Selective enforcement is the argument that an association can't pick and choose who has to follow a rule. Cite you for a parked trailer or a fence while ignoring the identical thing three units down, and the enforcement action itself becomes suspect. Maine doesn't have a section titled "selective enforcement," but § 1603-102(a)(11) supplies the hook: a fine is only authorized when it's "reasonable" and follows notice and a hearing. An association that enforces a rule against you while knowingly letting the same conduct slide elsewhere is straining that reasonableness requirement, the very condition the statute attaches to its power to fine you at all. Maine courts, like courts in most states, also recognize general equitable defenses to covenant enforcement, including waiver and inconsistent application, when an association applies a restriction unevenly.
None of that erases the underlying rule, and it isn't a free pass. It's a defense to enforcement, and it rises or falls on documentation.
Waiver vs. selective enforcement
Two related arguments often travel together. "Waiver" says the association let a restriction lapse so broadly, unaddressed violations across the whole building, that it can no longer enforce it against anyone. "Selective enforcement" is narrower: the rule may still be alive, but singling you out while ignoring comparable violations is inequitable. The records the association has to keep under § 1603-118(a), minutes, financial records, and specifically architectural-approval decisions and ballots, are your best source for building either case.
The authority
The statutes behind this
Cited by name as authority, for your own reading. Informational only, not legal advice.
33 M.R.S. § 1603-102(a)(11)
Ties an association's fining power to a "reasonable" fine after notice and a hearing, a condition inconsistent enforcement strains against.
33 M.R.S. § 1603-118(a)
Requires the association to retain meeting minutes, architectural-approval decisions, and voting records, the paper trail that can document a pattern of uneven enforcement.
33 M.R.S. § 1603-118(b)
Sets the ten-day-notice inspection mechanism owners can use to actually pull that paper trail from the association.
Step by step
How to document and raise selective enforcement in Maine
Build the evidentiary record that supports a selective-enforcement or waiver defense to a Maine condo fine.
- 01
Identify the exact rule and its source
Pin down the specific declaration or bylaw provision the association says you violated, and confirm the rule was properly adopted under § 1603-102(a)(1). Selective enforcement is rule-specific.
- 02
Photograph and date comparable violations
Document other units with the same condition that were never cited. Note unit numbers, not the names of the people living there.
- 03
Request the association's own records
Use § 1603-118(a) and (b) to request meeting minutes, architectural-approval records, and any documented enforcement history. A pattern of citing only some owners is your strongest evidence.
- 04
Raise it at your notice-and-hearing session
Present the comparables and records at the hearing § 1603-102(a)(11) requires, and ask that the inconsistency be entered in the minutes.
- 05
Preserve everything for the board or court
If the fine stands, your documented record supports a waiver or selective-enforcement defense if the dispute escalates to litigation over the fine or the lien it becomes part of.
Straight answers
Common questions
Is selective enforcement a real defense in Maine?
It can be. Maine recognizes general equitable defenses to covenant enforcement, including waiver and inconsistent application, and § 1603-102(a)(11)'s requirement that a fine be "reasonable" reinforces that uneven enforcement sits outside what the statute authorizes.
What's the difference between waiver and selective enforcement?
Waiver argues the association let a restriction lapse so broadly across the building that it can no longer enforce it at all. Selective enforcement is narrower: the rule may still be alive, but singling you out while ignoring identical violations elsewhere is inequitable. They often travel together.
What evidence do I actually need?
Dated photographs of comparable, uncited violations, and the association's own records under § 1603-118(a), minutes, architectural-approval decisions, and voting history, if they show a pattern of inconsistent enforcement. A pattern carries the argument, not a single example.
Should I name the neighbors who weren't cited?
No. Document the units and the violations by unit number, not the individuals living there. Keep the focus on the association's own inconsistent conduct, not on your neighbors.