Why this reaches homeowners' associations directly

Section 720.3033(2)(a) requires an HOA board to “comply with the requirements of s. 617.0832,” and (b) requires those disclosures to be entered “into the written minutes of the meeting.” Because the underlying section was rewritten, the compliance script changed on 1 July 2026 even though Chapter 720's own text did not.

One thing did not change and should not be lost in the rewrite: the HOA kickback offence in s. 720.3033(3) is untouched, and it still carries the narrow safe harbour for a business meal or item of nominal value not exceeding $25 per person.

The procedure that now protects the association

For the common cases — a landscaping contract with a company a director owns, a management contract with a board member's firm, a roofing bid from a director's brother-in-law — the sequence that earns the burden shift is specific:

1. Disclose the material facts and the interest before the discussion, not after the vote. Written disclosure is the practical standard because s. 720.3033(2)(b) requires it in the minutes.
2. Identify who is qualified to vote. The interested director is not, and the statute forecloses authorisation by a single director acting alone — which is a real constraint on a small board where several members are conflicted.
3. If the board cannot muster a majority of qualified directors, go to the members for a majority of disinterested votes.
4. Record the arm's-length comparison. The new definition of fairness is comparative. Competing bids, market quotes or a written rationale are the evidence that answers it. Where a board obtains none, it has nothing to meet a challenge with even though the burden sits elsewhere.
5. Minute all of it. The minutes are what a court and an owner will read years later.

How this interacts with the manager conflict rules

Directors are not the only conflicted party in a typical association, and the two regimes have different triggers. Section 468.4335 creates a rebuttable presumption of a manager conflict where, without prior notice to the board, the manager or firm proposes or enters a non-management contract with the association, or “holds an interest in or receives compensation from” a provider doing business with it — with “compensation” defined to capture referral fees, ownership interests and profit-sharing arrangements.

Where the association considers a bid exceeding $2,500 that is or may reasonably be construed to be such a conflict, “the association must solicit multiple bids from other third-party providers.” That is a lower and more mechanical trigger than the director test, and it is the one most likely to be tripped in ordinary operations.

Separately, s. 718.3026(1) requires competitive bids on contracts exceeding five percent of the association's budget — and DBPR's pending citation rule proposes a penalty line item for failing to obtain them.

A new enforcement backdrop that changes the stakes

Two things arrived alongside this rewrite that make conflict discipline more consequential than it was.

First, the Division's post-turnover jurisdiction was expanded in 2025 to reach conflicts of interest “including kickbacks,” board member education, removal of a director or officer, and the fidelity-bond requirement. Condominium complaints to DBPR rose from 1,464 in FY 2020/21 to 3,863 in FY 2024/25 — a 164 percent increase — and the 2025-2026 General Appropriations Act funded ten new investigator positions.²

Second, a proposed rule published on 31 July 2026 would give the Division citation authority with a minimum penalty of “$500, whichever amount is greater” and “a penalty range of $10 to $30 per unit… for each violation” — with new line items for failure to properly disclose a conflict of interest and failure to recuse. An undisputed citation “shall become a final order of the division” after 30 days. That rule is proposed, not adopted, and has no effective date.³

What to watch next

Watch Rule 61B-21.0026 for adoption — it is the mechanism that would turn a conflict-disclosure failure from a litigation risk into an administrative penalty assessed per unit. And note that HB 657, which died in Senate Rules, would have gone further still for HOAs: a new s. 720.303(11) requiring written disclosure before discussion, barring participation, making the transaction voidable absent member approval, and providing that the subsection “may not be waived or limited by the governing documents.” That last clause has no equivalent in current law.