South Dakota HOA Records Inspection
Section 1: Overview
South Dakota has enacted no HOA-specific records-inspection statute for condominiums or planned communities. The operative owner right comes from the member-inspection provision of the South Dakota Nonprofit Corporation Act, supplemented by recorded covenants. When disputes reach the courts, they go directly to the South Dakota Supreme Court — the state has no intermediate appellate court.1 The condominium chapter, S.D. Codified Laws ch. 43-15A, governs developer registration and Real Estate Commission oversight; it contains no provision granting a unit owner the right to inspect association books.2 When an association is incorporated as a nonprofit — which most South Dakota associations are — the controlling right is S.D. Codified Laws § 47-24-2: "All books and records of a corporation may be inspected by any member, or his agent or attorney, for any proper purpose at any reasonable time."3
That standard is a reasonableness standard, not a fixed day-count: the statute sets no production deadline, no copy-fee cap, and no penalty schedule.3 Planned communities have no comprehensive South Dakota statute; the records right rests on corporate law — the Nonprofit Corporation Act — and the declaration and bylaws, not an HOA statute.4 South Dakota's single-tier appellate structure means a records dispute tried in Circuit Court goes directly to the five-justice Supreme Court for review.1 That places South Dakota among the reasonableness-standard, corporate-law states — a sharp contrast to hard-clock statutory-deadline states like Florida and California. The table and sections below identify each provision and its source.
Section 2: Quick-Reference: South Dakota HOA Records Inspection
| Field | Requirement |
|---|---|
| Governing provision(s) | Condos: ch. 43-15A (condominium statute) contains no unit-owner records right; owner inspection runs through the Nonprofit Corporation Act (S.D. Codified Laws § 47-24-2) where the association is incorporated, plus recorded covenants.2 Planned communities: S.D. Codified Laws § 47-24-2 (Nonprofit Corporation Act) plus recorded covenants; no comprehensive HOA statute.4 |
| Community types covered | Both condominiums and planned communities, but neither has an HOA-specific records statute; the corporate right reaches any association incorporated as a nonprofit.3 No pre/post effective-date split governs records inspection. |
| Who may inspect | Any member, or the member's agent or attorney (§ 47-24-2).3 Mortgagees are not addressed by statute. |
| Proper-purpose requirement | Condos (ch. 43-15A): not addressed (no owner records provision).2 Planned communities (§ 47-24-2): Yes, inspection is for "any proper purpose."3 |
| Form of request | Not specified by statute; § 47-24-2 imposes no written-demand requirement or required content; governed by the declaration/bylaws.3 |
| Response or production deadline | Condos: Not specified by statute.2 Planned communities (§ 47-24-2): Reasonableness standard (records inspectable "at any reasonable time"); no fixed statutory deadline.3 |
| Inspection method and location | Not specified by statute; § 47-24-2 provides inspection "at any reasonable time."3 Records are kept at the registered or principal office (§ 47-24-1).5 |
| Copying and labor fees | Not specified by statute; neither ch. 43-15A nor ch. 47-24 sets a copy-fee cap or labor charge for member inspection.3 |
| Records expressly subject to inspection | Planned communities (§§ 47-24-1, 47-24-2): "All books and records," including books and records of account, minutes of members, board, and committees, and the record of members' names and addresses.5 Condos (ch. 43-15A): no statutory owner records list; developer sales records are examinable by the Real Estate Commission only (§ 43-15A-26).6 |
| Records exempt or withholdable | Not specified by statute; ch. 47-24 lists no exemptions for member inspection (inspection is for "any proper purpose"). Privilege and pending-litigation limits derive from general law, not the inspection statute.3 |
| Membership or owner list | Planned communities: § 47-24-1 requires a record of members' names and addresses, inspectable under § 47-24-2 for a proper purpose; the Act contains no commercial-use restriction or opt-out.5 Condos: Not specified by statute. |
| Records-retention requirement | Not specified by statute; § 47-24-1 requires keeping the books, records, minutes, and member list but prescribes no retention duration.5 |
