Arkansas HOA Fining Authority

Section 1: Overview

Ask where an Arkansas homeowners association gets the power to fine you, and the answer is not a statute. It's a contract. The recorded declaration — not state law — is the actual source of that power, and it decides the process and the dollar amount as well.¹ Condominiums answer to the Arkansas Horizontal Property Act, Ark. Code § 18-13-101 et seq., a spare, 1961-era law that never mentions fines. It covers bylaws, common-expense assessments, and administration, but it grants no council of co-owners or board the modern authority to "levy reasonable fines after notice and an opportunity to be heard."² Planned communities have even less to stand on: Arkansas has passed no comprehensive statute for them at all, so no statutory fining authority exists. The Arkansas Nonprofit Corporation Act of 1993, Ark. Code § 4-33-101 et seq., handles corporate formalities for associations that incorporate as nonprofits, but it hands them no power to fine.³ Either way, a fine can only reach as far as the declaration allows, and it still has to clear the common-law reasonableness standard Arkansas courts apply to association conduct; notice and an opportunity to respond come from common law, not from any fining statute.⁴ One question decides more than any other: can an unpaid fine become a lien and lead to foreclosure? The table below and Section 3C answer it — everything depends on the declaration, because the Horizontal Property Act's assessment provision covers common expenses, not fines.⁵ The Quick-Reference table that follows lays out these mechanics at a glance.

Section 2: Quick-Reference Fining Mechanics Table

This table lays out Arkansas's fining mechanics at a glance. Because fining authority comes almost entirely from CC&Rs in both community types, most cells point back to the declaration rather than to a statute. Where you see "Set by declaration" or "CC&R-derived; no statute," that phrase marks the absence of any controlling statutory rule. Section 3 walks through each of these parameters in detail, and every value here carries a footnoted citation to a primary source.

Arkansas draws its fining authority almost entirely from CC&Rs, in both condominiums and planned communities. Any value marked "Set by declaration" depends on what a given community's recorded documents actually say. Last verified: July 14, 2026.

Section 3: Fining mechanics in detail

3A. Source and outer limits of fining authority

Start with condominiums. The Horizontal Property Act sets up a horizontal property regime the moment someone records a master deed, and § 18-13-108 then requires that recorded bylaws govern how that regime runs.⁶ Those bylaws have to spell out the form of administration, the method for calling co-owners together (a decision takes a majority of at least fifty-one percent), the care and upkeep of common elements, how the association collects common expenses from co-owners, and personnel matters.⁶ Look for a fining power in § 18-13-108, or anywhere else in the chapter, and you won't find one. Read the chapter section by section and a pattern emerges: formation, bylaws, common elements, expense assessments, insurance, taxation — and silence on fines or penalties.² So condominium fining authority in Arkansas comes from the CC&Rs and bylaws, not the statute. It exists only where the master deed, declaration, or recorded bylaws actually create it.

Planned communities face a starker picture. Arkansas has never enacted a comprehensive planned-community statute, or any general HOA statute — which means non-condominium associations have no statutory fining authority whatsoever.³ The power to fine exists only where the recorded declaration grants it. The Arkansas Nonprofit Corporation Act of 1993 handles the internal corporate procedure for associations that incorporate as nonprofits — director duties, meetings, notice at the corporate level — but it gives them no authority to fine members.³

In both tracks, the declaration controls, and Arkansas courts hold association action to a common-law reasonableness standard as the outer limit. Arkansas courts view restrictive covenants with suspicion, reading them strictly against whoever wants to limit the free use of land and resolving any ambiguity in favor of unrestricted use. The Arkansas Supreme Court put it plainly in Royal Oaks Vista, L.L.C. v. Maddox: "Restrictions on land use are generally disfavored in the law. Furthermore, a restrictive covenant will be interpreted strictly against limitations on the free use of land. All uncertainties are resolved in favor of unrestricted land use."⁸ When an association wields discretionary power over its members, the Arkansas Court of Appeals applies a different but related test. In Hutchens v. Bella Vista Village Property Owners' Association, the court adopted a "reasonableness" standard, holding that the power to make rules or decisions "is limited by a determination of whether the action is unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory," and instructing courts to ask "(1) whether the decision or rule is arbitrary, (2) whether [it] is applied in an even-handed or discriminatory manner; and (3) whether [it] was made in good faith for the common welfare of owners and occupants."⁴ A fine that can't be traced to clear declaration language, or one applied unevenly, is vulnerable on exactly those grounds.

