Background
Homeowners associations have become an increasingly important part of the American housing system. They oversee shared infrastructure, collect assessments, maintain common property, enforce community rules, hire management companies and vendors, and make decisions that can directly affect quality of life and property values.
Yet the information systems surrounding HOAs have not evolved at the same pace as the financial and operational responsibilities they now carry.
A prospective homebuyer can order an inspection, obtain an appraisal, review comparable sales, research schools and estimate insurance costs. Understanding the financial and operational health of the HOA attached to that property can be considerably more difficult.
That gap is becoming harder to ignore. Recent reporting from The Wall Street Journal has encouraged buyers to investigate an HOA’s reserves, insurance exposure, litigation and upcoming capital obligations before purchasing a home. Research based on more than 100,000 reserve studies prepared by Association Reserves found that 74% of the associations in its dataset were below the 70%-funded level it considers a strong reserve position.
Florida’s experience provides an even sharper warning. After the 2021 Surfside condominium collapse, which killed 98 people, the state strengthened structural inspection and reserve requirements for many condominium associations. In Miami-Dade, the Miami Herald subsequently reported that median monthly condominium association fees increased from roughly $567 in 2019 to $900 in 2024.
These developments point toward the same underlying reality: an HOA is not simply an administrative layer attached to a home. Its financial condition, maintenance practices and governance can become part of the economic condition of the property itself. As that becomes more widely understood, trust becomes increasingly important.
The Problem
The central problem is not that every HOA board is ineffective or that every management company is acting improperly. Most board members are volunteers, and many professional community managers are trying to address difficult issues involving aging infrastructure, insurance costs, reserve funding and homeowner expectations.
The problem is more fundamental: the system asks homeowners to trust institutions they often have limited ability to independently evaluate.
Homeowners may receive budgets, meeting minutes, reserve studies and governing documents, but information availability is not the same thing as transparency. Even with those documents, a homeowner can struggle to determine whether reserves are adequate, whether the board is governing effectively, whether management is responsive, whether maintenance is being deferred or whether the community is improving or deteriorating over time.
Prospective buyers face an even greater information disadvantage. There is no broadly adopted, independent standard that allows someone to compare one HOA with another across governance, financial stewardship, maintenance, communication and homeowner confidence. That creates information asymmetry.
It also creates an unusual imbalance. Homeowners are the stakeholders who ultimately fund the system and live with its outcomes, yet their collective, verified experience is rarely incorporated into any standardized measurement of community performance.
Recent cases illustrate why that matters. At the Hammocks Community Association in Miami-Dade County, prosecutors said a broader criminal scheme deprived homeowners of more than $11 million. Former HOA president Marglli Gallego pleaded guilty in 2026 to racketeering and grand theft. The lesson is not that misconduct is widespread across every HOA. It is that homeowners need better mechanisms for identifying financial and governance warning signs before prosecutors and courts become the accountability system.
The ongoing Riva on the River Homeowners Association v. The Management Association, Inc. d/b/a The Management Trust litigation raises a different transparency issue. The plaintiff has alleged that economic benefits were generated through banking relationships involving association funds and raises questions about who should benefit from that value and how those relationships should be disclosed. Those remain allegations, and no final judgment has established liability.
But the broader question is legitimate: when association money creates economic value somewhere in the system, should homeowners and boards be able to clearly see who receives that value?
Industry professionals are raising related questions as well. Former community-management executive Vicki MacHale has written publicly about reserve funding, deferred maintenance and the financial incentives surrounding association funds. Her commentary challenges the industry to consider whether simply documenting recommendations is enough when the same structural problems repeatedly emerge across communities.
The trust deficit therefore cannot credibly be reduced to ‘bad boards’ or ‘bad management companies.’ It is an information problem.
And increasingly, it has economic consequences. Weak reserves can lead to special assessments. Deferred maintenance can increase insurance risk. Poor governance can contribute to litigation. Financing eligibility can be affected. Buyers may reconsider a property after reviewing an association’s financial condition.
Trust is becoming more than a measure of homeowner satisfaction. It is becoming part of the value of the community.
A First-Principles Solution
If the underlying problem is an information deficit, the solution should begin with a simple first principle: give homeowners better, independently understandable information about the organizations governing their homes.
Transparency is the starting point, but transparency alone is not enough. Uploading more documents does not necessarily create understanding. A lengthy governing-document package, technical reserve study or complicated annual budget may satisfy a disclosure requirement while still leaving the average homeowner unable to determine whether the community is being well managed.
Useful transparency has to convert information into something understandable, comparable and actionable. Governance, financial stewardship, maintenance, communication and management performance should become measurable. Homeowners should be able to understand how their community is performing today and whether it is getting better or worse over time.
The second principle follows directly from the first: the people who fund the system and live with its outcomes should have a verified voice in measuring how well it is working.
Nearly every major consumer market has developed some mechanism for the people receiving a service to provide feedback. Travelers review hotels. Patients review physicians. Customers rate businesses. Employees evaluate workplaces.
Homeowners should have a similar mechanism, but HOA ratings and reviews need to be designed differently from conventional internet reviews. Participation should be verified so that the person providing feedback is genuinely connected to the property or community. Identity should be protected where appropriate so homeowners can speak candidly without unnecessary fear of conflict. Questions should be standardized so reviews measure meaningful aspects of community performance rather than becoming forums for personal disputes.
Most importantly, the purpose should be made clear from the beginning: ratings and reviews should help improve HOA communities, not simply criticize them.
A rating that identifies strong communication should reinforce good board behavior. Repeated concerns about maintenance can provide an early signal that deserves attention. Improving financial-confidence scores can demonstrate that greater transparency is working. A management company receiving consistently strong feedback across multiple communities should be able to demonstrate that performance.
That is valuable to homeowners, but it is equally valuable to good boards and good management companies. Transparency should reward good actors.
Over time, verified ratings and reviews become more than isolated opinions. They become structured data. When that homeowner experience is combined with objective information such as reserve preparedness, governance records, maintenance trends and community disclosures, it can create a clearer picture of HOA health.
The system can then begin to answer a more useful question than simply, ‘Are homeowners unhappy?’ It can ask: what is working, what needs attention, and is the community improving?
That changes the purpose of ratings entirely. Boards receive better feedback and an opportunity to demonstrate progress. Management companies receive clearer performance signals and a way to distinguish strong service. Homeowners gain greater visibility into the organizations governing their property. Prospective buyers gain another layer of due diligence. Strong communities gain an opportunity to differentiate themselves.
The objective is not to punish HOAs. It is to help communities get better.
The best possible outcome of a rating is not a bad score or a viral complaint. It is a better community six months or a year later because the board, management company and homeowners can see where confidence is high, where it is weak and whether their actions are making a difference.
That is the first-principles answer to the HOA trust deficit: make the important information visible. Give homeowners a verified voice. Measure the health of the community. Track whether it improves.
Trust should not be assumed. It should be earned, measured and improved.
Selected Sources
• The Wall Street Journal — “Four Ways to Spot HOA Risks Before You Buy a Home” (Aug. 28, 2026).
• Association Reserves — analysis of more than 100,000 reserve studies and reserve funding levels.
• Miami Herald — reporting on condominium fee increases, reserves and post-Surfside reforms in Miami-Dade.
• Miami-Dade State Attorney’s Office — Hammocks Community Association prosecution and 2026 plea/sentencing updates.
• Riva on the River Homeowners Association v. The Management Association, Inc. d/b/a The Management Trust — federal court filings; allegations remain contested.
• Vicki MacHale — public commentary on reserve funding, deferred maintenance and financial incentives in community association management.
