Hawaii HOA Fining Authority

Section 1: Overview

Hawaii grants fining authority through two separate statutes, and everything depends on one threshold question: is this a condominium or a planned community? Condominiums fall under the Condominium Property Act, HRS Chapter 514B (HRS § 514B-1 et seq.); planned communities fall under the Planned Community Associations Act, HRS Chapter 421J (HRS § 421J-1 et seq.).^1,2 For condominiums, HRS § 514B-104(a)(11) does the work directly: it authorizes an association to levy reasonable fines for violations of the declaration, bylaws, rules, and regulations, so long as the owner gets notice and an opportunity to be heard.¹ Planned communities work differently. Chapter 421J contains no dedicated fining section, so the association's fining power comes from the declaration and bylaws, operating inside the Chapter 421J framework.² And Hawaii hasn't adopted the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act. Chapter 514B borrows a few of its structural concepts, but it stands as its own framework, and Chapter 421J is bespoke.³

Hawaii leans hard on mediation. Before a fine dispute reaches a courtroom, it frequently has to go through mediation first.^4,5 As for the amount, the statute holds condominium fines to a standard of reasonableness rather than a fixed dollar cap.¹ Where this gets consequential is enforcement. An unpaid fine can become part of an association's lien, but the condominium six-month lien priority over a prior mortgage covers unpaid regular assessments only — not fines. And a lien built solely from fines cannot be foreclosed nonjudicially; Hawaii's post-2011 foreclosure framework won't allow it.^6,7 The Quick-Reference table below lays out these mechanics for both community types.

Section 2: Quick-Reference Fining Mechanics Table

Here's Hawaii's fining picture at a glance. The Condominiums column reflects Chapter 514B (HRS § 514B-1 et seq.); Section 3A covers the Chapter 514A legacy for pre-2006 condominiums separately. The Planned Communities column reflects Chapter 421J (HRS § 421J-1 et seq.). Condominium fining authority is expressly statutory. Planned-community fining authority isn't — it's derived from the governing documents, operating under the Chapter 421J framework. Every value in the table traces back to the detailed discussion in Section 3.

Condominiums column reflects Chapter 514B (HRS § 514B-1 et seq.); Planned Communities column reflects Chapter 421J (HRS § 421J-1 et seq.). The condominium lien priority covers assessments, not fines. Foreclosure availability is subject to Hawaii's post-2011 framework. Last verified: July 14, 2026.

Section 3: Fining mechanics in detail

3A. Source and outer limits of fining authority

For condominiums, statute gives the fining power directly. HRS § 514B-104(a)(11) empowers an association to "impose charges and penalties, including late fees and interest, for late payment of assessments and levy reasonable fines for violations of the declaration, bylaws, rules, and regulations of the association, either in accordance with the bylaws or, if the bylaws are silent, pursuant to a resolution adopted by the board that establishes a fining procedure that states the basis for the fine and allows an appeal to the board of the fine with notice and an opportunity to be heard."¹ HRS § 514B-105 limits those powers, along with the declaration and bylaws themselves. And the standard governing the amount is reasonableness — Chapter 514B sets no dollar cap.¹

The Chapter 514A legacy doesn't reach far. Lawmakers repealed HRS § 514B-22, the former applicability provision, effective January 1, 2019 — but its substance carried forward. The management provisions in Part VI of Chapter 514B, which include the § 514B-104 powers provision and the § 514B-146 lien provision, now apply to every condominium created before July 1, 2006, subject to two limits.⁸ Those provisions reach only events and circumstances occurring on or after July 1, 2006, and they cannot override existing governing-document provisions where doing so would impair a developer's reserved rights or unreasonably impair contract.⁸ Chapter 514A itself now governs only a small set of pre-2006 regimes that never came to market.⁹ In practice, that means the statutory fining and lien rules reach essentially every condominium in Hawaii.

