Montana HOA Director Qualifications

Section 1 — Overview: Who can serve on an HOA or condominium board in Montana

In Montana, two sources decide who can sit on a board: the association's own governing documents and the Montana Nonprofit Corporation Act. The state runs only a thin, opt-in condominium statute and has no comprehensive planned-community statute at all. So Montana requires no director certification, sets no statutory term limit, and disqualifies no one automatically—not delinquent owners, not people with a criminal history.¹ Condominiums fall under the Montana Unit Ownership Act (Mont. Code Ann. § 70-23-101 et seq.), and that Act reaches only property whose owners expressly opt in by recording a declaration.² Non-condominium HOAs get no statute of their own. They rely on recorded covenants, common law, and the Nonprofit Corporation Act, which also carries a few HOA-specific provisions—a remote-meeting section for homeowners' associations and the definitions of "homeowners' association" and "association of unit owners."³ That places Montana among the light-touch, CC&R-primary states, in contrast with heavy-touch states such as Florida and California, which legislate director eligibility screens, mandatory education, and term limits directly. The sections that follow show where Montana's director qualifications come from, lay out the eligibility, disqualification, and tenure rules alongside the source that controls each one, and summarize the recent legislative and judicial activity that bears on director qualifications and board composition.

Section 2 — Where director qualifications come from

2A. The Unit Ownership Act and the absence of a planned-community statute

The Montana Unit Ownership Act, Mont. Code Ann. § 70-23-101 et seq., is the only Montana statute written specifically for community-association property, and it reaches only condominiums.² It works on an opt-in basis: property becomes subject to the Act only when the owners execute, acknowledge, and record a declaration in the county where the property sits, and the Act covers townhomes or townhouses only if a declaration is executed under the same section.² The Act says little about board governance. Its principal director provision, § 70-23-308, requires the bylaws to provide for electing a board from among the unit owners, the number of directors, terms that expire annually for at least one-third of the directors, the board's powers and duties, director compensation if any, and a method for removing directors.⁴ Beyond directing that the bylaws address these subjects, the Act sets no substantive eligibility criteria. Montana has no comprehensive planned-community or common-interest-ownership statute. A few HOA-specific governance provisions sit instead inside the Nonprofit Corporation Act, including § 35-2-525, which permits remote meetings and defines both "homeowners' association" and "association of unit owners."³ Neither the Unit Ownership Act nor any other Montana statute imposes director certification or education, a statutory term limit, or an automatic disqualification of delinquent owners or persons with criminal records.

2B. The corporate-law layer: the Montana Nonprofit Corporation Act

Most Montana condominium and homeowners associations organize as nonprofit corporations under the Montana Nonprofit Corporation Act, Mont. Code Ann. § 35-2-113 et seq., which supplies the corporate structure, procedure, and director provisions that the property statute and covenants leave open. Because the condominium statute is thin and no separate HOA statute exists, the Nonprofit Corporation Act does double duty—it provides both the corporate scaffolding and the principal statutory layer for director qualifications in both contexts. The Act sets the baselines an incorporated association inherits unless its articles or bylaws say otherwise: every director must be an individual, the articles or bylaws may prescribe other qualifications, and the board must consist of three or more individuals.¹ It governs director terms, which the articles or bylaws must specify and which may not exceed five years, defaulting to one year where the documents are silent.⁵ It governs removal by members, removal of designated or appointed directors, removal by judicial proceeding, and the filling of vacancies.⁶ The Act also houses the HOA-specific provisions noted above, including § 35-2-525 and its definitions, plus a parallel remote-meeting section for unincorporated homeowners' associations.⁷

