By Anita Byer

07/01/2026

Condominium board members are entrusted with significant authority over the condominium association’s funds, vendor selection, and major contracts—decisions that directly impact every unit owner’s wallet and quality of life. When a condominium board member, or their relative stands to personally benefit from one of these decisions, the risk of a conflict of interest arises. Left unaddressed, even a well-intentioned arrangement can expose the board, and individual directors, to legal challenges, owner distrust, and potential liability. 

Florida law addresses this issue directly. Section 718.3027 of the Florida Statute requires directors and officers, along with their relatives, to disclose to the board any activity that may reasonably be construed as a conflict of interest. To enforce this, the statute relies on what’s called a “rebuttable presumption.” In plain terms, this means the law automatically treats certain situations as a conflict of interest unless the director takes specific steps to prove otherwise. The statute identifies two situations that trigger this presumption: when a director or officer (or their relative) enters into a contract for goods or services with the association, and when a director or officer (or their relative) holds an interest in a business entity that conducts business with the association. Importantly, the presumption isn’t limited to those two examples; the statute also identifies any other activity that could reasonably be seen as a conflict, even if it doesn’t fit neatly into the statute’s listed scenarios. In short: when money and personal relationships overlap with board decisions, the law assumes the worst unless the director proves otherwise through proper disclosure.

It’s also worth noting that Section 718.3027  of the Florida Statute doesn’t operate in isolation when addressing conflict of interest transactions. Because most condominium associations are organized as Florida not-for-profit corporations, boards must also comply with Section 617.0832, Florida Statutes, the Not for Profit Corporation Act’s own director conflict-of-interest provision, which imposes similar disclosure and approval requirements at the corporate governance level. And if the situation involves a licensed Community Association Manager, Section 468.4335, Florida Statutes, adds another layer of disclosure obligations specific to managers. In practice, this means a single conflict-of-interest situation can be governed by multiple statutes at once, all working together rather than replacing one another. For board members, the takeaway is simple: when in doubt, disclosure and transparency satisfy the spirit of all three frameworks. 

The good news is that Florida law doesn’t flatly prohibit transactions involving a director’s personal or financial interest —it gives boards a clear path to proceed responsibly. Conflicts of interest must be considered at a properly noticed board meeting, with the proposed activity and all related contracts or transactional documents attached to the meeting agenda. The disclosures must also be entered into the written minutes of the meeting, creating a transparent record that protects both the association and the individual director. Boards should also be aware that a related statute, 718.111, makes it a third-degree felony for an officer, director, or manager to solicit or accept a kickback—a reminder that conflict-of-interest rules sit alongside other serious anti-corruption protections in the Condominium Act. 

For boards looking to avoid problems before they start, a few practices go a long way: build a standing habit of written disclosure any time a director or relative has a financial connection to a proposed vendor or contract; have the board attorney review borderline situations before a vote, not after; and document everything in the minutes, even when the board ultimately decides not to move forward with a transaction. A culture of transparency doesn’t just satisfy the statute—it builds the kind of owner trust that makes board service sustainable. When in doubt, directors should disclose, abstain from voting, and let the rest of the board decide with full information in hand.