Massachusetts HOA Records Inspection

Section 1 — Overview: How records inspection works in Massachusetts

Massachusetts handles condominium records through the Massachusetts Condominium Act, M.G.L. c. 183A — a traditional condominium statute the Massachusetts Legislature passed on June 27, 1963. The records duty lives inside the provision that organizes the unit owners.¹ The Act does not hand non-condominium planned communities a comprehensive HOA statute; those owners lean instead on the nonprofit corporation law, M.G.L. c. 180, and on recorded covenants. Cases move through a court system topped by the Supreme Judicial Court, with the Appeals Court sitting in between. For condominiums, the governing records provision is c. 183A § 10(c). It lists what the organization must keep, and it hands unit owners and recorded first mortgagees a right of reasonable inspection. Notice what § 10(c) does not do: it sets no fixed deadline. Instead it sets an availability standard. Massachusetts condominiums often organize as condominium “trusts,” and the trustees hold and produce the records. Planned-community owners stand on different ground — corporate law (the member-inspection right in c. 180 § 18) plus the recorded covenants, which is corporate and contractual rather than HOA-specific, and any lawsuit runs through those distinctively named Massachusetts courts. Step back, and Massachusetts lands among the reasonableness-standard states, not the hard-clock states like Florida and California; for planned communities, it sits with the states whose owners depend on corporate-law inspection rights. The table and the sections below lay out the records, the request sequence, what a board may withhold, and the remedies.

Section 2 — Quick-Reference: Massachusetts HOA Records Inspection

Quick-Reference: Massachusetts HOA Records Inspection

Section 3 — The records-inspection framework in detail

3A. Records subject to inspection

For condominiums, the statute spells out the records. M.G.L. c. 183A § 10(c) directs the organization of unit owners — or its manager or managing agent — to keep a complete copy of four categories: a true and accurate copy of the master deed as recorded and amended; the by-laws, including amendments, as recorded; the minute book, to the extent the organization keeps minutes; and financial records. The statute itemizes those financial records: all receipts and expenditures, the invoices and vouchers that authorize payments, receivables, and bank statements; records of the replacement reserve fund or any other funds; audits, reviews, accounting statements, and financial reports; contracts for work or services; and every current insurance policy the organization holds.² These records belong to the organization, not the manager, and a unit owner — along with any recorded first mortgagee — holds a right of reasonable inspection during regular business hours.² Because Massachusetts condominiums usually organize as trusts, the trustees, or the managing agent who collects assessments and holds the funds, keep and produce these records. Do not confuse the general inspection right with a narrower tool: the c. 183A § 6(d) certificate is a resale-disclosure statement of unpaid common expenses for a single unit — the Massachusetts version of an estoppel certificate — that the association furnishes on written request, and it stands apart from the records right in § 10(c).⁸

For planned communities, no statute supplies a list. Massachusetts has never enacted a comprehensive planned-community statute, so a non-condominium owner’s records right rests on two things: the recorded covenants and, where the association incorporates as a nonprofit (most do), the member-examination right in M.G.L. c. 180 § 18. That section says every member of the corporation, and every person who has an interest in its funds, may examine its books and records.³ That is corporate law, not an HOA statute, and it does not itemize categories the way § 10(c) does.

3B. The request-and-response sequence

Standing depends on the community type. Under c. 183A § 10(c), the inspection right runs to any unit owner and to any mortgagee holding a recorded first mortgage on a unit.² Under c. 180 § 18, it runs to every member and to anyone with an interest in the association’s funds.³ Neither statute imposes a proper-purpose test on its face. The good-faith, proper-purpose, and reasonable-particularity conditions some readers expect come from the Business Corporation Act, c. 156D § 16.02 — a statute that governs business stock corporations, not the typical nonprofit homeowners association.⁴

