Arizona rewrites the HOA resale disclosure package
Arizona rewrites the HOA resale disclosure package
2026-09-10 · Arizona · Legislation
Arizona's HOA resale disclosure statutes are being rewritten in more places than any other 2026 association bill touches. HB 2397 was signed on June 22, 2026 as Chapter 249, Laws 2026, and takes effect September 12, 2026.1
It amends both A.R.S. § 33-1260 for condominiums and A.R.S. § 33-1806 for planned communities, in parallel. This is one of the few 2026 acts that treats both property forms alike.
Read the enacted text, not the introduced bill
Before anything else: HB 2397 changed substantially on its way through the legislature, and summaries written from the introduced version are circulating as though they describe the law.
The bill as introduced reached beyond disclosure into A.R.S. §§ 33-440, 33-1802 and 33-1803, and carried provisions — including a purchaser rescission right and a mechanism for challenging private covenants — that were stripped before passage. The enacted act amends §§ 33-1260 and 33-1806 and nothing else. Any account describing a five-day rescission right, or a new route to attack covenants, is describing a bill that died.
One further claim in commercial circulation is that the act requires an on-site manager for capital or reserve projects. The words “on-site” and “capital” do not appear in Chapter 249.
The clock now starts at offer acceptance
The old trigger was the association's “receipt of a written notice of a pending sale.” The new trigger is acceptance of the purchaser's offer to purchase. The seller's notice to the association must now include the purchaser's email address alongside name and mailing address.
Delivery is modernised to match: where the statutes said “mail,” they now say “electronically transmit or deliver,” and the package may be furnished “in either paper or electronic format.” The ten-day period is unchanged.
What is new in the package
Several items are added to the list the association must provide:
- Board-approved minutes from the previous three open board meetings — entirely new, and inserted as item 3;
- an electronic copy of the final plat, if available;
- any outstanding and unresolved violation of the community documents cited against the unit;
- the most recent annual audit, review or compilation report — broadened from “financial audit” and tied to § 33-1243(J);
- the most recent reserve study, if any;
- a statement whether part of the unit is covered by the association's insurance.
For the audit and the reserve study, the act adds a practical concession: if the report runs more than ten pages, the association may supply a summary instead of the whole document.
The fees did not change
This is the most widely misreported part of the act. The caps are $400 in aggregate, $100 for rush service, and $50 for an update where thirty days or more have passed — and they were already those amounts before HB 2397.
What the act did was convert “four hundred dollars” to “$400” and “one hundred dollars” to “$100” — a numeral-style edit by the drafting office, not a change in the amount. Coverage presenting $400/$100/$50 as new 2026 caps is describing law that has been in force for some time. Collection timing is likewise unchanged: no earlier than close of escrow, once per transaction.
Liability moves in the association's favour
Two changes here, and together they are the most consequential thing in the act.
A new good-faith safe harbour. The disclosure “shall be based on the good faith reliance on association records or information, without the need for independent investigation or validation.” An association that accurately reports what its own records say has a defence it did not previously have in these terms.
A scienter requirement. The old text gave a remedy to a purchaser or seller “damaged by the failure of the unit owner or the association to disclose.” The new text requires that the party “knowingly or recklessly” failed to disclose, or “knowingly or recklessly” provided materially false or misleading statements in the disclosure.
That is a real narrowing. A negligent omission — the kind that happens when a manager pulls the wrong ledger — no longer founds the statutory claim. Attorney fees remain available “as awarded by the court.”
What boards and managers have to do
Rebuild the package as a standing document set. Three meetings of approved minutes, the current reserve study or its summary, the audit or its summary, insurance information and the plat now have to be assemblable on ten days' notice. The associations that will struggle are those whose minutes are approved late, because the item requires board-approved minutes from the previous three open meetings.
Build the open-violations query into the process. Reporting outstanding and unresolved violations cited against a specific unit requires a violation record that is per-unit, current, and distinguishes resolved from unresolved. Many associations track violations by letter sent rather than by status.
Capture the purchaser's email address. Electronic delivery is only available if the address is on hand, and the statute now requires the seller's notice to carry it.
Decide the summary policy in advance. The ten-page allowance is an option, not a duty. A summary that omits the reserve study's funding conclusion invites the argument that the disclosure was materially misleading — which is precisely the conduct the new scienter standard still reaches when done knowingly or recklessly.
What to watch next
What “recklessly” means here. Between the good-faith safe harbour and the scienter requirement, an association relying on records it has reason to know are wrong is the untested middle case.
Whether the three-meetings requirement changes minute practice. Boards that approve minutes a quarter late will find the statutory package literally impossible to assemble, which is a strong practical incentive to approve minutes at the next meeting.
Whether the stripped provisions return. The rescission right and the covenant-challenge mechanism were in the introduced bill and did not survive. Both are the kind of provision that reappears.
Related Arizona HOA Topics
- HB 2397, Chapter 249, Laws 2026 — enacted session law text (approved June 22, 2026) ↩
- A.R.S. § 33-1260, Sale of units; information required — condominiums (text in force before September 12, 2026) ↩
- A.R.S. § 33-1806, Resale of units; information required — planned communities (text in force before September 12, 2026) ↩
Stay on top of Arizona HOA law
Every week: new Arizona legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.