2C. The declaration and bylaws

For both condominiums and non-condominium HOAs, the recorded declaration (or covenants) and the bylaws are the operative source of any candidate eligibility screen, because the statutes either defer to those documents or stay silent. Precedence runs from statute to documents to rules. For a condominium that elected into the Unit Ownership Act, that Act controls the limited matters it addresses; for a non-condominium HOA, the recorded covenants control. The declaration and bylaws then supply the specific rules, the Nonprofit Corporation Act fills the gaps through its many "unless the articles or bylaws provide otherwise" defaults,¹ and board-adopted rules sit beneath all of these. In practice, a manager or attorney vetting a candidate reads the governing documents against the Nonprofit Corporation Act, confirms whether a condominium actually recorded a declaration electing into the Unit Ownership Act, and remembers that certain HOA procedural rules—such as the remote-meeting authority—live in the corporate act rather than in a property statute.³

Section 3 — Director eligibility, disqualification, and tenure rules

A. Eligibility to serve

Montana imposes no statutory requirement that a director be a member or unit owner of the association. Under the Nonprofit Corporation Act, the only baseline qualification is that every director be an individual; the articles or bylaws "may prescribe other qualifications for directors."¹ Source layer: Nonprofit Corporation Act, applicable to both condominiums and non-condominium HOAs that are incorporated. For condominiums, the Unit Ownership Act adds a membership-style expectation by directing the bylaws to provide for electing the board "from among the unit owners."⁴ Source layer: Unit Ownership Act, condominiums only. Montana sets no statutory residency, age, or good-standing requirement for directors; any such screen exists only if the declaration or bylaws create it. Source layer: governing documents. Treatment of co-owners, spouses, trustees, and entity representatives is likewise a matter for the governing documents. The corporate act requires only that the person who sits as director be a natural person, so an entity that owns a unit must act through an individual.¹

B. Disqualification and removal

Members may remove one or more directors they elected, with or without cause, under Mont. Code Ann. § 35-2-421; the removal generally requires that the votes cast to remove would have been enough to elect the director, at a meeting called for that purpose.⁶ Source layer: Nonprofit Corporation Act, both contexts when incorporated. A court may also remove a director through a judicial proceeding in District Court for fraudulent or dishonest conduct or gross abuse of authority, on suit by the corporation or a specified portion of members.⁸ Montana has no statute disqualifying a candidate or sitting director for assessment delinquency or a criminal record; any such bar is documentary, not statutory. Source layer: governing documents. Section 35-2-418 addresses conflict-of-interest transactions. It does not bar a conflicted person from serving; instead it makes such a transaction non-voidable only if it was fair or was approved after disclosure.⁹ Source layer: Nonprofit Corporation Act.

C. Board composition and terms

The Nonprofit Corporation Act requires at least three directors, fixes the number in or in accordance with the articles or bylaws, and permits an increase or decrease—but never below three.¹ Source layer: Nonprofit Corporation Act default, supplemented by the governing-document provision. The articles or bylaws must specify director terms, which may not exceed five years and default to one year if unspecified; directors may serve successive terms.⁵ Montana imposes no statutory term limit. Source layer: Nonprofit Corporation Act and governing documents. For condominiums, the Unit Ownership Act requires staggering by directing that the terms of at least one-third of the directors expire annually.⁴ Source layer: Unit Ownership Act, condominiums only. Members or the board may fill vacancies, including by a majority of directors remaining where fewer than a quorum remain, unless the documents provide otherwise.¹⁰ The governing documents address declarant or developer board representation and the transition to owner control, if at all; the Unit Ownership Act says little here and sets no statutory transition schedule. Source layer: governing documents.

D. Onboarding and ongoing qualification duties

Montana requires no director certification or education as a condition of service or after election—a clear contrast with Florida, where, under House Bill 1203 (effective July 1, 2024), a newly elected or appointed director of a Chapter 720 homeowners' association must complete a state-approved educational curriculum within 90 days of election or appointment. Source layer: no Montana statute imposes a certification or education requirement. Section 35-2-418 expects conflict-of-interest disclosure: advance board or member approval of a conflicted transaction depends on disclosing the material facts and the director's interest.⁹ Source layer: Nonprofit Corporation Act. The standard-of-care baseline for nonprofit directors, which applies to incorporated associations, requires each director to discharge the duties in good faith, with the care an ordinarily prudent person in a similar position would exercise under similar circumstances, and in a manner the director reasonably believes to be in the best interests of the corporation.¹¹ A director who meets that standard is not liable for action taken or not taken as a director.¹¹ Source layer: Nonprofit Corporation Act and common law.