On the form of a request, the condominium statute prescribes nothing — no particular written form, no required content. It conditions access on regular business hours and on any additional times the manager and the organization set in their agreement.² The response clock matters most, and here the condominium standard turns on availability, not a day-count. The statute’s own words: the records “shall be kept in an up-to-date manner within the commonwealth and shall be available for reasonable inspection by any unit owner or by any mortgagee holding a recorded first mortgage on a unit during regular business hours.”² No fixed deadline appears. The planned-community sequence runs through c. 180 § 18, which likewise sets no deadline and no form; reasonableness governs.³ And because c. 180 § 18 is the operative member-inspection right — not a cross-reference to c. 156D — the detailed five-business-day notice mechanism of c. 156D does not attach to a c. 180 nonprofit by operation of statute.⁴

On location and cost, the condominium statute requires the association to keep records up to date and within the Commonwealth, and it grants “the right to photocopy said records at the expense of the person or entity making the request.”² So the requester pays for copying; the statute sets no per-page cap and no labor-fee schedule. For planned communities, c. 180 § 18 says nothing about copying charges, so the covenants or bylaws govern who pays.³

3C. Withholding, confidentiality, and the membership or owner list

Neither statute lists what an association may withhold. M.G.L. c. 183A § 10(c) says what the organization must keep and make available, but it names no categorical exemption — not for litigation files, not for personnel records. In practice, attorney-client privilege and work-product protection still apply under general Massachusetts law, so an association can resist producing privileged legal advice or litigation strategy on that footing rather than on a statutory carve-out.² M.G.L. c. 180 § 18 is just as silent on withholding.³ On the membership or owner list, c. 183A says nothing at all: no membership-list provision, no commercial-use restriction, no opt-out for unit owners.² For planned communities, c. 180 § 18 grants a general right to examine books and records but adds no special list protection, commercial-use limit, or opt-out; the membership-list conditions and shareholder-record limits in c. 156D § 16.02 reach business stock corporations, not c. 180 nonprofits.^{3, 4} The upshot is practical: in Massachusetts associations, the governing documents and general privilege law drive confidentiality and redaction — not a records statute.

3D. Remedies and enforcement for noncompliance

Neither statute carries a records-specific penalty — no statutory damages, no per-day fine. As one practitioner puts it, “the Massachusetts Condominium Act is silent as to consequences if a board fails to provide access to these records,” and earlier legislation meant to “add some teeth to the statute” has not passed.⁵ A unit owner or member who gets turned down pursues general civil and equitable relief — chiefly an action to compel inspection, meaning an injunction or a mandatory order. The Condominium Act does carry one fee-shifting provision, in § 10(d): in any action to enforce the financial-report and CPA-review requirements of that subsection, “the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees.” But that provision attaches to the financial-report and review paragraph, not to the general § 10(c) inspection right, so a routine records-compulsion suit carries no guaranteed fee award under it.² For planned communities, c. 180 § 18 supplies no remedy or cost-shifting of its own; the court-ordered-inspection remedy and cost-shifting in c. 156D § 16.04 — under which a court may order a business corporation to pay the shareholder’s costs and counsel fees unless the corporation refused in good faith — governs business stock corporations, not c. 180 nonprofits.⁶

On forum, a records-compulsion suit seeking equitable relief most likely proceeds in the Superior Court, with its general civil jurisdiction, or in the Land Court, which handles real-property matters including many condominium disputes; in some residential matters the Housing Court may have jurisdiction. No single forum is mandated.⁷ Appeals run to the Appeals Court, the intermediate appellate court, and then to the Supreme Judicial Court, the court of last resort. There is no “Massachusetts Supreme Court.” And because the Commonwealth exercises no regulatory oversight of condominiums, no agency exists to take an owner’s records complaint. Enforcement is entirely judicial.⁷

Section 4 — Recent legislative and judicial activity

A. Recent bills

Massachusetts has not rewritten its condominium records law yet, but a recurring bill keeps trying. Here is the one to watch.

