant, "the association or any owner or class of owners to enforce compliance with the terms and provisions of the Oregon Condominium Act, the condominium declaration or bylaws, including all amendments and supplements thereto or any rules or regulations adopted by the association, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees therein and in any appeal therefrom." ORS 94.719 is the planned-community equivalent, in the same words. Both run in both directions.

What the text does not settle: the Condominium Act does not state a limitations period for a compliance action, so how long a condominium owner has is not answerable from that chapter — the one-year period is a planned-community provision. Neither ORS 100.545 nor ORS 100.470 expressly authorizes actual damages, so a condominium owner seeking money would need some other basis for it. And neither fee provision defines "prevailing party."

Enforcement agency

Oregon has no state agency that regulates HOAs or adjudicates fine disputes. There is no HOA ombudsman and no administrative complaint path against a board for an improper fine — the forum is circuit court, or the county dispute resolution program the statutes require the association to offer before suing over a fine.

Read the full rule

The Oregon Real Estate Agency's Land Development Division has a narrow, adjacent role: it regulates condominium creation and sales and, in its own words, "receives the annual reports filed by condominium unit owners associations." That role is ministerial by statute — ORS 100.255(4) states the Agency's filing duty "is ministerial" and that it "is not required to verify or inquire into the legality or truth of any matter" filed. It still matters tactically, because ORS 100.450(4)(d) bars a condominium association from foreclosing its lien or taking a money judgment for unpaid assessments unless the Condominium Information Report and Annual Report are designated current.

Notice and hearing

Before levying a fine, the association must give written notice and an opportunity to be heard. ORS 94.630(1)(n) (planned communities) requires the fine be levied only "after giving written notice and an opportunity to be heard"; ORS 100.405(4)(k) (condominiums) is identical in substance.

Read the full rule

Both are pre-conditions — the statutes place the notice and the hearing before the levy, not after it. A fine imposed first with an appeal offered later does not match the statutory sequence.

Report what is absent, because it matters: Oregon fixes no number of days. Having read ORS 94.630 in full and ORS 100.405 in full, neither statute states how far in advance the notice must be given, how long the owner has to request or attend the hearing, who must preside, whether the board must issue written findings, or whether there is any internal appeal.

Read the full rule

Neither statute says the notice must describe the alleged violation or state the proposed amount. Those details, if they exist, come from the declaration, bylaws, or a board resolution — so a demand letter should quote the association's own documents for timing and demand the statute's two elements (written notice, opportunity to be heard) as the floor. The statutes also do not say the hearing must be public; note separately that the executive-session grounds in ORS 94.644(2)(a) (consult with legal counsel; personnel matters; negotiation of contracts with third parties; collection of unpaid assessments) do not include holding a violation hearing, so a board closing a meeting purely to conduct a fine hearing is on weak ground. And even where closed discussion was proper, ORS 94.644(2)(c) provides that "[a] contract or an action considered in executive session is not effective unless the board, following the executive session, reconvenes in an open meeting and votes to approve the contract or action, which must be included in the minutes" — so a fine decided behind closed doors is not effective until ratified in an open meeting and recorded in the minutes, which makes the minutes a specific, named thing to demand.

Operative deadline

The deadline a demand letter should actually run on is the records deadline: 10 business days. ORS 94.670(8)(a) requires the association to provide, "within 10 business days of receipt of a written request from an owner," a written statement of amounts due, itemized to include regular and special assessments, fines and other charges, accrued interest, and late payment charges, plus the interest rate and the late-charge rate.

Read the full rule

ORS 94.670(11) requires the association, "within 10 business days after receipt of a written request by an owner," to furnish the governing documents, the most recent financial statement, the current operating budget, the reserve study if any, and architectural standards and guidelines if any. ORS 100.480(8)(a) and ORS 100.480(11) impose the identical 10-business-day deadlines on condominium associations. There is no statutory deadline for the association to answer a challenge to the fine itself.