Section 4 — Recent legislative and judicial activity

A. Recent bills

No bill enacted in the past 24 months changed Montana's rules on director qualifications, board composition, director terms, or director removal. The 2025 regular session produced only two HOA bills worth flagging here, and neither touches who can serve.

B. Recent appellate rulings

No Montana Supreme Court opinion from the past 36 months addressed director eligibility, removal, board composition, or the director standard of care. Two HOA-related decisions issued in 2024 turned on other questions, and neither bears on who may serve on a board.

Montana has no intermediate appellate court, so any future appellate ruling on these questions will come from the Montana Supreme Court, with trial proceedings in the Montana District Courts and appeals taken directly to the Supreme Court.¹⁶

C. Active legislative debates

The session's most consequential proposal for director qualifications never reached a vote on the floor.

Section 5 — National positioning and related coverage

Montana is a light-touch, CC&R-primary state for director qualifications. A thin, opt-in condominium statute and the absence of a comprehensive HOA statute leave eligibility, terms, and disqualification to the association's governing documents and the Montana Nonprofit Corporation Act, which also houses certain HOA provisions such as the remote-meeting authority and the statutory definitions of "homeowners' association" and "association of unit owners."³ Florida takes the opposite approach: its statute (Fla. Stat. § 718.112) imposes an eight-consecutive-year term limit, bars candidates delinquent in paying any assessment, and bars certain felons whose civil rights have not been restored for at least five years, alongside the Chapter 720 director education requirement noted above. North Carolina lands in the middle, with statutory board provisions in its condominium and planned-community acts. For a multi-state operator, the practical implication is direct: Montana statute imposes almost nothing on director eligibility, so each association's governing documents and corporate form control. And because Montana has no intermediate appellate court, appellate research on these questions runs through the Montana Supreme Court.¹⁶

Federal frameworks rarely dictate director qualifications, but Montana associations remain subject to federal law—the FHA, ADA, FDCPA, SCRA, and OTARD—in their broader operations.

Footnotes

1. Mont. Code Ann. § 35-2-415 (Qualifications and Number of Directors) ↩
2. Mont. Code Ann. § 70-23-103 (Applicability—Submission by Declaration Required—Optional Declaration for Townhouses) ↩
3. Mont. Code Ann. § 35-2-525 (Homeowners' Association—Remote Meetings) ↩
4. Mont. Code Ann. § 70-23-308 (Contents of Bylaws) ↩
5. Mont. Code Ann. § 35-2-419 (Terms of Directors Generally—Staggered Terms) ↩
6. Mont. Code Ann. § 35-2-421 (Removal of Directors Elected by Members or Directors) ↩
7. Mont. Code Ann. § 35-2-550 (Unincorporated Homeowners' Association—Remote Meetings) ↩
8. Mont. Code Ann. § 35-2-423 (Removal of Directors by Judicial Proceeding) (Title 35, ch. 2, pt. 4 index) ↩
9. Mont. Code Ann. § 35-2-418 (Director Conflict of Interest) ↩
10. Mont. Code Ann. § 35-2-424 (Vacancy on Board) ↩
11. Mont. Code Ann. § 35-2-416 (General Standards for Directors) ↩
12. 2025 Mont. Laws ch. 452 (H.B. 416) ↩
13. H.B. 232, 69th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Mont. 2025) ↩
14. Busher v. Cook, 2024 MT 137 ↩
15. Clover Meadows Homeowners Ass'n v. Spear, 2024 MT 102N ↩
16. Montana Judicial Branch, Court Structure (District Courts; Montana Supreme Court) ↩
17. H.J. Res. 50, 69th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Mont. 2025) (interim study of the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act, H.B. 619) ↩