New England may not produce as many headline-grabbing HOA lawsuits as say, Florida or California, but when disputes in its condo communities reach the courts, they tend to be very specific. From battles over free speech to the “right to dry,” here are four notable cases from the region that show how quickly shared ownership can spiral into high-stakes litigation.

The Battle of the Clotheslines 

Between 2009 and 2017, a wave of legislative and association-level disputes hit Northern New England. In several New Hampshire and Vermont HOAs, boards attempted to fine residents for using outdoor clotheslines, citing them as an eyesore that lowered property values.

The conflict peaked when residents argued that ‘the right to dry’ was a homeowner’s fundamental environmental right. In Vermont, this led to the strengthening of 27 V.S.A. § 544, which essentially nullified HOA bans on clotheslines. The ruling in the court of public and legislative opinion was clear: in Northern New England, ecological preservation and energy saving trumped the aesthetic uniformity of an HOA.

The Mezuzah Dispute

In 2011, a significant dispute arose in a historic Boston condo association regarding religious symbols. The Old South Condominium association had a strict “clear hallway” policy, prohibiting any items on the exterior of unit doors. This included mezuzahs—small parchment scrolls in cases affixed to doorposts by Jewish residents.

The residents argued that the policy violated both the Fair Housing Act and Massachusetts state law regarding religious freedom. After a period of intense legal posturing and local backlash, the association was forced to amend its bylaws. This case (and others like it in the region) ultimately contributed to the passage of specific Massachusetts protections ensuring that religious items of a certain size and motivated by sincere religious belief cannot be prohibited by condo boards

The Pink Flamingo Protest

In the mid-2010s, a resident in a managed community near Concord, New Hampshire, began placing dozens of pink flamingos and various signs in their yard to protest local zoning and HOA board decisions.  

The association sued to have the ‘decorations’ removed, citing bylaws against unapproved structures. The resident countersued, claiming their ‘yard art’ was actually a form of political protest, and citing First Amendment rights and New Hampshire’s Condominium Act  (RSA 356-B). 

The court eventually ruled in favor of the association, noting that by purchasing a home within a common interest community, the owner had voluntarily entered into a contract that waived certain “unfettered” expressive rights in exchange for the benefits of the association.

Crackdown on Short-Term Rentals

In 2016, the Massachusetts Appeals Court heard a pivotal case regarding the rise of homesharing platforms like Airbnb, Vrbo, and others. A unit owner in Lynnfield began renting their condo on a short-term basis. The association quickly passed a bylaw amendment requiring a minimum lease term of six months.

The owner sued, claiming the board had exceeded its authority and was interfering with their property rights. The court ruled in favor of the association, establishing a major New England precedent: Condo boards do have the legal right to ban short-term rentals to “preserve the residential character” of the community, even if the owner bought the unit before the ban was in place.

These cases illustrate the friction that sometimes arises between individual liberties and the collective nature of common interest communities; first-time condo residents coming from a rental background often don’t take the time to familiarize themselves with the rules and limitations involved in condo ownership or membership in an HOA—and boards sometimes overstep. Whether debating religious expression in Boston or property rights in New Hampshire, the region’s courts consistently emphasize that while HOA contracts are binding, they must evolve to respect state statutes and modern social values to remain legally enforceable.