One narrow exception the letter must respect: under ORS 94.670(8)(b) and ORS 100.480(8)(b), the association "is not required to comply with paragraph (a) of this subsection if the association has commenced litigation by filing a complaint against the owner and the litigation is pending when the statement would otherwise be due." Practical consequence: send the records and statement demands BEFORE the association files, because filing suit switches off the 10-business-day itemized statement.

Read the full rule

Note also that the general inspection right in ORS 94.670(9)(a) and ORS 100.480(9)(a) carries no day count at all — only subsections (8) and (11) do — and is subject to the (9)(b) withholding categories. Under ORS 94.670(12) and ORS 100.480(12) the board may adopt reasonable rules on frequency, time, location, notice and manner of inspection and may charge a reasonable fee for copies including reasonable personnel costs, so a demand for records should be specific and should not treat a modest fee as itself a violation.

Scope limits detail

Read the full rule

Can association fine

Yes, and in Oregon the fine power is statutory, not merely contractual. For a planned community (HOA), ORS 94.630(1)(n) empowers the association to "levy reasonable fines for violations of the declaration, bylaws, rules and regulations of the association." For a condominium, ORS 100.405(4)(k) uses nearly identical language.

Read the full rule

This matters for a demand letter: the owner is not limited to arguing that the association exceeded its own CC&Rs — the owner can argue the association failed to satisfy conditions the Oregon Legislature attached to the power itself.

Records rights detail

Read the full rule

Enforcement agency url

https://www.oregon.gov/rea/land-development/Pages/land-development.aspx

Authority source detail

The authority comes from statute, but it is layered on top of the governing documents rather than independent of them.

Read the full rule

ORS 94.630(1), as published in the 2025 Edition, opens: "Subject to subsection (2) of this section and ORS 94.762, 94.763, 94.776, 94.778 and 94.779, and except as otherwise provided in its declaration or bylaws, a homeowners association may:" ORS 100.405(4) opens: "Subject to the provisions of the condominium's declaration and bylaws, and whether or not the association is unincorporated, the association may:" Both prefaces let the governing documents change the grant. There is a good argument that the three conditions written into the fine paragraph itself — written notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a delivered or mailed schedule or resolution — are conditions on the statutory power rather than defaults a declaration may waive, because they sit inside the grant rather than outside it. Present that as an argument, not as settled law. The prefatory clause says only "except as otherwise provided in its declaration or bylaws" and does not distinguish a declaration that narrows the power from one that loosens it; no Oregon statute or appellate decision resolving the point was located (statutes only were researched); and where the Legislature meant to strike a governing-document provision outright it said so expressly — section 4, chapter 86, Oregon Laws 2026 uses the words "void and unenforceable," which ORS 94.630(1)(n) does not. Read the declaration and bylaws alongside the statute in every case. NEW AS OF JUNE 5, 2026: section 7 of chapter 86, Oregon Laws 2026 (SB 1551) amended the opening clause of ORS 94.630(1) to read "Subject to subsection (2) of this section and ORS 94.762, 94.763, 94.776, 94.778 and 94.779 and section 4 of this 2026 Act, and except as otherwise provided in its declaration or bylaws, a homeowners association may:" — so the planned-community fine power is now expressly subordinate to section 4 of that Act, which makes a governing-document provision "void and unenforceable" to the extent it blocks fire-hardened building materials and deems an owner's application to install them approved absent a reasoned, non-arbitrary written denial delivered within 90 days. Paragraph (n) was reprinted word for word in the session law and was not changed. Two scope limits must travel with that: (i) SB 1551 amended only ORS 94.572, 94.573 and 94.630, so ORS 100.405 and condominium fine power are not subordinated to section 4 at all; and (ii) section 5 of the same Act inserted "and section 4 of this 2026 Act" into the ORS 94.572(1) list, so in a Class I or Class II planned community created before January 1, 2002 that was not created under the Planned Community Act, section 4 itself applies only "to the extent that those statutes are consistent with any governing documents of the planned community."