Planned communities work under a different analysis entirely. Chapter 421J has no section that grants or governs fining. So the fining power comes from the declaration and bylaws, exercised within the Chapter 421J framework — and an association that lacks the requisite authority in a recorded declaration may not even qualify as an "association" for enforcement purposes under HRS § 421J-2.^2,10 Keep the two chapters separate; don't cross-apply them. And since Hawaii has not adopted the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act, practitioners shouldn't import its fine, notice, or lien defaults into either chapter.³

3B. The required fining procedure

For condominiums, HRS § 514B-104(a)(11) sets the predicate for an enforceable fine. Where the bylaws address fines, the association follows the bylaws. Where the bylaws stay silent, the board has to adopt a resolution that establishes a fining procedure — one that states the basis for the fine and allows an appeal to the board, with notice and an opportunity to be heard.¹ The statute fixes no specific day-count for notice, cure, hearing requests, or written decisions; the bylaws or the board resolution set those intervals. That same subsection lets the association fine a tenant directly, after giving notice to both tenant and owner and an opportunity to be heard — and it holds the owner responsible for fines levied against the tenant.¹

For planned communities, Chapter 421J prescribes no notice-and-hearing sequence for fines at all. The procedure lives in the declaration and bylaws — boards and managers need to read those documents closely to find the exact notice timeline, cure period, and hearing process.²

Hawaii's dispute-resolution rules bear directly on how you contest a fine. For condominiums, HRS § 514B-161 makes mediation mandatory on written request whenever a dispute involves interpreting or enforcing the association's declaration, bylaws, or house rules, subject to stated exceptions.⁴ Chapter 514B also provides for arbitration under HRS § 514B-162 and voluntary binding arbitration under HRS § 514B-162.5, and the Condominium Education Trust Fund can support mediation and arbitration of condominium disputes.¹¹ For planned communities, HRS § 421J-13 states that a covered dispute over interpreting, applying, or enforcing the chapter or the association documents "shall first be submitted to mediation."⁵ Neither chapter fixes a statutory per-day or continuing-fine rule, so a continuing fine depends entirely on what the governing documents say. Two practical points follow: a fine imposed without the notice-and-hearing predicate invites a challenge, and a party generally has to pursue mediation before litigating a fine dispute at all.

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

An unpaid fine is not a common expense assessment, under either chapter. Chapter 514B's "pay first, dispute later" rule — the one that bars an owner from withholding payment and requires paying before contesting — applies only to common expense assessments. For fines, penalties, late fees, and similar charges, HRS § 514B-146 lets an owner demand mediation before paying.⁶ That distinction carries weight for the lien, and for foreclosure.

HRS § 514B-146 creates the condominium lien. Unpaid sums the association assesses become a lien on the unit, and the association can tack on late fees, interest, and collection costs.⁶ That lien carries a limited priority: for up to six months of unpaid regular monthly common assessments, the association's claim jumps ahead of a prior recorded mortgage. But that six-month priority covers regular assessments only. It doesn't extend to fines, penalties, late fees, interest, or attorneys' fees.⁶ Fines can still land in the association's ordinary lien — they just don't get the special priority.

Foreclosure is where the fine distinction decides everything. HRS § 514B-146(a) lets the association foreclose its lien by judicial action or by nonjudicial power-of-sale procedures under Chapter 667 — but it bars any association from using the nonjudicial or power-of-sale remedy "to foreclose a lien against any unit that arises solely from fines, penalties, legal fees, or late fees," and it requires that such a foreclosure "be filed in court pursuant to part IA of chapter 667."⁷ HRS § 514B-146.5(c) repeats that restriction.⁷ The parallel planned-community provision, HRS § 421J-10.5, carries the identical restriction: "no association may exercise the nonjudicial or power of sale remedies provided in chapter 667 to foreclose a lien against any unit that arises solely from fines, penalties, legal fees, or late fees, and the foreclosure of any such lien shall be filed in court pursuant to part IA of chapter 667."¹² So a fine-only balance can support a judicial foreclosure and nothing else, under both chapters. This limit sits inside Hawaii's post-2011 foreclosure reforms, which recodified the Chapter 667 nonjudicial process through Act 48, Session Laws of Hawaii 2011, and Act 182, Session Laws of Hawaii 2012 — reforms the appellate courts have continued to construe narrowly against associations that lack a power of sale.¹³

