By Tim Feth
The Washington State Legislature continues to reshuffle the deck on community association law, recently adopting new sections to each of the four statutes governing condominiums, HOAs, and other common interest communities. The new law requires community associations to provide substantive, written responses to inquiries sent by certified mail from a unit owner or their authorized representative. Except for enumerated circumstances, the association must do so within 30 days. Associations can and should be proactive about adopting policies to provide clarity around these new processes and to limit the extent to which these new rights may be abused.
Along with the recent application of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 64.90.445 to all community associations beginning January 1, 2026, and the upcoming application in full of RCW 64.90 (“WUCIOA”) to all community associations beginning January 1, 2028, the new change represents a concerted effort from the legislature to increase transparency within community associations.
Under RCW 64.90.445, community associations must already take substantial steps to hold open meetings. The open meetings requirement under that statute comes with a broad set of obligations that give owners broad access to association business, including the following requirements: meeting materials be made available to owners; a 15-minute owner comment period be held before the transaction of business; that the board enter executive session only to discuss specific types of business and return to open session to make any motion; and that the board not conduct business by unanimous written consent between meetings, except in limited circumstances.
Additionally, all of the existing community association statutes contain detailed requirements about what records each association must maintain, and provide broad rights to owners to review those records.
Despite those existing protections, the legislature is also now requiring associations to respond to litigation-style interrogatories related to the association’s “governance or operations, or both.” House Bill 1501 was signed into law on March 23, 2026, with an effective date of June 11, 2026. HB 1501 amends each of the community association statutes — RCW 64.32 (the Horizontal Property Regimes Act), 64.34 (the Condominium Act), 64.38 (the Homeowners’ Association Act), and 64.90 — to add a section outlining these new obligations.
Under the new provision, all community associations in the state that are subject to any of those statutes are required to provide a “substantive response” within 30 days to an inquiry about its governance or operations that is sent by certified mail from the owner or their authorized representative.
The new law states that a substantive response “includes, but is not limited to, a factual explanation, reference to governing documents, reference to association records already available for inspection by owners, statement of current association practices, or other responsive information reasonably available to the association.”
The deadline for responding may be extended to allow: (a) for the inquiry to be reviewed by the association’s board of directors at its next meeting but only if board meetings are scheduled monthly; (b) for 30 additional days to respond to a complex inquiry; or (c) time for the board to seek a legal or other third-party opinion when one is required for an adequate response. The new provisions do not say how long the deadline may be extended under exceptions (a) or (c), and do not define what constitutes a “complex” inquiry under exception (b).
If an association’s board is not scheduled to meet at least monthly, then exception (a) does not apply, and the board may not be scheduled to meet before the 30-day deadline expires. Because RCW 64.90.445 prohibits taking action without a meeting in most circumstances, a board in that scenario would most likely be required to call a special meeting to take formal action to respond to the inquiry.
The association is permitted to adopt regulations about the “frequency and manner of responding to inquiries,” and is specifically authorized to adopt a regulation that limits the board’s obligation to responding to a single inquiry per unit per 30-day period. Notably, the statute does not say that the association is authorized to regulate the number of questions included in a single inquiry and in fact states that “Nothing in this section precludes a unit owner from asking more than one question as part of a single inquiry.”
Because the statute expressly authorizes associations to adopt written policies to regulate these inquiries, associations should do so or risk getting overrun by inquiries. Unlike the records request statutes, the provisions governing written inquiries do not permit the association to charge the owner the reasonable costs of responding. In fact, the statute requires that any expense incurred in consulting with an attorney or other third-party professional to be borne as a common expense. Because of that, it is even more important for associations to regulate inquiries to the extent permitted.
In any action arising out of an inquiry, the prevailing party is entitled to recover attorney fees, which means that if an association fails to comply with the new requirements, it may end up facing a lawsuit in which the owner may obtain the sought information anyway and the association may get stuck with the burden of both its own attorney fees and that of the owner’s.
An association’s board of directors should consider formally adopting a written policy that sets acceptable procedures, delegates authority where possible, and fills in gaps left by the new law. Each association should consider limiting its own obligation to a single response per unit per 30 days. It should also clarify where such requests must be sent — the statute indicates that inquiries must be sent by certified mail but does not state to whom they must be sent, and a policy can fill that gap. The board may also want to provide examples of what it considers to be a “complex” inquiry to facilitate consistency in the board’s determinations of which requests will be subject to extended deadlines.
Additionally, associations should consider adopting a policy that delegates authority to a manager or board member to take initial steps following receipt of a written inquiry, which may include determining which requests are complex or require attorney consultation, or responding to routine inquiries within designated parameters. That will allow some inquiries to be processed and responded to without the added burden of calling one or more board meetings.
By proactively adopting a policy before written inquiries begin rolling in, an association can set expectations in the community, prepare for efficient processing of requests, and avoid potentially costly conflicts.
Tim Feth is an attorney at VF Law. He may be reached at tim.feth@vf-law.com.