Chargebacks versus fines

Associations frequently relabel a fine as a damage chargeback to escape the hearing requirement, and Oregon treats the two differently.

Read the full rule

For condominiums the owner still gets a hearing: ORS 100.530(6) — "If the board of directors determines that any loss or cost incurred by the association is the fault of one or more owners, the association may, after notice and an opportunity for a hearing before the board of directors, assess the amount of the loss or cost exclusively against the units of the responsible owners." For planned communities, the parallel provision omits the hearing entirely: ORS 94.704(8) says the association "may assess the loss or cost exclusively against the lots of the responsible owners," with no notice or hearing language. So in a planned community, whether the charge is a fine under ORS 94.630(1)(n) or a fault-based chargeback under ORS 94.704(8) decides whether the owner had a right to be heard — and a letter should insist that a penalty for a rule violation is a fine, not a loss allocation.

Defeasible rules warning

Four rules on this page can be overridden by the governing documents and must never be printed as flat statements of law.

Read the full rule

(1) The whole list of association powers, including the fine power, is granted "except as otherwise provided in its declaration or bylaws" (ORS 94.630(1)) and "Subject to the provisions of the condominium's declaration and bylaws" (ORS 100.405(4)). (2) Whether an unpaid fine is lienable is a default only: ORS 94.709(5) and ORS 100.450(5) both begin "Unless the declaration or bylaws provide otherwise." (3) In a pre-2002 Class I or Class II planned community not created under the Act, ORS 94.572(1) subordinates the listed statutes themselves to the governing documents. (4) Since June 5, 2026 that same ORS 94.572(1) list includes "section 4 of this 2026 Act," so even the new fire-hardening void-and-unenforceable rule yields to the governing documents in those communities — section 2 of the same Act, which was added to ORS chapter 93 and reaches any recorded document including a declaration as defined in ORS 94.550, is NOT in that list and is the more robust hook there. The notice-and-hearing and published-schedule conditions inside ORS 94.630(1)(n) and ORS 100.405(4)(k) are best argued as conditions on the statutory grant rather than defaults the documents can waive, but that reading is an argument rather than settled Oregon law. The 10-business-day records deadlines in ORS 94.670(8) and (11) and ORS 100.480(8) and (11) contain no "unless the declaration provides otherwise" language at all — subject only to the ORS 94.670(8)(b) / 100.480(8)(b) pending-litigation carve-out, those are the safest points to press.

Penalty or remedy detail

Read the full rule

recover actual damages," and "[t]he prevailing party is entitled to reasonable attorney fees and court costs."

Pre litigation mediation

Oregon carves fines out of the collection exemption, which is the single most useful fact in this topic. Under ORS 94.630(4)(a), before initiating litigation or an administrative proceeding in which the association and an owner have an adversarial relationship, the initiating party "shall offer to use any dispute resolution program available within the county in which the planned community is located that is in substantial compliance with the standards and guidelines adopted under ORS 36.175.

Read the full rule

The written offer must be hand-delivered or mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested." ORS 94.630(4)(f) then says the requirement does not apply to irreparable-harm situations or "to litigation or an administrative proceeding initiated to collect assessments, other than assessments attributable to fines." ORS 100.405(11)(a) and (11)(f) are the identical condominium provisions. Plain effect: an association may skip mediation to chase ordinary dues, but if the debt is a fine, it must make the mediation offer first. Two limits belong in the same breath: the duty is to offer a program "available within the county," so where no qualifying county program exists there is nothing to offer; and the 30-day stay sanction in ORS 94.630(4)(c) / ORS 100.405(11)(c) is available only "[i]f a qualified dispute resolution program exists within the county." Confirm the county program before asserting the point.

The duty to offer exists only where a qualifying program exists. Before initiating litigation or an administrative proceeding in which the association and an owner have an adversarial relationship, the party intending to initiate "shall offer to use any dispute resolution program available within the county in which the planned community is located that is in substantial compliance with the standards and guidelines adopted under ORS 36.175" (ORS 94.630(4)(a)).

