Owners occasionally feel that a board member's conduct crosses the line from legitimate enforcement into personal harassment. A few things are worth understanding:

• Enforcement isn't harassment. A board member reminding you of a rule violation, requesting compliance, or following the association's enforcement process — even repeatedly — is generally within their role, even if it doesn't feel pleasant. Harassment typically means something more: targeted, repeated conduct outside the normal governance process (e.g., personal confrontations, intimidation, unequal treatment singling someone out, or behavior meant to demean rather than enforce rules).
• Document everything. Keep dates, times, what was said or done, and any witnesses. Patterns matter — a single unpleasant interaction is very different from a sustained pattern of targeted conduct.
• Raise it with the board (in writing). If the person you have an issue with isn't the entire board, you can put your concerns in writing to the board or association's management company. Boards have a duty to act reasonably and in good faith, and a documented pattern of harassment by one member can become a liability/fiduciary issue for the association if left unaddressed.
• File a complaint with the Florida DBPR. The Division of Condominiums, Timeshares, and Mobile Homes accepts owner complaints against associations and board members for violations of Chapter 718, including breaches of fiduciary duty.
• Consider mediation. Many disputes between owners and board members are required to go through mandatory pre-suit mediation or arbitration before a lawsuit can be filed, depending on the nature of the dispute.
• If it's severe (threats, stalking, physical intimidation), that moves beyond condo governance into matters for local law enforcement or a civil injunction for protection — an attorney can advise on that path.
• A board member's general dislike of an owner, or enforcing rules unevenly, is different from harassment — but if enforcement itself is applied selectively or vindictively toward one owner, that can raise its own fiduciary-duty and discriminatory-enforcement issues.

Bottom line: whether something is "harassment" versus normal (if unwelcome) board conduct depends heavily on the facts, so document specifics and consult an attorney if it continues.

This is one of the most common owner concerns, and there are several avenues depending on how serious or urgent the issue is:

• Start by identifying exactly what's being violated. Is it the Declaration, Bylaws, Rules & Regulations, or a specific requirement under Chapter 718 (like notice requirements, quorum, records access, or reserve funding)? Pinpointing the specific document or statute section makes it much easier to raise the issue effectively — and to know whether it's actually a violation versus a disagreement over how the board is exercising its discretion.
• Boards have real legal limits. They can't simply choose not to follow Chapter 718 — for example, skipping required quarterly meetings, refusing to let owners speak at meetings, ignoring records requests, or misusing reserve funds are all breaches of fiduciary duty, not matters of board discretion.
• Raise it in writing first. Send a written request or objection to the board (often through management), citing the specific rule or statute. Boards and management are required to respond to certified record requests within statutory timeframes, and a written record protects you if the issue escalates.
• Request the official records. Owners have a right to inspect meeting minutes, financials, contracts, and most other official records. If the board is doing something questionable, the paper trail often shows it — and refusing a proper records request is itself a violation.
• File a complaint with the Florida DBPR (Division of Condominiums, Timeshares, and Mobile Homes). The Division has authority to investigate associations and board members, and can issue fines (commonly $1,000–$10,000 depending on unit count) or even bar someone from serving on a board. This is often the most direct path for statutory violations.
• Mediation/arbitration. Many disputes over rule enforcement or document interpretation must go through mandatory non-binding mediation or arbitration before a lawsuit can be filed.
• Recall. If it's a pattern of board misconduct rather than a single issue, Florida law gives owners the ability to recall board members through a formal recall process, without waiting for the next election.
• Consult an attorney for anything ambiguous. Whether something is a clear violation versus the board exercising legitimate business judgment is often a legal question, not a factual one.

Bottom line: not every board decision you disagree with is a "violation" — boards are given discretion (business judgment) to run the community — but there are real, specific tools (records requests, DBPR complaints, mediation, recall) for actual rule or statutory violations, and documenting the specific rule/statute at issue is the first step either way.