3B. The required fining procedure

No statute in Arkansas prescribes a fining procedure for either community type. Nothing sets a pre-fine notice period, a cure period, a hearing-request deadline, or a written-decision requirement — and boards should not assume any of those exist.² The procedure that actually governs a fine lives in the declaration and bylaws: whatever notice, opportunity to respond, and appeal steps those documents lay out are the steps the board must follow.⁶ Because the governing documents supply the process, two communities sitting in the same county can run entirely different fining procedures.

Common law adds a layer on top of that contractual procedure: a reasonable expectation of notice and an opportunity to be heard before a board enforces a covenant-based charge. That expectation tracks the reasonableness and good-faith standard Hutchens applies to association action, and it echoes the broader principle that a party deserves adequate notice and a chance to respond before a decision affecting its interests takes hold.⁴ Treat this as a common-law overlay, not a fixed statutory rule — nobody should read a specific day-count into it. Whether an association can impose per-day or continuing fines depends on the declaration too; the Act says nothing about how fines accrue.²

For a board or a manager, the practical test comes down to two questions: does the declaration's text actually authorize the fine being imposed, and did the board give reasonable notice and a genuine chance to be heard? Clear both hurdles and the fine holds up. Fail either one and it's exposed. No state agency adjudicates HOA fine disputes in Arkansas. The Arkansas Real Estate Commission oversees real estate licensing that can touch community association managers, but it does not hear fine disputes.⁹ Those cases go to the Arkansas Circuit Courts, with appeals running to the Arkansas Court of Appeals and discretionary review available at the Arkansas Supreme Court.¹⁰

3C. Enforcement of unpaid fines: assessments, liens, and foreclosure

This is where the risk of a costly mistake runs highest, so the statutory text deserves a precise reading. For condominiums, § 18-13-116 — the Horizontal Property Act's financial-obligation provision — binds co-owners to pay their pro rata share of administration, maintenance, and common-element repair expenses, plus any other expense lawfully agreed upon.⁵ When a unit sells or conveys, § 18-13-116(c) puts unpaid assessments for that pro rata share first in line for payment out of the sale price, ahead of everything except past-due taxes and properly recorded mortgages, and § 18-13-116(d) holds the purchaser jointly and severally liable for what the seller owed.⁵ That's a payment-priority and successor-liability mechanism built around common-expense assessments. It is not an express, recordable lien-and-foreclosure regime, and its language reaches "expenses" — not fines. Nothing in the Act pulls fines into that priority, and nothing gives associations a statutory foreclosure remedy for a fine-only balance. So any lien on, or foreclosure over, unpaid condominium fines in Arkansas has to come from the declaration, not the statute, and it depends entirely on whether the master deed or bylaws actually create that security interest and remedy.

Planned communities have no statutory assessment lien to speak of. Lien and foreclosure rights exist only where the recorded declaration builds them in. Arkansas courts have long held that a properly recorded bill of assurance or declaration can create a continuing lien on a lot for assessments — one that runs with the land and binds whoever buys it. The Arkansas Supreme Court upheld exactly that kind of recorded continuing-assessment lien in Kell v. Bella Vista Village Property Owners' Ass'n.⁷ Whether that lien reaches fines, as opposed to regular and special assessments, comes down to the declaration's language, tested against ordinary contract and property doctrine and the common-law reasonableness limit. Absent language creating both a lien and a foreclosure remedy, an association's only recourse for an unpaid fine is a money action in Circuit Court — not foreclosure.

Suspending voting rights or amenity access over an unpaid fine is likewise entirely a creature of the declaration. Neither the Horizontal Property Act nor any planned-community statute authorizes it. Where a declaration does provide for suspension, courts enforce it as a contractual remedy, bound by the same reasonableness constraints.⁴

Section 4: Recent legislative and judicial activity

A. Recent bills

Arkansas lawmakers took up two measures touching condominiums and community associations in 2025. One became law; the other died in committee.