Read the full rule

ORS 100.405(11)(a) is the same requirement for condominiums, keyed to the county in which the condominium is located. Whether a given county has a qualifying program is a factual question the statute does not answer.

Mechanics an owner can use: the offer must be written and hand-delivered or mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the address contained in the records of the association for the other party.

The recipient has 10 days after receipt to accept, by written notice hand-delivered or mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the same address (ORS 94.630(4)(b); ORS 100.405(11)(b)). The notice of acceptance must contain the name, address and telephone number of the body administering the dispute resolution program.

If a qualified program exists in the county and no offer was made as required, the proceeding "may be stayed for 30 days upon a motion of the noninitiating party," and if it is stayed both parties must participate in the dispute resolution process (subsection (4)(c) / (11)(c)).

Unless a stay has been granted, if the process is not completed within 30 days after receipt of the initial offer, the initiating party may proceed without regard to whether the dispute resolution is completed (subsection (d)).

A decision already made cannot be set aside on the ground that an offer was not made (subsection (e)) — a shield to raise early, not a way to undo a judgment later.

The requirement does not apply where irreparable harm to a party will occur due to delay, or to a proceeding initiated to collect assessments — but the text carves fines back in: the exemption covers assessments "other than assessments attributable to fines" (subsection (f)). Where the county has a qualifying program, an association collecting a fine is therefore still inside the offer requirement.

The same offer requirement runs both directions, so an owner who intends to sue the association must make the offer too.

The practical weight of this requirement is limited by its own terms: the consequence of skipping the offer is a possible 30-day stay on the other party's motion, and under subsection (e) the eventual decision stands regardless. The statute also says only that the 10 days run "after receipt" — it does not say how a receipt date is fixed for mailed service, or whether the count includes weekends and holidays.

Fine schedule requirement

This is the condition most associations fail, and it is the strongest single hook in Oregon — but it is not unconditional, and the limits must be stated with it.

Read the full rule

Under ORS 94.630(1)(n), a planned-community fine must be based either "(A) On a schedule contained in the declaration or bylaws, or an amendment to either that is delivered to each lot, mailed to the mailing address of each lot or mailed to the mailing addresses designated in writing by the owners; or (B) On a resolution of the association or its board of directors that is delivered to each lot, mailed to the mailing address of each lot or mailed to the mailing addresses designated in writing by the owners." ORS 100.405(4)(k)(A)-(B) imposes materially identical requirements on condominiums — "unit" for "lot," and (B) reads "On a resolution adopted by the board of directors or the association that is delivered to each unit, mailed to the mailing address of each unit or mailed to the mailing addresses designated by the owners in writing." An amount invented case by case, or a schedule adopted but never delivered or mailed to every lot or unit, does not meet the statutory condition. Two limits must be checked before treating this as an absolute rule, and both can defeat it. First, ORS 94.630(1) grants the power only "except as otherwise provided in its declaration or bylaws," and ORS 100.405(4) is "Subject to the provisions of the condominium's declaration and bylaws" — the governing documents can alter the grant, and whether they can loosen as well as narrow it is unsettled in Oregon. Second, under ORS 94.572(1) a Class I or Class II planned community created before January 1, 2002 that was not created under the Planned Community Act is subject to ORS 94.630(1) only "to the extent that those statutes are consistent with any governing documents of the planned community" — in that community the governing documents win outright and this condition cannot be asserted as an unconditional rule. A demand letter should still ask the association to produce the schedule or the resolution and proof it was delivered or mailed to every lot or unit, and should ask the association to state on the record when the community was created and under what authority.

Notice and hearing detail

Read the full rule

Operative deadline detail

Read the full rule

New 2026 fire hardening rule

New, in force, and directly usable in fine disputes over exterior materials.

Read the full rule

Oregon Laws 2026 chapter 86 (SB 1551) was approved by the Governor March 31, 2026; the slip law states "Effective date June 5, 2026," and section 9 sets the effective date as "the 91st day after the date on which the 2026 regular session of the Eighty-third Legislative Assembly adjourns sine die."

