Connecticut bill that would have required owners to affirmatively approve budgets died without a vote
Connecticut bill that would have required owners to affirmatively approve budgets died without a vote
2026-09-09 · Connecticut · Legislation · Did not pass
A Connecticut bill that would have inverted how condominium budgets are approved died in the Judiciary Committee in the 2026 session without ever coming to a vote. House Bill 5437 was referred on March 2, 2026, given a public hearing on March 16, and then simply stopped.1
Because Connecticut bills do not carry over between annual sessions, it is finished. Anything like it in 2027 starts again from the committee process.
What it would have changed
The bill was titled “An Act Concerning the Approval Process for Proposed Budgets and Special Assessments in Common Interest Communities and the Availability of a List of Names and Addresses of Unit Owners.” Its stated purpose was
“To (1) require an affirmative vote of a majority of all unit owners in order to secure passage of the proposed budget or a proposed special assessment in a common interest community, and (2) improve the process that permits a unit owner to request and receive a list of names and addresses of the other unit owners.”1
The first half is the significant one. Under current law — § 47-261e — a proposed budget or special assessment is ratified unless a majority of all unit owners rejects it. Silence approves. The bill would have required a majority to affirmatively approve, which converts owner apathy from a rubber stamp into a standing veto.
Where it died
The bill was raised by the Judiciary Committee rather than by an individual legislator — in an even-year short session, Connecticut limits individual members to fiscal bills, so every 2026 common-interest-community bill was a committee bill.
Its history is three lines long: referred to Judiciary on March 2, 2026; public hearing noticed for March 16; nothing further. It never received a file number, which means it also never received an Office of Legislative Research analysis or a fiscal note.1
The argument that beat it, and the reason it is striking
The Community Associations Institute's Connecticut Legislative Action Committee opposed the bill. Its published account says the change “would create unnecessary administrative obstacles, delay critical decisions, compromise resident privacy, and disrupt the efficient operation of common interest communities,” and that the current rule “appropriately balances an association's need for reliable income with owners' rights to oppose an overreaching budget.”2
Then it invoked Surfside:
“Furthermore, this is exactly the problem that occurred at Surfside in Florida where the building collapsed and 98 people lost their lives. This was due to the lack of owner support to approve spending on very necessary maintenance items.”2
That is the inversion worth noticing. Post-Surfside reform is usually argued as a case for more owner information and more mandatory funding. Here the collapse was cited as a reason against requiring owners to vote yes — on the theory that a community which must affirmatively approve spending will fail to approve the spending it most needs.
On the owner-list half, the same submission raised a domestic-violence objection: that a spouse who has separated from an abuser could be endangered if their address appears in a directory available to the membership.
What this leaves in place
Connecticut's budget ratification rule is unchanged. A board adopts a proposed budget, notices it to owners, and it takes effect unless a majority of all owners rejects it at the meeting. In most Connecticut associations that means budgets pass because turnout is low, which is precisely what supporters of the bill objected to and precisely what its opponents were defending.
The unit owner list provisions are likewise unchanged, and remain governed by the § 47-260 records regime and its withholding rules.
Read it against what did pass
The 2026 session's one surviving common-interest-community measure went in a different direction on the same underlying problem. Public Act 26-31 gives owners holding twenty per cent of the votes a route to the Superior Court for an independent audit of the association's financial records, and adds a buyer advisory about reserve reports to the residential condition report.3
So the legislature's answer to financial mistrust in 2026 was scrutiny after the fact, not consent in advance. HB 5437 was the consent-in-advance option, and it was the one that died.
What to watch next
The 2027 session is a long session, convening in January, and individual legislators can again file bills in their own names on any subject. That materially raises the odds of a budget-approval bill returning — the 2025 long session produced nineteen community-association bills against five in 2026.
But no legislator or committee has announced any intention to reintroduce this one, and nothing should be read into its subject matter recurring. What can be said is that the idea now has a documented opposition case on the record, and any 2027 version will be answering it.
Related Connecticut HOA Topics
- HB 5437 (2026) bill status, official title, statement of purpose and complete history, Connecticut General Assembly ↩
- Legislative Update, Common Interest, Vol. XXI Issue 2 (April 2026), CAI Connecticut chapter — the opposition case in its own words ↩
- Public Act No. 26-31 — the 2026 session's one enacted common interest community measure ↩
Stay on top of Connecticut HOA law
Every week: new Connecticut legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.