| Electronic records | Planned communities (§ 47-24-1): records may be kept in electronic format if authorized by the articles of incorporation or bylaws (S.L. 2016, ch. 221, § 12); delivery format not addressed.5 Condos: not addressed. |
| Remedies for noncompliance | No statute-specific remedy, statutory damages, per-day penalty, or fee-shifting for denial of member inspection; general civil remedies (injunction or mandamus) lie in Circuit Court.1,3 |
| Enforcement forum and process | Circuit Court (trial level); appeal directly to the South Dakota Supreme Court (no intermediate appellate court). No agency or ADR pathway.1 |
Section 3: The records-inspection framework in detail
3A. Records subject to inspection
South Dakota splits into two regimes, and neither rests on an HOA-specific records statute. For condominiums, the governing chapter is S.D. Codified Laws ch. 43-15A, titled "Condominiums."2 It is a traditional condominium statute built around developer registration: developers must file a notice of intent to sell, obtain a Real Estate Commission public report, and deliver that report to buyers.2 Its only records provisions run to developers and the Commission. Section 43-15A-26 allows the Commission to examine a developer's books, accounts, records, and files when it suspects a violation, and § 43-15A-21 requires a developer to keep public-report receipts for three years subject to Commission inspection.6 Neither provision gives a unit owner any right to inspect association records. The chapter contains no books-and-records section for owners at all.2
The owner-facing right comes from corporate law. Where a condominium or planned-community association is incorporated as a nonprofit, S.D. Codified Laws § 47-24-1 requires it to keep correct and complete books and records of account, minutes of the proceedings of its members, board, and committees, and a record at its registered or principal office of the names and addresses of members entitled to vote.5 Section 47-24-2 then makes "all books and records of a corporation" inspectable by any member, agent, or attorney for any proper purpose at any reasonable time.3 The Nonprofit Corporation Act — not an HOA statute — defines the inspectable categories, and they reach financial records, minutes, and the member list. For planned communities, the same corporate provisions apply, layered over whatever the recorded covenants and bylaws provide.4 In South Dakota, the statutory records right is corporate and contractual. An owner who wants to inspect should look first to the association's articles, bylaws, and declaration, and then to ch. 47-24 — not to the condominium chapter.
3B. The request-and-response sequence
Standing flows from membership. Section 47-24-2 extends the right to "any member, or his agent or attorney" — an owner may act through counsel or another agent.3 The Act conditions inspection on a proper purpose: the member must seek the records for a purpose reasonably related to the member's interest as a member, a corporate-law concept rather than a fixed statutory list.3 The condominium chapter imposes no proper-purpose test because it grants no owner inspection right in the first place.2
On the form of request, the statute is silent. Section 47-24-2 does not require a written demand, does not prescribe required content, and does not specify a delivery method; those mechanics fall to the declaration and bylaws.3 On timing, South Dakota uses a reasonableness standard, not a day-count. Records are inspectable "at any reasonable time," with no fixed statutory deadline measured in business or calendar days.3 What is reasonable depends on the volume of records, the nature of the request, and the burden on the association. Inspection occurs where the records are kept, which the Act ties to the registered or principal office.5
Permissible charges are not addressed. Neither ch. 43-15A nor ch. 47-24 sets a copy-fee cap, a per-page rate, or a labor charge for member inspection, and the statute does not allocate who bears the cost of copying.3 Associations that want a predictable cost-recovery rule must adopt one in the bylaws. The contrast with hard-clock states is sharp: South Dakota supplies neither a deadline nor a fee ceiling by statute, so the declaration and bylaws carry the operational weight that statutes carry elsewhere.