It reaches documents that already exist. Section 8: sections 2 and 4 "apply to recorded documents and governing documents executed before, on or after the effective date of this 2026 Act."

Section 4 — added by section 3 to ORS 94.550 to 94.783 — voids planned-community restrictions in part, not in whole. A provision in a planned community's governing documents "is void and unenforceable to the extent that it: (a) Prohibits both the removal of materials that are not fire-hardened building materials, as defined in section 2 of this 2026 Act, and the replacement of materials that are not fire-hardened building materials with fire-hardened building materials; or (b) Limits the design, dimensions, placement, maintenance or external appearance of fire-hardened building materials in a way that: (A) Has the practical effect of prohibiting the use of all fire-hardened building materials; or (B) Requires the use of fire-hardened building materials that cost substantially more than other fire-hardened building materials of similar quality to the materials proposed by the owner such that the cost practically prevents the owner from using fire-hardened building materials or imposes an unreasonable burden on the owner." The phrase "to the extent that" does real work: a restriction is disabled only so far as it does one of those things.

Paragraph (a) is conjunctive on its face. It voids a provision that prohibits both removal and replacement; a provision barring only one of the two is reached, if at all, by paragraph (b) or by section 2.

Section 4(2) is a deemed-approval rule on a 90-day clock. "If an owner applies to install fire-hardened building materials or remove nonfire-hardened building materials under this section, the application is deemed approved unless the association denies or requests modifications to the application in a written opinion that: (a) Is delivered within 90 days after the application is filed; (b) Demonstrates in reasonable detail the basis for the denial and the scope of any necessary modifications; and (c) Is not arbitrary or capricious." A request for modifications interrupts the deemed approval just as a denial does.

Section 2 — added by section 1 to ORS chapter 93 — is the recorded-document rule, and it is partial too. A provision in a recorded document, "including a declaration as defined in ORS 94.550, is void and unenforceable to the extent that the provision would: (a) Prohibit the installation, use or maintenance of fire-hardened building materials on a residential property; or (b) Prohibit the removal of materials that are not fire-hardened building materials, including fences and other structures, from a residential property." Two limits travel with it: the same "to the extent that" partial invalidity, and the confinement to a residential property. Its trigger is disjunctive — either prohibition suffices — which makes it easier to trigger than section 4(1)(a); but it carries no 90-day deemed approval and nothing reaching design, dimension, placement, maintenance or appearance limits.

Section 7 subjects the association's powers to section 4. It rewrites the opening clause of ORS 94.630(1) to read "Subject to subsection (2) of this section and ORS 94.762, 94.763, 94.776, 94.778 and 94.779 and section 4 of this 2026 Act, and except as otherwise provided in its declaration or bylaws" — the same clause that governs the fining power in ORS 94.630(1)(n).

Older planned communities take section 4 with a consistency condition. Section 5 added section 4 to the list in ORS 94.572(1), which governs a Class I or Class II planned community created before January 1, 2002 that was not created under ORS 94.550 to 94.783, and applies the listed statutes only "to the extent that those statutes are consistent with any governing documents of the planned community." Section 2 is not in that list.

"Fire-hardened building materials" is a defined term pinned to a fixed snapshot. Section 2(1) defines it as materials meeting any of three criteria "as most recently adopted as of the effective date of this 2026 Act": the criteria for construction in wildland areas set forth in the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code; the criteria for construction in wildland areas set forth in National Fire Protection Association Standard 1140; or the criteria included within a wildfire-prepared home as established by the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety. Later revisions of those standards do not automatically qualify, and the materials at issue have to meet one of the three.

A fine over a metal roof, non-combustible siding, or the removal of a wood fence is the fact pattern these two sections address, and the 90-day written-opinion deadline is a date an association can miss.