As for suspension, Chapter 514B lets an association terminate an owner-occupied unit's access to common elements and services over nonpayment of the unit's share of common expenses, but only after 60 days' written notice and a board policy the majority of owners have approved under HRS § 514B-146.⁶ That's a delinquent-assessment tool, not a fine tool, and it doesn't amount to a general suspension of voting rights. Statute says nothing about suspending voting or amenity rights as a fine remedy — that depends entirely on the governing documents.

Section 4: Recent legislative and judicial activity

A. Recent bills

Hawaii saw one notable proposal on fining procedure during the 2025–2026 cycle. It didn't survive committee, but it signals where lawmakers may go next.

B. Recent appellate rulings

Two rulings from the past two years test the edges of an association's power — one on how to measure damages after a wrongful foreclosure, and one on how closely a court will scrutinize an enforcement decision.

C. Active legislative debates

Right now, policy attention centers on condominium owner protection and dispute-resolution infrastructure — the carried-over HB106 fine-appeal proposal, plus ongoing discussions in the Condominium Property Regime Task Force about owner education and managing-agent oversight.¹⁸ But no measure enacted in 2025 or 2026 has touched the core fining, lien, or foreclosure provisions of Chapter 514B or Chapter 421J.

Section 5: National positioning and related coverage

Step back, and Hawaii sits among the two-statute, non-UCIOA states: condominiums answer to Chapter 514B, planned communities to Chapter 421J, and both lean hard on mandatory mediation before anyone reaches a courtroom.³ That sets Hawaii apart from the UCIOA states — Alaska, Connecticut, Colorado — which run one uniform framework across every common-interest community type, and apart from single-statute states like California, where the Davis-Stirling Act governs most associations under one code. The practical consequence: confirm the community type before you apply any fining rule, because the express statutory fine power in § 514B-104(a)(11) has no direct counterpart in Chapter 421J, where fining stays document-derived.^1,2 On enforcement, Hawaii comes down relatively protective of owners compared with some peers. The condominium six-month lien priority reaches assessments, not fines, and under both chapters, a lien built solely from fines, penalties, legal fees, or late fees can be foreclosed only judicially — never through the nonjudicial power of sale, a limit Hawaii's post-2011 foreclosure reforms reinforce.^6,7,12

HOA Weekly updates this coverage quarterly as the legislature and the Hawaii courts act. Federal law applies here too, regardless of what Hawaii's own statutes say — notably the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which can reach third-party collection of fines, along with the Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, and the rule governing satellite dishes and antennas.

Recommendations

• Confirm the community type before touching a fine. For a condominium, work from HRS § 514B-104(a)(11) and the bylaws or board fining resolution. For a planned community, work from the declaration and bylaws — Chapter 421J supplies no fine procedure of its own. Applying the wrong chapter is the single most common, most avoidable error.
• For condominiums, lock in the notice-and-hearing predicate. Where the bylaws stay silent, adopt a board resolution that states the basis for the fine and grants an appeal to the board, with notice and an opportunity to be heard, before levying any fine. Skip that predicate, and the fine invites a challenge.
• Assume mediation comes before litigation. Treat HRS § 514B-161 for condos and HRS § 421J-13 for planned communities as gatekeepers. A contested fine will usually need to go to mediation first, and refusing to mediate can affect the fee award.
• Don't treat a fine-only balance as foreclosable by power of sale. Under both § 514B-146 and § 421J-10.5, a lien built solely from fines, penalties, legal fees, or late fees can be foreclosed only through a judicial action filed under part IA of Chapter 667. Reserve nonjudicial foreclosure for assessment-based liens, and confirm the association's foreclosure authority before proceeding — Wong shows exactly what's at stake in damages.

