| Alabama | Statute | Alabama has no stand-alone selective-enforcement statute, but Ala. Code § 35-20-4(b)'s explicit, chapter-wide good-faith obligation on "performance or enforcement" of every duty gives an inconsistency argument real statutory footing. |
| Alaska | Not clearly stated — see guide | Alaska has no statute named 'selective enforcement,' but the act arms the argument three ways: fines require a pre-levy hearing where inconsistency can be raised, board members owe owners fiduciary care and good faith, and the records statute opens the association's own enforcement ledger to your examination. |
| Arizona | Statute | Arizona's violation statutes only authorize "reasonable" penalties for properly noticed rules, and require the board to name the observer and the date in writing, which gives an inconsistency argument real footing even without a section titled selective enforcement. |
| Arkansas | Statute + common law | Arkansas has no selective-enforcement statute, but its courts' hostility to loosely construed covenants — plus equitable defenses of waiver and abandonment — makes uneven enforcement a genuine defense. The condo minute book and expense records (§§ 18-13-108, 18-13-110) and the public county file are how you prove the pattern. |
| California | Statute | California courts require HOAs to enforce restrictions reasonably and even-handedly. If the board cites you while ignoring identical violations, that inconsistency is a defense. |
| Colorado | Statute | If your Colorado HOA enforces a rule against you but ignores identical violations next door, selective enforcement plus CCIOA's required enforcement policy can be a defense. Here's how to document it. |
| Connecticut | Statute | Connecticut's statute doesn't just imply that uneven enforcement is unfair. It says so directly: the executive board 'may not be arbitrary or capricious in taking enforcement action.' Here's how to use that language, plus your own right to demand a hearing over it. |
| Delaware | Statute | Delaware's Common Interest Ownership Act does something most states don't: it says outright that a board 'may not be arbitrary or capricious' in deciding when to enforce the rules. That single line gives an uneven-enforcement argument real statutory footing, not just a common-law long shot. |
| District of Columbia | Statute | DC gives the uneven-enforcement defense unusual traction: every fine must be reasonable and hearing-backed (D.C. Code § 42-1903.08(a)(11)), boards act under a fiduciary standard, and the minutes and books that prove an enforcement pattern are examinable by right. |
| Florida | Statute + common law | If your Florida HOA enforces a rule against you but ignores identical violations next door, selective enforcement can be a defense. Here's how to document and assert it. |
| Georgia | Statute | Georgia's compliance statutes only authorize enforcement of rules that were properly adopted and actually provided to owners, which gives an inconsistency argument real statutory footing even without a section titled "selective enforcement." |
| Hawaii | Statute | Hawaii has no statute named 'selective enforcement,' but inconsistent enforcement is a recognized equitable defense — and Hawaii's records statutes and mandatory mediation give you unusually good tools to document the pattern and force a neutral forum. |
| Idaho | Statute | Idaho has no statute titled 'selective enforcement,' but the fining statute's requirement that fine authority be clearly set forth, plus a real fee-shifting rule for members who win, gives an inconsistency argument genuine statutory footing. |
| Illinois | Not clearly stated — see guide | Illinois law doesn't use the words "selective enforcement," but the pieces are there: your board owes you a fiduciary duty, fines have to be "reasonable," and you have a records right that can prove the board is enforcing a rule against you and nobody else. |
| Indiana | Statute + common law | If your Indiana HOA enforces a covenant against you while ignoring identical violations nearby, equitable defenses like waiver and estoppel are available, and the state's records statute plus the mandatory grievance meeting are how you prove and present the pattern. |
| Iowa | Statute + common law | Iowa has no selective-enforcement statute, but the equitable defenses — waiver, estoppel, abandonment — apply to covenant enforcement here as elsewhere, and Iowa's records rights (§ 499C.2 and § 499B.15(2)) plus the open-meeting rule give you unusual power to prove the pattern from the board's own paper. |
| Kansas | Statute | Kansas is unusually direct here: K.S.A. § 58-4608 says in plain text that a board 'may not be arbitrary or capricious' in enforcing its rules. Paired with the act's good-faith duty, that's real statutory language to build a selective-enforcement case on, not just a borrowed common-law doctrine. |