What the text does not settle: these sections took effect in 2026 and carry no judicial construction. How a court will sever a restriction "to the extent" it offends, what amounts to the "practical effect of prohibiting the use of all fire-hardened building materials," what makes a cost an "unreasonable burden," and what review "not arbitrary or capricious" implies are all open on the text. Coverage of condominiums is unresolved as well: the Act amends ORS 94.572, 94.573 and 94.630 and adds a section to ORS chapter 93, and does not amend ORS chapter 100, so section 4 by its terms speaks to a planned community's governing documents, while section 2's "recorded document, including a declaration as defined in ORS 94.550" could textually reach a recorded condominium declaration — the Act makes no express provision for condominiums either way. The Act also does not say what an owner may do if an association refuses to honor an application that has been deemed approved.

New 2026 fire hardening detail

Currency and citation mechanics. The Act took effect June 5, 2026 and is current law today, but it is NOT yet reflected in the ORS text published on the Oregon Legislature website, which is still the 2025 Edition: the chapter 94 page carries an express notice that sections in the chapter were amended during the 2026 regular session and that new sections were added, both pointing to 2026 Session Laws 0086, and the chapter 93 page carries the same new-sections notice.

Read the full rule

A case-insensitive search of the full chapter 93 and chapter 94 text returns zero hits for "fire-hardened," so sections 2 and 4 have no permanent ORS numbers yet — cite them as sections 2 and 4 of chapter 86, Oregon Laws 2026 (SB 1551) alongside ORS 94.630 and ORS 93, and cite the session-law PDF, not the ORS chapter page, as authority. The chapter 100 page carries no 2026 amendment notice at all, which independently confirms the Condominium Act was untouched by this Act. Two textual changes the session law makes that a letter may need to quote: section 7 rewrote the opening clause of ORS 94.630(1) to insert "and section 4 of this 2026 Act" after the existing cross-references, and section 5 rewrote ORS 94.572(1) to append "and section 4 of this 2026 Act" to its list of statutes that apply only to the extent consistent with the governing documents. The session law reprints ORS 94.630(1)(n) in full and it is word-for-word identical to the website text, so the fine paragraph itself is confirmed current by two official documents. Section 9 set the effective date as the 91st day after sine die adjournment of the 2026 regular session; the printed session law states "Approved by the Governor March 31, 2026," "Filed in the office of Secretary of State March 31, 2026" and "Effective date June 5, 2026." One typography note for byte-accurate quoting: the session-law PDF sets the text in two columns and breaks "fire-hardened" and "nonfire-hardened" at the existing hyphen, so a naive text extraction can render them as "firehardened" and "nonfirehardened"; the printed words are "fire-hardened" and "nonfire-hardened."

Pre litigation mediation detail

Read the full rule

A decision already made cannot be set aside on the ground that an offer was not made (subsection (e)) — a shield to raise early, not a way to undo a judgment later.

The same offer requirement runs both directions, so an owner who intends to sue the association must make the offer too.

What a demand letter should ask for

A well-aimed Oregon fine letter should make four demands and cite the statute for each, and should gate all of them on which act applies.

