Massachusetts already had an electronic condo meeting law. The bill to add another was sent to study
Massachusetts already had an electronic condo meeting law. The bill to add another was sent to study
2026-09-10 · Massachusetts · Legislation · Did not pass
What happened. H.1522, An Act relative to electronic meetings and voting in condominiums, was disposed of by study order H.5352 on 13 April 2026 — one of 59 bills killed in a single order.1 In Massachusetts practice, a study order under House Rule 27 ends a bill.
The reason this one matters less than it looks is the detail nobody leads with: Massachusetts already has the law the bill was trying to enact.
Section 24 was already occupied
H.1522, filed by Representative Kevin G. Honan, proposed to add a new section 24 to M.G.L. c. 183A authorising telephonic and video meetings, making electronic presence count toward quorum, and permitting mail-in and electronic voting.
But c. 183A §24 was enacted on 6 August 2024, as section 47 of the Affordable Homes Act, Chapter 150 of the Acts of 2024, and it does all of those things.2 It is on the books today, under the heading “Regularly scheduled or special meetings conducted by governing body of the organization of unit owners; participation by electronic means; voting.”
What the enacted section actually says
§24 opens with the words that matter most: “Notwithstanding any provisions in a master deed, declaration of trust or by-laws… to the contrary.” It overrides the governing documents rather than deferring to them.
- §24(a) — the governing body may meet by telephonic or video conference call or other interactive electronic communication, provided all participants can communicate simultaneously; electronic attendance counts toward quorum; the body may vote and approve minutes electronically, including by email
- §24(b) — annual and special meetings of unit owners may be held electronically, with notice and access information to all owners, and reasonable measures to let owners participate fully
- §24(c) — voting by mail-in ballot or electronic means, and electronic signatures or written consent wherever the documents require a signature
What the failed bill would have added on top
The two texts overlap heavily, which is the most plausible reading of why a committee preferred a study to a second enactment. But H.1522 was not a pure duplicate, and the differences are the part worth knowing.
- An express quorum sentence. H.1522 stated that electronic presence “shall constitute presence for purposes of any quorum requirements.” The enacted §24 reaches the same result but distributes it across subsections (a) and (b) rather than stating it as a single rule.
- A quorum condition on electronic voting. H.1522 permitted mail-in and electronic voting “provided that unit owners constituting a quorum participate in such vote.” The enacted §24(c) contains a comparable quorum condition, so this is a difference of drafting rather than substance.
- Notice mechanics. Both require that owners be told the meeting is electronic and be given access information.
The companion provision in the larger S.980 / H.4826 package went further than either, attaching AES encryption and two-factor authentication requirements and naming meeting platforms in the statutory text. That package also died.
Operationally: what a Massachusetts board can do today
More than many boards realise. Because §24 overrides the master deed, the declaration of trust and the bylaws, an association whose 1985 trust instrument requires meetings to be held “at the condominium” is not confined to in-person meetings.
Three practical points follow:
- You do not need a trust amendment to meet remotely. This is the single most common misconception in Massachusetts condominium practice since 2024, and it costs associations amendment votes they do not need to hold.
- The statute permits, it does not compel. §24 says the governing body may conduct meetings electronically and may permit electronic voting. A board that prefers in-person meetings is free to keep them.
- Adopt a written policy. §24 contemplates the governing body adopting policies governing electronic meetings and voting. Doing so in advance — covering platform, notice content, how a vote is recorded, how a participant who loses connection is handled — is what turns a statutory permission into a defensible record.
The obligation the statute does impose is the participation standard: the body must take reasonable measures to ensure unit owners can participate fully, including by reading or hearing the proceedings. A meeting an owner could not hear is the fact pattern that puts §24 in front of a judge.
What to watch next
With §24 in force and H.1522 shelved, electronic meetings are one of the few areas of Massachusetts condominium governance that is settled by statute rather than by instrument. The open questions are judicial rather than legislative: no Massachusetts appellate decision has yet construed §24, so what counts as “reasonable measures” and what happens to a vote taken at a meeting with a technical failure remain unresolved.
Anyone reading commentary that describes Massachusetts as lacking a remote-meeting statute is reading something written before August 2024, or written from the bill rather than the code.
Related Massachusetts HOA Topics
Stay on top of Massachusetts HOA law
Every week: new Massachusetts legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.