The annual meeting has a harder rule than most boards realise

Where a condominium holds its annual members' meeting by video conference, a quorum of the board must be physically present at a physical location where owners can attend in person. That location must be identified in the bylaws; if the bylaws do not provide one, the meeting “must be held within 15 miles of the condominium property or within the same county.”

Unit owners may vote electronically during a video-conference meeting. Separately, HB 913 deleted the old requirement that notice be broadcast on closed-circuit television at least four times per broadcast hour.

Homeowners' associations got nothing at all

This is the asymmetry worth being precise about. The 2025 video-conference framework sits in Chapter 718. Chapter 720 has no equivalent statute. An HOA's authority to meet remotely rests on its own governing documents and general nonprofit corporate law, not on a community-association statute written for the purpose. The bills that would have closed that gap are the ones that just died.

Exposure for boards that already went audio-only

Some Florida boards adopted dial-in-only meetings during and after the pandemic and have kept them, on the assumption the statute would catch up. It did not. Three consequences follow for a condominium association.

• The notice is wrong. A notice that promises a video conference and delivers a telephone bridge does not match what s. 718.112(2)(c) contemplates, and a notice that offers no physical location omits a required element.
• The recording may not exist. The recording obligation attaches to video-conference meetings and makes the recording an official record. An association running audio-only meetings and keeping no recording has neither complied with the video framework nor availed itself of an audio one, because there isn't one.
• Election exposure is the sharpest. Electronic voting during the meeting is authorised in the video-conference context. An election conducted in a format the statute does not describe invites a challenge, and Florida's route for that challenge — DBPR arbitration under Chapters 61B-80 and 61B-81 — is one of the few Chapter 720 powers the Division actually has.

The implementing rule does not exist yet either

HB 913 directed the Division to adopt rules, and it has begun. A proposed rewrite of Rule 61B-23.001, F.A.C. — “Board of Administration and Committees; Fiduciary Duty” — was published for comment on 24 July 2026 (Vol. 52/143), following a public hearing on 27 February 2026. The Division's stated purpose is to implement s. 718.112(2) “(per HB 913),” with changes including “updating the definition of ‘committee meeting,’ specifications as to the use of audiovisual communication platforms, and measures that must be implemented for all meetings (notices, rescheduling, inspection of meeting materials, agenda, right to speak, etc.).”⁴

It has not been adopted. The rule currently in force still carries an effective date of 14 April 1999. Boards running remote meetings today are operating on statutory text with a twenty-seven-year-old rule underneath it, and the rule that would set the compliance standard for virtual meetings, notice and the members' right to speak is still in the pipeline.

What to watch next

No audioconferencing bill has been refiled; nothing in this subject area has been filed for 2027 at all. The realistic path is the rule rather than the statute: watch Rule 61B-23.001 for adoption, because it will define “audiovisual communication platform” and set the meeting mechanics before the Legislature returns on 2 March 2027.