Watch for these benchmarks: enactment of a future version of HB106, which would add a statutory fine-appeal-to-small-claims track and collectibility conditions; any amendment to § 514B-146, § 514B-146.5, or § 421J-10.5 that alters the fine-foreclosure restriction; or a new published ICA or Supreme Court opinion on fine enforceability. Re-verify each quarter.

Caveats

• Chapter 514B and Chapter 421J stand as separate frameworks. Don't assume a rule stated for one community type carries over to the other.
• Hawaii sets no dollar cap on condominium fines by statute, and no per-day or continuing-fine default either. Those parameters, along with most notice and hearing intervals, come from the declaration, bylaws, or board resolution — not from the statute itself.
• We confirmed HB106's status through the legislative record: the JHA deferral on February 25, 2025, and its absence from the 2026 passed-bills list. Editors should re-confirm the precise final 2026 disposition directly on the capitol.hawaii.gov measure page before publication — the live measure-history page returned bot-detection blocks during research.
• The Hawaii Real Estate Commission (DCCA) administers the regulatory backdrop. It registers condominium projects, associations, and managing agents, and it runs the Condominium Education Trust Fund — but it doesn't generally adjudicate individual fine disputes. Those move through mediation, arbitration, or the courts.

1. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 514B-104(a)(11) (association powers; authority to levy reasonable fines after notice and an opportunity to be heard) ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
2. Haw. Rev. Stat. ch. 421J (Planned Community Associations Act; chapter contains no dedicated fining section) ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
3. Haw. S.B. 292 (2017), legislative findings (describing Chapter 514B's applicability provisions as based on the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act (1994)) ↩ ↩ ↩
4. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 514B-161 (mediation of condominium disputes) ↩ ↩
5. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 421J-13 (mediation of planned-community disputes) ↩ ↩
6. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 514B-146 (association fiscal matters; lien for assessments; priority for regular monthly common assessments; termination of services) ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
7. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 514B-146.5(c) (supplemental nonjudicial foreclosure notices; restrictions on power of sale); see also § 514B-146(a) ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
8. Haw. S.B. 292, C.D.1 (2017) (amending applicability of Part VI and specified sections to condominiums created before July 1, 2006, and repealing § 514B-22) ↩ ↩
9. Haw. Rev. Stat. ch. 514B, transition and applicability notes (Chapter 514A registration and pre-2006 regimes) ↩
10. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 421J-2, case notes (association must be granted authority in a declaration satisfying the statutory definition) ↩
11. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 514B-162.5 (voluntary binding arbitration; support from the Condominium Education Trust Fund); see also § 514B-162 (arbitration) ↩
12. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 421J-10.5 (association fiscal matters; lien for assessments; foreclosure restriction on liens arising solely from fines, penalties, legal fees, or late fees) ↩ ↩
13. Malabe v. Ass'n of Apartment Owners of Exec. Centre, No. SCWC-17-0000145 (Haw. 2020) (discussing Act 182 (2012), Act 282 (2019), and Sakal v. Ass'n of Apartment Owners of Hawaiian Monarch on association nonjudicial foreclosure authority) ↩
14. Haw. H.B. 106 (2025 Reg. Sess.) (proposed new § 514B section, "Fines; imposition; appeals; collection"; 30-day hearing request and 30-day small-claims appeal) ↩
15. LegiScan, Hawaii HB106 (2025) Bill History ("2025-02-25 - The committee(s) on JHA recommend(s) that the measure be deferred") ↩
16. Wong v. Ass'n of Apartment Owners of Harbor Square, No. SCAP-22-0000552, 154 Haw. 58, 545 P.3d 547 (Feb. 29, 2024) ↩
17. Ass'n of Apartment Owners of Regency Park v. Harder, No. CAAP-20-0000373 (Haw. Ct. App. Sept. 16, 2024) ↩
18. Condominium Property Regime Task Force, Minutes (Feb. 20, 2026), Hawaii Dep't of Commerce & Consumer Affairs (managing-agent fines and owner education) ↩