B. Recent rulings

No Massachusetts appellate decision in the past 36 months squarely interprets the records-inspection right under c. 183A § 10(c) or c. 180 § 18 on the merits. The closest recent decision falls just outside that window, and it is worth a look for context.

C. Active legislative debates

The main active proposal is CORA, S.980, which would graft fixed production timeframes, expanded records categories, and reserve and maintenance mandates onto the condominium framework. Related proposals in earlier sessions floated a condominium ombudsman inside the Attorney General’s office, but none has become law.^{9, 11}

Section 5 — National positioning and related coverage

Massachusetts is a covenant-primary, split-regime state running on a traditional condominium statute rather than a unified common-interest framework. Condominium records answer to c. 183A § 10(c) — an availability standard that requires the association to keep records within the Commonwealth, retain them for at least seven years, and make them available for reasonable inspection during business hours, with condominiums usually organized as trusts whose trustees hold the records. Planned-community records rest on different footing: corporate law (the nonprofit member-examination right in c. 180 § 18) plus the recorded covenants, with no comprehensive HOA records statute behind them. That sets Massachusetts apart from hard-clock states like Florida and California, which impose fixed deadlines, fee caps, and penalties, and from the UCIOA states, which run one uniform records framework across community types. For a multi-state operator, the practical takeaways are simple: trace the condominium records right to c. 183A § 10, held by the condominium trustees; treat planned-community records as covenant-plus-corporate-law; and use the right court names — the Supreme Judicial Court and the Appeals Court. The momentum toward records reform sits in the recurring CORA bill, not in any push for a comprehensive Massachusetts planned-community statute.

Federal frameworks — the Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, and the FCC’s OTARD rule — also apply to Massachusetts associations regardless of the state framework.

Footnotes

1. Moriarty Bielan & Malloy LLC, The Massachusetts Condominium Act (“Originally passed by the Massachusetts Legislature on June 27, 1963, the Condominium Act authorizes and regulates unit ownership ...”) ↩
2. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 183A, § 10 (Massachusetts Condominium Act; records duty and inspection right in subsection (c); financial report and fee-shifting in subsection (d); amended by 2017 Mass. Acts ch. 110, § 22, and 2024 Mass. Acts ch. 239, § 85) ↩
3. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 180, § 18 (Corporations for Charitable and Certain Other Purposes; expulsion of member; examination of books by member) ↩
4. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 156D, § 16.02 (Business Corporations; inspection of records by shareholders, including proper-purpose and notice conditions) ↩
5. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 183A, § 10 (no per-day penalty in the inspection provision; § 10(d) limits fee-shifting to actions enforcing the financial-report/CPA-review paragraph); practitioner commentary, Matthew W. Gaines, Marcus, Errico, Emmer & Brooks, P.C. (“the Massachusetts Condominium Act is silent as to consequences if a board fails to provide access to these records”) ↩
6. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 156D, § 16.04 (Business Corporations; court-ordered inspection and cost-shifting) ↩
7. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Condominiums (state has no jurisdiction or regulatory oversight over condominiums) ↩
8. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 183A, § 6 (common profits and expenses; the § 6(d) certificate of unpaid common expenses) ↩
9. An Act relative to the Condominium Owners’ Rights Act (CORA), S.980, 194th Gen. Court (Mass. 2025–2026) ↩
10. Bill summary of the CORA proposal, BillTrack50 (production windows of 10 business days for self-managed condominiums of 50 or fewer units and 5 business days for managed associations; minimum reserve allocation and maintenance/reserve-study mandates); verify final text against malegislature.gov before relying on specific figures ↩
11. An Act relative to the Condominium Owners’ Rights Act (CORA), S.2498, 193rd Gen. Court (Mass. 2023) (Senate Docket No. 2452, filed Jan. 24, 2023) (predecessor version proposing an Office of the Condominium Ombudsman) ↩
12. Gutierrez v. Bd. of Managers of Flagship Wharf Condo., No. 21-P-100 (Mass. App. Ct. Feb. 2, 2022) ↩