3C. Withholding, confidentiality, and the membership or owner list
The Nonprofit Corporation Act does not enumerate records an association may withhold from a member. Section 47-24-2 grants inspection of "all books and records" for any proper purpose and lists no exemptions — not for attorney-client privileged material, pending-litigation files, personnel records, or individual-owner files.3 Limits on privileged or litigation-sensitive material derive from general South Dakota law and the proper-purpose requirement, not from the inspection statute itself. The condominium chapter is silent on withholding because it confers no owner inspection right.2
The membership or owner list is treated as an ordinary corporate record. Section 47-24-1 requires the association to keep a record of members' names and addresses, and that record is inspectable under § 47-24-2 on the same proper-purpose terms as any other book.5 The Act imposes no commercial-use restriction and no opt-out for the member list. South Dakota enacted "personal affiliation information" provisions in 2021 (§§ 47-24-21 to 47-24-26), but those provisions bar public agencies from compelling disclosure of nonprofit donor and member data; they do not govern a member's inspection of the association's own list and should not be read as an HOA confidentiality rule.7 For condominiums, the membership-list question is not specified by statute and is governed by the declaration and bylaws.2
3D. Remedies and enforcement for noncompliance
South Dakota provides no statute-specific remedy for a denied records request. Neither the condominium chapter nor the Nonprofit Corporation Act establishes statutory damages, a per-day penalty, or a fee-shifting provision for an association that refuses member inspection.2,3 A member whose inspection demand is refused must pursue general civil remedies — principally an action to compel inspection through injunctive relief or a writ of mandamus.3 The fee-shifting language in § 47-24-23 covers privacy claims over personal affiliation information against public agencies; it does not reach a member-inspection dispute.7
Enforcement is judicial, and the forum follows South Dakota's two-tier court structure. A records dispute goes to Circuit Court, the state's trial court of general jurisdiction.1 Because South Dakota has no intermediate appellate court, any appeal goes directly to the five-justice South Dakota Supreme Court.1 There is no administrative complaint pathway: the South Dakota Real Estate Commission registers condominium developers and administers the Condominium Act, but it has no jurisdiction over an association's handling of a member's records request.2 Owners and boards should treat the declaration and bylaws as the first line of rules and the Circuit Court as the enforcement venue of last resort.
Section 4: Recent legislative and judicial activity
A. Recent bills
No bill enacted or introduced in the South Dakota Legislature during the past 24 months touches the records-inspection provisions for condominiums or planned communities. The member-inspection right in § 47-24-2 has stood unchanged since 1965. The books-and-records duty in § 47-24-1 last changed in 2016, when the legislature authorized electronic record-keeping. The 2024, 2025, and 2026 sessions left both provisions alone.3,5 Recent South Dakota HOA legislation has focused elsewhere: the most recent HOA-specific enactment, Senate Bill 39 of 2024, bars homeowners' associations from restricting firearms and says nothing about records.
SB 39 · S.L. 2024, ch. 42 · 2024 Regular Session
South Dakota enacted this law in 2024 and codified it at S.D. Codified Laws § 11-5-9. It prohibits a homeowner's association from including or enforcing any governing-document provision that "prohibits, restricts, or has the effect of prohibiting or restricting the lawful . . . possession, transportation, or storing a firearm, any part of a firearm, or firearm ammunition." It has no bearing on records inspection; it is noted here only to show where legislative attention has gone.[8]
| Property managers | No change to records procedures; continue running member inspections under the bylaws and ch. 47-24. |
| HOA board members | Records duties are unchanged; the firearms preemption is a separate covenant-enforcement issue. |
| Community association attorneys | No statutory records mechanics were added in 2024 through 2026; advise clients that ch. 47-24 still controls. |
| Homeowners | The inspection right still rests on corporate law and the governing documents, not a new statute. |
B. Recent rulings
No South Dakota Supreme Court decision in the past 36 months has interpreted § 47-24-2 or resolved a records-inspection dispute in a condominium or planned community. The nearest relevant recent decision is a covenant-enforcement case — included here to illustrate how South Dakota's covenant-primary model plays out in court, not as a records ruling.
