Mississippi's HOA director standard has no duty of care in it
Mississippi's HOA director standard has no duty of care in it
2026-09-15 · Mississippi · Compliance
The statute setting the standard of conduct for Mississippi nonprofit directors — which is the standard for nearly every HOA and condominium board in the state — contains no duty of care. The ordinarily-prudent-person clause that appears in the model nonprofit corporation act is simply absent from Miss. Code Ann. § 79-11-267.1
What the section actually says
Subsection (1): “A director shall discharge his duties as a director… in accordance with his good faith belief that he is acting in the best interests of the corporation.”
That is the whole standard. Compare the model formulation, which requires a director to act “with the care an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would exercise under similar circumstances.” Mississippi's section does not carry it.
Subsection (2) is a conventional reliance safe harbor — on officers and employees, on counsel and accountants, on committees. Then:
“(3) A director is not liable for any action taken as a director, or any failure to take any action, if he performed the duties of his office in compliance with this section. (4) A person alleging a violation of this section has the burden of proving the violation.”
Subsection (5) gives directors of charitable organizations as defined in § 79-11-501 near-total immunity from money damages, with narrow exceptions for improper financial benefit, intentional infliction of harm, an unlawful distribution under § 79-11-270, or intentional violation of criminal law. Conflict-of-interest transactions are handled separately at § 79-11-269, and officers' standards mirror this at § 79-11-275.
The other half: the annual meeting that does not have to happen
Section 79-11-197 requires a corporation with members to “hold a membership meeting annually at a time stated in or fixed in accordance with the bylaws,” at which the president and chief financial officer report on activities and financial condition. Meetings may be fully electronic if the articles or bylaws so provide.
Then subsection (4): “The failure to hold an annual meeting at a time stated in or fixed in accordance with a corporation's bylaws does not affect the validity of any corporate action.”
An association that has not held an annual meeting in five years has not thereby invalidated five years of budgets, contracts, assessments and enforcement decisions. The duty exists; the consequence of breaching it does not run to the acts.
Read alongside § 79-11-267, the statutory accountability floor for a Mississippi association board is low. A director acting on a good-faith belief, in an association that need not meet its members for the validity of its acts, with the burden of proof on whoever complains.
What this does and does not mean
Three qualifications, because the low floor is easy to over-read:
The declaration can impose more. Many Mississippi declarations and bylaws contain their own standards of conduct, quorum requirements, budget-approval mechanics and meeting obligations. Those are contractual and enforceable on their own terms, whatever the statute's floor is.
Other law still applies. The conflict-of-interest section, the unlawful-distribution section, fiduciary duties arising elsewhere in the relationship, and federal law reaching association conduct are all unaffected by what § 79-11-267 omits.
Good faith is not nothing. A director who knows a decision is against the corporation's interests and takes it anyway does not satisfy the standard. What the section removes is the separate negligence-style inquiry into whether a reasonable director would have acted differently.
How a Mississippi court would apply the section in any given dispute is not something we predict; we are describing what the text says and what it omits.
What it means for a board
Hold the annual meeting anyway. Subsection (4) is a validity rule, not permission. An association that stops meeting its members loses the mechanism by which owners learn what is happening — and that is where covenant-enforcement disputes and board recalls come from.
Rely on advice, and document that you did. Subsection (2) protects a director who relied on counsel, accountants or a committee. That protection is evidentiary, so it is worth creating the record: minutes recording what advice was received before a decision.
Check whether the association is a charitable organization under § 79-11-501. The near-immunity in subsection (5) turns on that definition, and a typical residential association is not obviously within it. A board assuming it has that protection should find out.
Read the bylaws' own conduct standard. That is likely to be the operative one, and it is the document an owner's lawyer will start from.
What to watch next
Nothing is pending. No 2026 bill touched the Nonprofit Corporation Act's conduct provisions. The only recent change to that Act relevant to associations is the annual-report duty created in 2024 — a filing obligation, not a governance one.
Related Mississippi HOA Topics
Stay on top of Mississippi HOA law
Every week: new Mississippi legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.