This is a very common — and legitimate — concern, and Florida law actually gives it a name: selective or discriminatory enforcement. A few key points:

• Consistency is the legal standard, not just fairness. Associations are generally required to enforce their rules uniformly against all owners. If the board is enforcing a rule against you but knowingly ignoring the same violation elsewhere in the community, that inconsistency can itself be a legal defense to the fine or enforcement action — and can expose the association to liability.
• "Selective enforcement" is a real legal defense. If you're fined or sued for a violation, and you can show the board is aware of the same violation by other owners and isn't acting on it, that's a recognized argument that can be raised in a hearing, arbitration, or court — it doesn't automatically win the case, but it's a serious factor.
• Document the comparison. Photos, dates, and specifics of the other owner(s)' violation help build the record — general impressions ("everyone does it") are much weaker than "Unit 204 has had the same violation since [date] and has never been cited."
• There's a difference between selective enforcement and legitimate discretion. Boards are allowed to prioritize (e.g., addressing the most serious or most-complained-about violations first). The problem arises when the same violation, known to the board, is enforced against some owners and not others without a reasonable, good-faith explanation.
• Watch for a discrimination angle. If the inconsistent enforcement seems to track a protected characteristic (age, family status, disability, national origin, etc.) rather than random inconsistency, that shifts the issue from a covenant-enforcement dispute into fair housing law — a much more serious matter.
• Use your right to a hearing. Before most fines are levied, Florida law requires notice and an opportunity for a hearing before an independent committee of owners (not the board itself). This is your formal opportunity to raise the selective-enforcement argument before any fine is imposed.
• Bring it to the board in writing regardless. Even outside a hearing, a written letter identifying the specific comparable violations and asking the board to explain the disparity puts them on notice.

Bottom line: uneven enforcement isn't just an unfairness complaint — it can be a genuine legal defense — but it requires specifics (who, what, when) rather than a general sense that "other people get away with it."

This is the classic "waiver" question, and the honest answer is: usually yes, the association can still require you to remove it — but there's a process they're supposed to follow first. A few key points:

• Long-standing non-enforcement generally does not "waive" a rule forever. Just because the association didn't act on something for years doesn't mean the underlying rule disappeared or that you have a permanent right to keep it. Declaration provisions are contractual and generally remain enforceable even after a period of non-enforcement.
• But the association typically can't just spring a demand letter on you out of nowhere. Where something has gone unenforced for a long time, best practice (and what many attorneys advise boards to do) is: hold a duly noticed board meeting, pass a resolution stating the rule will now be enforced, explain how, and give a reasonable runway before enforcement begins — often around 30 days — so owners have fair notice and a chance to comply.
• If the board skips that process and jumps straight to enforcement/fines, that's a real argument in your favor — not that the rule doesn't apply, but that you weren't given fair notice before enforcement resumed.
• Timing can matter legally, too. Depending on the type of violation, there may be a statute of limitations (often five years for a written contract/covenant claim) that limits how far back the association can reach — this is fact-specific and worth raising with an attorney if the item has truly been there a very long time.
• "Everyone has one" doesn't override the rule, but it does raise the same selective-enforcement issue as above. If you're the only one asked to remove something many other owners also have, that's worth documenting and raising.
• A grandfather exception is not automatic. Owners sometimes assume older installations are "grandfathered in" — but true grandfathering requires specific language or a specific board action; it isn't a general legal right just because something is old.

Bottom line: longevity alone doesn't protect you from having to remove something, but it does mean the association should be following a fair, noticed process (not immediate fines) before enforcing a rule it hasn't enforced in years — and if they skip that process, that's worth pushing back on.

[Optional short intro sentence.]

• [Point 1 heading.] [Point 1 detail.]
• [Point 2 heading.] [Point 2 detail.]
• [Point 3 heading.] [Point 3 detail.]

Bottom line: [One or two sentence summary.]