B. Recent appellate rulings

In the past three years, no Arkansas appellate court has squarely ruled on whether a covenant-based fine is enforceable, what due process a fine requires, or whether a particular fine is reasonable. The closest case in that window turns on procedure, not substance.

C. Active legislative debates

Interest in a broader property owners' association statute hasn't gone away — HB1660's 2025 audit-and-regulation proposal proved that. But as of this update, no comprehensive planned-community statute and no fine-specific measure is pending.¹²

Section 5: National positioning and related coverage

Look across the states and fining authority sorts into three broad camps. The first camp spells out both a statutory fining power and statutory due-process conditions — the UCIOA jurisdictions such as Alaska, Connecticut, and Colorado; comprehensive-statute states such as California and Florida; and Arizona's procedurally detailed framework, which write notice, hearing, and often the fine mechanics themselves into the code. The second camp draws fining authority from CC&Rs, backed only by a common-law due-process overlay — that's where Arkansas sits, for both condominiums and planned communities, alongside Alabama's planned communities. The third camp caps fines outright, mandates published fine schedules, or restricts foreclosure on fine-only debts. Arkansas falls among the most contractual states on fining, which means a multi-state operator has to read the individual declaration rather than lean on a statutory default. On lien and foreclosure treatment specifically, Arkansas actually looks comparatively owner-protective — precisely because it stays silent. No statute turns a fine into a lien or a foreclosure basis, so an association can only reach that remedy if its recorded documents clearly build it in. Statutory-lien states hand associations that remedy automatically; Arkansas does not.

Federal law reaches into this picture too, regardless of what Arkansas itself requires. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act can apply once a third party takes over collecting a fine, and the Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, and the FCC's OTARD rule all apply to Arkansas associations independent of the state framework.

Recommendations

• Find the fining power in the recorded documents first. No Arkansas statute hands either condominiums or planned communities a fining power, so confirm that the master deed, declaration, or recorded bylaws expressly authorize the specific fine you're about to assess — including any per-day or continuing fine. If the documents stay silent, the fine won't hold up. Only an amendment adding clear fining language changes that.
• Build a written notice-and-hearing process, and follow it every time. Give reasonable written notice of the alleged violation, a real opportunity to respond or be heard, and a written decision — applied the same way across every owner. Do that and you satisfy both the Hutchens reasonableness test (not arbitrary, even-handed, good faith) and the common-law expectation of notice and a chance to respond, which is exactly what a Circuit Court will measure you against.
• Don't treat a fine as a lienable assessment or a foreclosure basis unless the declaration actually says so. Section 18-13-116 reaches common expenses, not fines, and planned communities have no statutory assessment lien at all. Before recording anything or threatening foreclosure, confirm the recorded documents create both a lien and a foreclosure remedy that expressly cover fines. If they don't, pursue the unpaid fine as a money claim in Circuit Court instead.
• Calibrate the fine to the violation. Arkansas sets no statutory cap, so common-law reasonableness is the only limit there is. A disproportionate or punitive fine invites a reasonableness challenge, so tie the amount to documented harm or to a published schedule applied evenly across owners.

Watch for these benchmarks: enactment of a comprehensive planned-community statute or a POA-regulation bill (HB1660 was the 2025 vehicle, and it died in committee); any future amendment to the Horizontal Property Act adding an express fining power or fine lien; or a new Arkansas appellate decision applying the reasonableness test to a covenant-based fine. Check the Arkansas General Assembly and the Court of Appeals each quarter for these triggers.

