O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 44-3-223 (2019)

Compliance with provisions of instrument and with rules and regulations; penalties for noncompliance

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Every lot owner and all those entitled to occupy a lot shall comply with all lawful provisions of the property owners’ association instrument. In addition, any lot owner and all those entitled to occupy a lot shall comply with

any reasonable rules or regulations adopted by the association pursuant to the instrument which have been provided to the lot owners and with the lawful provisions of the bylaws of the association. Any lack of such compliance shall be grounds for an action to recover sums due, for damages or injunctive relief, or for any other remedy available at law or in equity, maintainable by the association or, in any proper case, by one or more aggrieved lot owners on their own behalf or as a class action. If and to the extent provided in the instrument, the association shall be empowered to impose and assess fines and suspend temporarily voting rights and the right of use of certain of the common areas and services paid for as a common expense in order to enforce such compliance; provided, however, that no such suspension shall deny any lot owner or occupants access to the lot owned or occupied.

History

(Code 1981, § 44-3-223, enacted by Ga. L. 1994, p. 1879, § 1.)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Power to collect dues and assessments. - Georgia Property Owners’ Association Act, O.C.G.A. § 44-3-223, gives covenants the force of law, and a homeowners’ association acted with privilege when the association exercised the power to collect dues and assessments granted to the association under the covenants; the association was therefore

not a stranger to the contracts or the relationship between a developer and lot buyers, and thus was not liable for tortious interference with those contracts or that relationship. Carey Station Vill. Home Owners Ass’n v. Carey Station Vill., Inc., 268 Ga. App. 461, 602 S.E.2d 233 (2004).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2004–2023 · leading case: Pasha v. Battle Creek Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., 829 S.E.2d 618 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Pasha v. Battle Creek Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., 829 S.E.2d 618 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “5 See OCGA § 44-3-223 ("Every lot owner and all those entitled to occupy a lot shall comply with all lawful provisions of the property owners' association instrument.”

Carey Station Vill. Home Owners Ass'n v. Carey Station Vill., Inc., 602 S.E.2d 233 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 44-3-223. Thus, each of the warranty deeds executed in connection with the developer’s sale of its lots recite that the property is subject to these protective covenants.”

Abdullah v. Winslow at Eagle's Landing Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., 823 S.E.2d 872 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “" OCGA § 44-3-223. Again, the relevant declaration does not specifically impose any fines or provide for "the extent" to which such fines can be imposed.”

Castle Point Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Simmons, 773 S.E.2d 806 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “Here, construed in favor of the HOA, the above facts were sufficient to put Simmons on inquiry of the existence of a homeowners association, the general scheme of the development, and its declaration and covenants.”

Askia K. Abdullah v. Winslow at Eagle's Landing Homeowners Ass'n (Ga. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 4× “” OCGA § 44-3-223. Again, the relevant declaration does not specifically impose any fines or provide for “the extent” to which such fines can be imposed.”

James Salter v. St. Charles Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. (Ga. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 4× “the association’s practice of imposing a $100-per-week fine for [the homeowner’s] failure to obtain pre-approval of his flower bed [was] not supported by the terms of the declaration nor in compliance with OCGA § 44-3-223.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.