| Kentucky | Statute | Kentucky has no section titled 'selective enforcement,' but the written-notice-and-hearing structure in KRS § 381.797(2) and the records rights in KRS §§ 381.795 and 381.9197 give an inconsistency argument real footing. Documentation decides whether it works. |
| Louisiana | Statute | Louisiana has no stand-alone selective-enforcement statute, but La. R.S. § 9:1123.102(11) only authorizes "reasonable" fines after notice and a hearing, a framework that a cherry-picked, inconsistent enforcement pattern strains directly, and your § 9:1123.108 records right helps you prove it. |
| Maine | Statute | Maine has no statute titled "selective enforcement," but the requirement that a fine be reasonable after notice and a hearing, paired with a real records right to document a pattern, gives the argument statutory footing. |
| Maryland | Statute | Maryland's condo statute actually says letting one violation slide isn't a waiver of the right to enforce later, which narrows the classic waiver argument. But the adopted-and-provided rule requirements in both acts still supply a real inconsistency defense, and HOA owners, without that same non-waiver clause, may have more room to argue waiver outright. |
| Massachusetts | Statute | Chapter 183A doesn't have a section called "selective enforcement," but its own fining and restriction rules only authorize action tied to real, evenly applied standards, which gives an inconsistency argument real footing. Here's how to document it. |
| Michigan | Not clearly stated — see guide | Michigan has no section titled selective enforcement, but a condo owner can sue to compel even enforcement under MCL § 559.207, and the notice-and-hearing framing in MCL § 559.206 cuts against picking targets. Subdivision HOA owners have to argue it purely on contract and equity. |
| Minnesota | Statute | Minnesota's declarant-control statute contains rare, explicit language: directors have a duty to enforce the association's documents "in a uniform and fair manner." That's real statutory footing for the argument that your board can't cite you while ignoring identical violations next door. |
| Mississippi | Statute | Mississippi has no stand-alone selective-enforcement statute, but Miss. Code § 89-9-17's framing of the declaration as an "equitable servitude... where reasonable" gives an inconsistency argument real footing, and the recorded declaration and lien records help you document the pattern. |
| Missouri | Statute | Missouri has no statute addressing selective or inconsistent enforcement directly, but the records rights and the condo fine statute's notice-and-hearing structure both give an inconsistency argument real footing. Documentation carries the case. |
| Montana | Statute | Montana has no statute naming selective enforcement, and its condo compliance law doesn't even require rules to be adopted and provided a specific way before they're enforceable. That makes documentation, and the fact that owners themselves can sue under § 70-23-506, your real leverage. |
| Nebraska | Statute | Nebraska's Condominium Act ties every fine to a notice-and-hearing process for a reason: enforcement is supposed to follow an adopted rule applied to everyone, not a board's mood. Here's how to use that framework, and the records law, to document inconsistency. |
| Nevada | Not clearly stated — see guide | If your Nevada HOA enforces a rule against you but ignores identical violations next door, selective enforcement and the statute's good-faith duty can be a defense. Here's how to document and assert it. |
| New Hampshire | Not clearly stated — see guide | New Hampshire has no section called "selective enforcement," for condos or HOAs. What it has is RSA 356-B:15's rule that every enforcement action has to trace back to the "lawful provisions" of the recorded instruments — and that's exactly where an inconsistency argument lives. |
| New Jersey | Common law / case law | If your New Jersey association enforces a rule against you while tolerating identical violations next door, that inconsistency is a defense, and the state's mandatory ADR procedure is a ready-made forum to raise it before anyone sees a courtroom. |
| New Mexico | Statute + common law | New Mexico gives you the machinery to prove uneven enforcement, not just allege it: a records statute with a $50/day penalty that reaches minutes and enforcement history (§ 47-16-5), a mandatory hearing where inconsistency is raised on the record (§ 47-16-18), and minutes the association must keep of every formal action (§ 47-16-17). |
| New York | Statute | New York's Condominium Act only lets the board sue over violations of validly adopted rules, not use its enforcement power arbitrarily. If your board is enforcing a rule against you while ignoring the same conduct elsewhere in the building, here's how to document it. |
| North Carolina | Statute | North Carolina law ties every fine to notice, a hearing, and a properly adopted rule. If the board enforces that rule against you while ignoring the same violation next door, that inconsistency undercuts the enforcement, and your records rights let you prove it. |
