Carole Briggs, an attorney with the firm of Alderman, Devorsetz & Hora PLLC, has worked with community associations in the District of Columbia, helping boards of directors navigate one of the most sensitive challenges in shared housing: managing disputes between owners and the associations’ governing boards. Whether rooted in policy disagreements, personal friction, or divergent visions for the community, owner-to-board conflicts can quickly erode trust, polarize residents, and expose the association to legal risk. Recognizing the warning signs early and applying sound legal and procedural tools can make the difference between a manageable disagreement and a full-blown crisis.
Understanding the Source of Tensions
Carole Briggs emphasizes that owner-to-board disputes are rarely about a single rule or decision. More often, they stem from broader frustrations—feelings of exclusion, mistrust associated with perceptions regarding insufficient board transparency, or perceived inequities in enforcement. In many cases, one or more owners may believe the board is acting beyond its authority or not following governing documents. When left unaddressed, these perceptions can fester, becoming personal attacks or accusations of misconduct.
Carole Briggs encourages boards to maintain a mindset of transparency and consistency, rooted in their fiduciary duty to all owners. A common trigger for conflict is inconsistent rule enforcement, particularly if some owners feel they are being singled out. Associations that lack documented enforcement procedures or rely too heavily on informal resolutions may find themselves facing accusations of favoritism or discrimination.
Governing Document Familiarity
Attorney Briggs frequently reminds boards that their authority and limitations come from a triad of legal sources: their governing documents, DC (and sometimes, as to many coops, Delaware) law, and common law principles. Understanding the hierarchy and interplay among declarations, bylaws, and house rules is critical when responding to owner concerns.
When an owner challenges a board decision, the first step is to verify that the action was taken within the board’s authority. Briggs advises board members to work closely with legal counsel to ensure compliance before enforcing fines, denying architectural requests, or pursuing legal action. Clear documentation of the decision-making process, including meeting minutes and rationale, can provide essential legal protection if the issue escalates.
Carole Briggs adds that boards should be cautious about informal practices that become de facto policies. If rules are routinely bent or procedures bypassed, owners may cite these inconsistencies when objecting to board enforcement actions, creating fertile ground for claims of arbitrary conduct.
Maintaining Professional Boundaries
Attorney Briggs emphasizes that board members must separate personal relationships from their governance roles. It is not uncommon for conflicts to escalate because an owner feels “targeted” by a board member who is also a neighbor. Personal animosity can cloud judgment and make it difficult to maintain professional detachment.
Boards should ideally designate one spokesperson—usually the president or property manager—for communications with owners regarding disputes. Briggs warns against side conversations, emails, or text messages between individual board members and owners involved in conflicts. Not only can this undermine board cohesion, but such communications may later be discoverable in legal proceedings.
To reinforce professional boundaries, Briggs recommends adopting a formal communication policy. Owners should know how and when they can submit grievances, and boards should respond using agreed-upon language that avoids inflammatory rhetoric or legal assumptions.
Using Executive Sessions Strategically
Briggs highlights the importance of executive sessions for sensitive discussions, particularly those involving potential legal disputes or owner misconduct. These closed portions of board meetings allow for candid conversations, legal consultation, and strategic planning without compromising privacy or exposing the board to unnecessary scrutiny.
Briggs stresses, however, that executive sessions must be used in compliance with the association’s governing documents and relevant laws. Boards should record the reason for the closed session in meeting minutes and return to open session once sensitive discussions have concluded. Transparency and documentation are key to maintaining owner trust while protecting board confidentiality.
Preventative Legal Practices
Attorney Briggs advocates for preventative legal strategies that reduce the likelihood of conflict in the first place. One of the most effective is board training. Many community association members join boards with little understanding of their responsibilities, governance structures, or legal obligations. This lack of knowledge can lead to well-meaning but legally flawed decisions that provoke owner pushback.
Educational sessions, legal counsel or management companies—can equip board members with the tools to act confidently and within the scope of their authority. Briggs has led numerous training sessions for boards throughout the District, emphasizing ethics, fiduciary duty, and conflict resolution strategies.
Another valuable practice is the regular review and updating of governing documents. Outdated rules can be vague, unenforceable, or at odds with current laws. By proactively amending these documents, boards can strengthen their position and reduce ambiguities that fuel owner disputes.
Political Conflicts Within the Community
Carole Briggs recognizes that some conflicts go beyond rule (or Bylaw, Declaration, Cooperative Ownership Contract, Proprietary Lease) enforcement or architectural decisions. In communities with diverse political views or contentious election histories, disputes may take on a broader tone of factionalism or ideological division. Boards must tread carefully in such environments to avoid the appearance of bias or retaliation.
Attorney Carole Briggs advises boards to anchor their decisions in objective standards and avoid commentary on political speech, affiliations, or beliefs—unless such expressions clearly violate community rules. Even then, enforcement must be uniformly applied and supported by documented violations, not personal judgments.
In highly politicized environments, boards may also benefit from the assistance of neutral facilitators during annual meetings or community forums. These professionals can help keep the discussion focused on agenda items and diffuse emotionally charged exchanges.
Final Legal Thoughts from Carole Briggs
Attorney Briggs believes that the most successful community associations are those that treat disputes not as threats but as opportunities to reinforce good governance. While some owner-to-board conflicts may be unavoidable, the manner in which they are addressed defines the board’s leadership and legal posture. Clear communication, consistent enforcement, legal support, and respect for community diversity form the pillars of a sound strategy.
Rather than aiming to win every disagreement, Briggs encourages boards to focus on resolution, restoration of trust, and the long-term health of the community. When boards demonstrate integrity, transparency, and legal competence, even the most vocal dissenters often soften their approach.
Ultimately, Briggs has found that tension, when navigated constructively, can lead to better policy, more inclusive decision-making, and stronger associations. With thoughtful legal tools and diplomatic leadership, owner-to-board disputes can be resolved before they become crises, preserving both community harmony and mitigating disputes.