Read the full rule

First, produce the fine schedule in the declaration or bylaws, or the board or association resolution the fine was based on, together with proof it was delivered or mailed to every lot or unit as ORS 94.630(1)(n)(A)-(B) or ORS 100.405(4)(k)(A)-(B) requires — noting that in a pre-2002 Class I or Class II planned community not created under the Act, ORS 94.572(1) makes that condition yield to the governing documents. Second, produce the written notice of violation and the record of the opportunity to be heard that preceded the levy, as required by the same statutes, plus the minutes — including, if the matter was taken up in executive session, the open-meeting vote ORS 94.644(2)(c) requires before the action is effective. Third, deliver, within 10 business days, the itemized statement of amounts due — assessments, fines and other charges, accrued interest, late charges, plus the interest and late-charge rates — under ORS 94.670(8)(a) or ORS 100.480(8)(a), and the governing documents, current budget, latest financial statement, reserve study and architectural standards under ORS 94.670(11) or ORS 100.480(11); send this before the association files suit, because ORS 94.670(8)(b) and ORS 100.480(8)(b) suspend the itemized-statement duty once litigation is pending. Fourth, state that any suit to collect this fine is a suit over a fine, not an ordinary assessment, so ORS 94.630(4)(f) / 100.405(11)(f) apply, so the association must first make a written offer of county dispute resolution, hand-delivered or sent certified mail return receipt requested, under ORS 94.630(4)(a) and (4)(f) or ORS 100.405(11)(a) and (11)(f) — provided a qualifying county program exists, since that is what the statute requires an offer to use. For a planned community, add that failure to comply with these sections is itself actionable under ORS 94.780(1) with mandatory prevailing-party attorney fees, subject to the one-year limit in ORS 94.780(3) and, for a pre-July 1982 subdivision, to the written-request precondition in ORS 94.673(2). If the fine concerns exterior building materials, add the section 4 / section 2 fire-hardening demands from chapter 86, Oregon Laws 2026. Do not promise an outcome: ORS 94.719 and ORS 100.470 shift fees to the prevailing party in both directions.

Read this before relying on the numbers above

Sources. Everything above comes from Oregon primary law published by the Oregon Legislative Assembly, read in full text rather than in summary: ORS chapter 94 (planned communities), ORS chapter 100 (condominiums), ORS chapter 46 (small claims), and Oregon Laws 2026 chapter 86 (SB 1551).

Currency. Checked against those sources on September 6, 2026. ORS chapters 94 and 100 are the 2025 Edition. The chapter 94 text carries a notice that sections in it were amended during the 2026 regular session, so the session law itself was read: Oregon Laws 2026 chapter 86 was approved March 31, 2026 and took effect June 5, 2026. It amends ORS 94.572, 94.573 and 94.630 and adds two new sections on fire-hardened building materials that do not yet appear in the online chapter text; the session law also reprints ORS 94.630(1)(n) in full, and the fine paragraph relied on here matches it word for word. ORS chapter 100 carries no 2026 amendment notice.

Points the statutory text does not settle. These are limits of the law as written, not gaps in the reading:

- "Reasonable" is the only substantive standard on the size of a fine, and it is not defined. No dollar figure, and no point at which repeated fines stop being reasonable, can be derived from the statute. - The absence of any maximum fine is based on the text of ORS chapters 94, 100 and 46 and Oregon Laws 2026 chapter 86. It does not speak to local ordinances, Real Estate Agency rules, or case law, and an individual declaration or set of bylaws may impose a maximum of its own. - The Condominium Act states no limitations period for a compliance action. The one-year period in ORS 94.780(3) is a planned-community provision with no condominium counterpart. - Whether the bar on offsetting an assessment also blocks a challenge to the validity of the underlying fine is not addressed in ORS 94.704(10)(b) or ORS 100.530(2). - Whether a particular county operates a qualifying dispute resolution program, and whether a circuit court has referred small claims to a justice court by intergovernmental agreement, are local facts the statutes leave open. - Whether a given fine claim is one "providing for statutory attorney fees" under ORS 46.405(5) turns on the basis actually pleaded. - The 2026 fire-hardening sections have no judicial construction, and the Act does not amend ORS chapter 100, so how far they reach condominiums is unresolved on the text. - Every proposition above rests on statutory text; no Oregon appellate decision is relied on anywhere in this page.

Read it yourself

Official sources. If a number below matters to your case, open the statute and read it — laws get amended, and cities often stack stricter local rules on top.

Last checked: 2026-09-07

Send this as a certified letter

Jab drafts the letter, a licensed attorney reviews it, and we mail it USPS Certified Mail with a signed return receipt. $29 flat. You can also write it yourself — this page has what you need.

Start my letter →

Jab Today is not a law firm and this is not legal advice. This page describes how the statutes read, which is a different thing from what will happen in your case. Laws are amended and local ordinances often add stricter rules. For advice about your situation, consult a licensed attorney in your state.