| North Dakota | Statute | North Dakota has no selective-enforcement statute, but its condo chapter builds the defense's foundation into the enforcement standard itself: restrictions bind only as 'equitable servitudes where reasonable,' and enforcement runs through court, where equity's defenses — waiver, estoppel, unclean hands — are heard. The public record and the nonprofit records statute supply the evidence. |
| Ohio | Statute | Ohio doesn't have a section titled 'selective enforcement.' What it has is a hearing requirement built into every enforcement assessment, and a statute tying all enforcement to the recorded declaration — both of which an inconsistent board runs straight into. |
| Oklahoma | Statute | Oklahoma has no section titled selective enforcement, but its own enforcement statutes tie an association's power to the covenants it's supposedly applying, and give owners a direct right to sue each other over covenant violations, which cuts both ways when enforcement is uneven. |
| Oregon | Statute | Oregon doesn't have a section titled 'selective enforcement.' What it has is a 'reasonable fine' requirement, a compliance statute that lets an aggrieved owner sue over inconsistent enforcement, and a one-year clock on that kind of claim. Here's how the pieces fit together. |
| Pennsylvania | Statute | Pennsylvania's statutes don't use the phrase 'selective enforcement,' but the notice-and-hearing fine rule and the records-access right give the argument real structure. Here's how to document it. |
| Rhode Island | Statute | Rhode Island doesn't have a section titled selective enforcement, but its fine statute only authorizes enforcement of actual declaration, bylaw, and rule violations, and its records and hearing rights give you a real way to document and raise an uneven pattern. |
| South Carolina | Statute | South Carolina has no section titled selective enforcement, but its recording-and-accessibility framework for HOA rules and its civil-action backbone for condos both tie enforcement to properly documented standards, and the state's complaint process can help you build a record. |
| South Dakota | Statute | South Dakota has no selective-enforcement statute, but covenants are enforced here as contracts in equity, where waiver, estoppel, and arbitrary enforcement are recognized defenses. The member records right in SDCL § 47-24-2 is the tool that turns a hunch about uneven enforcement into documented pattern evidence. |
| Tennessee | Statute + common law | If your Tennessee association enforces a covenant against you while tolerating identical violations nearby, waiver and selective enforcement are recognized equitable defenses, and the state's records statutes are how you prove the pattern. |
| Texas | Statute | If a Texas HOA enforces a covenant against you while ignoring identical violations, waiver and selective-enforcement defenses can apply. Recorded-rule requirements add extra leverage. |
| Utah | Statute + common law | If your Utah HOA enforces a rule against you while ignoring identical violations nearby, that inconsistency is a defense you can build. Utah's hearing right and its $25-a-day records statute are the tools for proving the pattern. |
| Vermont | Statute | Vermont's statute says outright that a board 'may not be arbitrary or capricious in taking enforcement action' — one of the most direct statutory hooks against uneven enforcement you'll find in any state. Here's how to use it and what evidence you'll actually be able to get. |
| Virginia | Statute | If your Virginia HOA enforces a rule against you but ignores identical violations next door, selective enforcement and the statute's good-faith adoption rules can be a defense. Here's how to document it. |
| Washington | Not clearly stated — see guide | Washington doesn't leave this to judge-made equity. RCW 64.90.405 tells the board directly its enforcement 'may not be arbitrary or capricious,' and RCW 64.90.495 forces it to keep the enforcement file that proves a pattern. |
| West Virginia | Statute | West Virginia has no stand-alone selective-enforcement statute, but the "reasonable" fines-with-a-hearing framework in W. Va. Code § 36B-3-102(a)(11) gives an inconsistency argument real footing, and the records right helps you prove the pattern. |
| Wisconsin | Statute + common law | Wisconsin has no selective-enforcement statute, but its courts weigh waiver and estoppel when an association enforces a covenant against one owner while tolerating the same conduct in others. The state's records statutes — § 703.20 for condos, § 181.1602 for incorporated HOAs — are how you prove the pattern. |
| Wyoming | Statute | Wyoming has no selective-enforcement statute, but covenants are enforced here in equity, where waiver, estoppel, and arbitrary enforcement are established defenses. The Nonprofit Corporation Act's records right is the discovery tool: five business days' notice and a proper purpose reach the association's own enforcement ledgers. |