Hood v. Straatmeyer, 2025 S.D. 12
The South Dakota Supreme Court held in this 2025 decision that a 1976 subdivision covenant was unenforceable because decades of widespread, unchallenged violations made selective enforcement inequitable. The Court affirmed the Circuit Court's order voiding the covenant, stating that "it is within the equitable power of a circuit court to declare a covenant void upon a showing that enforcement of the covenant would be inequitable in light of widespread, unchallenged violations which undermine the purpose of the covenant." This case turns on covenant enforcement, not records inspection — it appears here to illustrate how South Dakota's covenant-primary model runs from the Circuit Court directly to Supreme Court review.[9]
| Property managers | Keep clear, consistent records of covenant enforcement; inconsistent enforcement can void a covenant. |
| HOA board members | Document enforcement decisions uniformly — the case rewards good recordkeeping even though it is not a records-access ruling. |
| Community association attorneys | The decision confirms equitable defenses — waiver and acquiescence — in covenant disputes; no new records-inspection holding exists. |
| Homeowners | Covenants that have gone long unenforced may be challenged; the ruling does not expand records-access rights. |
C. Active legislative debates
No active South Dakota proposal would add a fixed records-response deadline, a copy-fee cap, electronic-records delivery rules, or penalties for the condominium or planned-community context. Recent legislative momentum has centered on firearms preemption — the 2024 ban on HOA firearm restrictions and a 2025 enactment voiding covenants that restrict lawful firearm possession — not records access.
Section 5: National positioning and related coverage
South Dakota is a covenant-primary, split-regime state. Condominium records fall under a thin traditional statute that defers entirely to corporate law and the governing documents — ch. 43-15A creates no unit-owner records right.2 Planned-community records rest on the Nonprofit Corporation Act plus recorded covenants, a corporate-and-contractual base rather than a dedicated HOA records statute.4 The operative member right, S.D. Codified Laws § 47-24-2, uses a reasonableness standard with no fixed deadline, no copy-fee cap, and no penalty schedule.3 That places South Dakota at the opposite end of the spectrum from hard-clock comprehensive states like Florida and California, where statutes set day-counts, fee limits, and penalties. South Dakota's single-tier appellate structure is distinctive: there is no intermediate appellate court, so a records dispute decided in Circuit Court goes directly to the South Dakota Supreme Court for review.1 Legislative momentum toward a comprehensive planned-community statute remains thin; recent activity has addressed firearms, not records access.
- South Dakota Unified Judicial System, Court Structure (two levels: Circuit Courts and the five-justice Supreme Court; no intermediate appellate court) ↩
- S.D. Codified Laws ch. 43-15A (Condominiums), full chapter ↩
- S.D. Codified Laws § 47-24-2 (Inspection of books or records): "All books and records of a corporation may be inspected by any member, or his agent or attorney, for any proper purpose at any reasonable time." ↩
- S.D. Codified Laws ch. 47-24 (Nonprofit Corporations: Records, Fiscal Affairs and Reports) ↩
- S.D. Codified Laws § 47-24-1 (Books, records, minutes, and member lists; electronic format authorized, S.L. 2016, ch. 221, § 12) ↩
- S.D. Codified Laws § 43-15A-26 (Investigation of developer; examination of books; developers to keep records available) ↩
- S.D. Codified Laws § 47-24-23 (Personal affiliation information: privacy violation; civil action against public agencies) ↩
- 2024 S.B. 39, An Act to Prohibit a Homeowners' Association from Placing Restrictions on Firearms or Firearm Ammunition, S.D. Legislature; codified at S.D. Codified Laws § 11-5-9 (S.L. 2024, ch. 42) ↩
- Hood v. Straatmeyer, 2025 S.D. 12 (S.D. Mar. 5, 2025) ↩