Q. I have reason to believe my condo board is misusing common funds and hiring friends and family to carry out work on our property instead of bidding out the jobs. There may even be kickbacks involved. When I’ve reached out to our management and board members (both in person and via email) asking to see payment records and financial reports/statements, I’ve been brushed off, ignored, or told I don’t have the right to that information because I’m not on the board. I have a couple of questions: Don’t I have a right to this information as a resident owner, and what actions can I and other residents take against our possibly crooked board? 

                                  —Sick of the Sketchiness

A. “Financial questions and concerns about vendor relationships arise in many communities, and it is understandable for owners to want reassurance that their board is acting appropriately,” says Jake Marcus, partner at Allcock & Marcus in Braintree, Massachusetts. “At the same time, it is equally important to recognize that having a ‘reason to believe’ something may be wrong is not the same as having evidence of wrongdoing.  Boards make numerous operational decisions— often quickly or based on prior experience—that may not be obvious from the outside. Before assuming the worst, owners should understand what the law guarantees, what boards must disclose, and what practical steps can help restore confidence on both sides.

 “As a resident owner, you have a right to review and/or access financial records, and even though the exact scope varies by state, condominium statutes generally require associations to maintain financial books and records such as bank statements, budgets, invoices, vendor contracts, and other financial reports, and require that such records be made “reasonably available” for review and/or inspection by unit owners. For example, in Massachusetts under G.L. c. 183A §10(c), there is a clause that states the elected trustees or managing (or appointed manager) keep the records such as the master deed, by-laws, minute book, and financial records, which shall be available for reasonable inspection by any unit owner. The statute does not prescribe a perfect process or timeline as to the method for providing owners access to this information but does state record shall be retained for a period of at least seven (7) years. Contrastingly, other states such as Florida under Chapter 718, for example, goes even further with more stringent requirements for a board to respond to inspection requests within ten (10) business days. Access to records does not provide owners with unlimited access or an ability to intrude into matters that involve privileged, confidential, or personal information such as litigation strategy or specific unit owner delinquencies.

 “As far as boards potentially hiring relatives or using unqualified ‘friends and family’ as vendors, most states impose fiduciary duties on board members, which requires duties of loyalty, care, and acting in good faith for the benefit of the association. While not every state or set of governing documents may contain an explicit ‘conflict of interest’ rule, self-dealing and undisclosed relationships with vendors or awarding contracts without any competitive process can raise serious legal issues. However, I would recommend proceeding cautiously if you do not expressly know that there are these types of conflicts and/or kickbacks. There is a key distinction between a board that has discretion to choose vendors, but not to do so for self-interested or improper reasons. The mere fact that a vendor knows a board member does not automatically mean the relationship is improper. In many small and mid-size associations, boards rely on vendors they know to be responsive, cost-effective, and familiar with the property. This can be good fiscal management rather than favoritism.  

 “That said, across jurisdictions, the trend—legislatively and as a matter of best practices—is toward encouraging transparency, predictable procedures, and clear communication. Florida’s 2024 revisions, Massachusetts’ recent addition of §24 allowing for electronic/interactive meetings, and similar reforms in other states all reflect the same values of open meetings when appropriate, regular financial reporting, documented decision-making, and stronger record-retention practices. The exceptions—typically litigation, personnel issues, and individual delinquency matters—are intentionally narrow. Boards may and should maintain confidentiality in those limited situations, but ordinary financial and operational information is generally expected to be available.

 “If the board refuses to be transparent after a request has been made by unit owners, or there are other significant red flags, then make sure the written records request is clear and aligns with the applicable statute to assist with specificity. It may also make sense to coordinate discussions with other fellow owners to determine if they share similar concerns. The old adage, strength in numbers, works well here as a group request can be appropriate. In rare cases where actual evidence—not speculation—suggests misuse of funds, owners may explore collective or derivative-style actions.  But those are extraordinary remedies, meant for situations where the board is unwilling to self-correct and where concrete proof exists, and I would recommend vetting an attorney to determine strengths and weaknesses of proceeding that route, as well as potential costs and timeframe. Another alternative avenue is to run for board positions so you have authority to implement the changes related to transparency that you want.

 “Owners are entitled to transparency, and boards are expected to act prudently and in good faith.  But as with any community, suspicions should not be treated as facts without supporting evidence.  The healthiest associations promote openness, regular communication, and reasonable access to records, while also respecting necessary confidentiality in limited circumstances. By approaching the issue with clarity and cooperation and in a non-accusatory manner, owners can obtain the information they need and boards can demonstrate that they are fulfilling their fiduciary obligations responsibly.”