Caveats

• Arkansas's fining authority is contractual. This page describes the absence of statutory rules and the controlling role of the declaration, but outcomes for any specific community depend entirely on its own recorded documents, which have to be read individually.
• No Arkansas appellate decision in the past 36 months squarely resolves whether a covenant-based fine is enforceable, what due process it requires, or whether a specific amount is reasonable. The governing authority is older — Kell from 1975, Hutchens from 2003 — plus general covenant-construction doctrine from Royal Oaks Vista in 2008, applied here by analogy.
• The strict-construction rule, which reads covenants against restriction, and the Hutchens reasonableness test are two distinct doctrines. The Hutchens court itself noted that a maintenance-assessment covenant fell outside the definition of a restrictive covenant, so strict construction didn't apply there. Counsel should work out which framework a court would apply to a given fine before relying on either one.
• Act 516 of 2025 applies only to condominium regimes organized on or after September 1, 2025, or to pre-existing regimes that elect in. Many existing Arkansas condominiums still operate under the prior version of the Horizontal Property Act.

1. Arkansas Horizontal Property Act, Ark. Code § 18-13-101 — 18-13-120 (2024) (full chapter; no fine provision), cross-verifying official Arkansas Code, Title 18, Subtitle 2, Chapter 13 via the Arkansas General Assembly at arkleg.state.ar.us ↩
2. Ark. Code § 18-13-101 et seq., Horizontal Property Act (section-by-section: formation, bylaws, common elements, assessments, insurance, taxation; no fining or penalty provision) ↩
3. Arkansas Nonprofit Corporation Act of 1993, Ark. Code § 4-33-101 et seq. (corporate procedure for nonprofit associations; no fining authority); Arkansas has no comprehensive planned-community statute ↩
4. Hutchens v. Bella Vista Village Property Owners' Ass'n, Inc., Ark. Ct. App. No. CA02-925 (2003) (adopting reasonableness test: whether the action is arbitrary, applied even-handedly or discriminatorily, and made in good faith for the common welfare) ↩
5. Ark. Code § 18-13-116 (2024), Liability for expenses and assessments (co-owners contribute pro rata toward expenses; § 18-13-116(c) sale-priority and § 18-13-116(d) purchaser joint-and-several liability tied to "expenses," not fines) ↩
6. Ark. Code § 18-13-108 (2024), Bylaws (administration governed by recorded bylaws; required contents include form of administration, method of calling co-owners, care of common elements, and manner of collecting common expenses) ↩
7. Kell v. Bella Vista Village Property Owners' Ass'n, 258 Ark. 757, 528 S.W.2d 651 (1975) (recorded declaration/bill of assurance may create a continuing lien for assessments running with the land), as discussed in Hutchens v. Bella Vista Village POA, Ark. Ct. App. No. CA02-925 (2003) ↩
8. Royal Oaks Vista, L.L.C. v. Maddox, Ark. Sup. Ct. (2008) ("Restrictions on land use are generally disfavored in the law. Furthermore, a restrictive covenant will be interpreted strictly against limitations on the free use of land. All uncertainties are resolved in favor of unrestricted land use."); accord Casebeer v. Beacon Realty, Inc., 248 Ark. 22, 449 S.W.2d 701 (1970) ↩
9. Arkansas Real Estate Commission (licensing of real estate brokers, salespersons, and property-management licensees; no adjudication of HOA fine disputes), arec.arkansas.gov ↩
10. Arkansas Judiciary court structure: Circuit Courts (trial), Arkansas Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate), Arkansas Supreme Court (discretionary review), courts.arkansas.gov / arcourts.gov ↩
11. Act 516 of 2025 (SB323), To Amend the Horizontal Property Act, § 8 (amending Ark. Code § 18-13-116, adding subdivision (b)(4): "A past due assessment or installment of an assessment may bear interest at a lawful rate established by the association.") and § 9 (DO NOT CODIFY; applicability Sept. 1, 2025), Arkansas General Assembly ↩
12. HB1660 (2025 Regular Session), To Amend the Horizontal Property Act; To Regulate Property Owners Associations; And To Require an Audit for Certain Property Owners Associations (Status: Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment), Arkansas General Assembly ↩
13. Wood v. Alkhaseh (Dawn Hill Townhouse and Condominium Property Owners Ass'n, Inc.), 2023 Ark. App. 179, No. CV-20-322 (Mar. 29, 2023) (association foreclosure/collection appeal resolved on procedural grounds; affirmed in part, dismissed in part) ↩