There's no Oregon statute called 'selective enforcement,' but the argument still has real footing. ORS § 94.777 (HOA) and § 100.545 (condo) require every owner and the declarant to comply with the bylaws, rules, and the covenants in the declaration or deed, and make failure to comply 'grounds for an action maintainable by the association ... or by an aggrieved owner.' That last phrase matters: enforcement in Oregon isn't purely a board-to-owner street. An owner can bring their own action over a covenant violation — including, as a practical matter, an argument that the association is enforcing the same restriction unevenly. And because § 94.630(1)(n) / § 100.405(4)(k) require any fine to be 'reasonable,' a fine imposed on you while the identical conduct goes unaddressed next door is a direct challenge to that reasonableness requirement, not just an unrelated fairness complaint.
Be realistic about the records limit here, too: § 94.670(9)(b) and § 100.480(9)(b) specifically let the association withhold 'files of individual owners, other than those of a requesting owner,' from examination and duplication. That means a records request generally won't hand you the board's enforcement file on your neighbor. Your comparable-violation evidence needs to come from your own documentation — dated photos and observations of the same violation going uncited elsewhere — not from asking the board to produce someone else's file.
Waiver, the one-year clock, and attorney fees that cut both ways
Two related arguments often travel together. 'Waiver' says the association let a restriction go unenforced so broadly across the community that it can no longer suddenly enforce it against you. 'Selective enforcement' is narrower: the rule may still be alive, but singling you out while tolerating comparable violations elsewhere is inequitable. Which one fits depends on how widespread the tolerated conduct is. If it escalates into a civil action, know the clock: ORS § 94.780(3) requires a suit or action under that remedies section to be commenced within one year after discovery or identification of the alleged violation — a short window, so don't sit on it. Oregon's condo attorney-fee provision, § 100.470, doesn't spell out an identical one-year deadline, so condo owners should treat the general limitations period for their specific claim as the operative clock rather than assuming the HOA-side year automatically carries over. Either way, §§ 94.780 and 100.470 let the prevailing party in an enforcement suit recover reasonable attorney fees — a real incentive for the board to get consistency right, and a real incentive for you to document your case well before you file.
The authority
The statutes behind this
Cited by name as authority, for your own reading. Informational only, not legal advice.
ORS § 94.777
Requires compliance with the bylaws, rules, and declaration and makes noncompliance grounds for an action by the association or by an aggrieved owner — the hook for challenging uneven enforcement (condo parallel: § 100.545).
ORS § 94.630(1)(n)
Requires any fine to be 'reasonable,' the textual hook an inconsistently enforced charge runs directly against (condo parallel: § 100.405(4)(k)).
ORS § 94.780
Authorizes suit for noncompliance with the Planned Community Act, sets a one-year limitations period running from discovery of the violation, and awards attorney fees to the prevailing party.
ORS § 94.670(9)(b)
Lets the association withhold other owners' individual files from a records request — the reason you need your own comparable-violation documentation (condo parallel: § 100.480(9)(b)).
Step by step
How to document and raise selective enforcement in Oregon
Build the evidentiary record that supports a selective-enforcement or waiver argument at an Oregon HOA or condo fine hearing.
- 01
Pin down the exact rule
Confirm the specific declaration, bylaws, or fine-schedule language the board says you violated, and confirm it was actually delivered to you as § 94.630(1)(n) / § 100.405(4)(k) require. Selective enforcement is rule-specific.
- 02
Photograph comparable, uncited violations yourself
Date-stamp the same violation elsewhere in the community and note addresses or lot numbers, not owner names. Don't count on a records request to produce the board's file on someone else — § 94.670(9)(b) / § 100.480(9)(b) specifically lets it withhold that.
- 03
Pull the association's general records to show the pattern where you can
Use minutes and the annual financial or enforcement-related records (categories not tied to a specific other owner) to establish how broadly a violation has gone unaddressed community-wide, if that's your fact pattern.
- 04
Raise the reasonableness argument at your fine hearing
Present your comparables at the hearing § 94.630(1)(n) / § 100.405(4)(k) already guarantees you, and argue that inconsistent enforcement undercuts the 'reasonable' requirement for the fine itself.
- 05
Know the one-year clock if it escalates
If the dispute becomes a civil action, § 94.780(3) requires it to be commenced within one year of discovering the violation. Keep every dated photo and notice in case you need to move quickly.
Straight answers
Common questions
Is selective enforcement a real defense to an Oregon HOA or condo fine?
There's no statute by that name, but § 94.630(1)(n) / § 100.405(4)(k) require any fine to be 'reasonable,' and § 94.777 / § 100.545 let an aggrieved owner bring an action over noncompliance — together they give an inconsistent-enforcement argument real statutory footing.
Can I get the association's enforcement file on my neighbor?
Probably not through a records request. Section 94.670(9)(b) and § 100.480(9)(b) specifically let the association withhold other owners' individual files. Build your own dated photo record of comparable violations instead.
What's the difference between waiver and selective enforcement?
Waiver argues the association let a restriction lapse so broadly, community-wide, that it can no longer enforce it at all. Selective enforcement argues the rule may still be alive but singling you out while tolerating identical violations elsewhere is inequitable. They often travel together.
How long do I have to sue over a covenant or enforcement dispute?
For planned communities, § 94.780(3) requires the action to be commenced within one year after discovery or identification of the violation. Oregon's Condominium Act doesn't spell out an identical one-year rule, so condo owners should confirm the applicable limitations period for their specific claim rather than assume the HOA-side year applies.