When HOA Meetings Go Wrong: Texas Law on Conduct, Codes, and Difficult Board Dynamics

Guest: Teddy Holtz, Texas HOA Attorney — Ep. 90

When the Board Meeting Falls Apart

Every board member knows the feeling.

A meeting that was supposed to last an hour has stretched past 10 p.m. A homeowner keeps interrupting. A fellow director is undermining decisions the moment the meeting ends. And somewhere in your inbox is the 47th email this month from a resident who seems to have no other occupation.

In Episode 90 of The Uncommon Area, Matthew Holbrook sits down with Texas HOA and condominium associationattorney Teddy Holtz to address these situations directly. What tools do boards actually have? What does Texas law require, permit, and prohibit? And when isit time to stop being patient and start enforcing consequences?

Getting the Meeting Right From the Start

Before you can manage what happensinside a board meeting, the meeting itself has to be legally valid. In Texas, that means understanding your notice obligations.

For single-family residential HOAs, the standard is 72 hours’ notice for a special board meeting and 144hours for a regular meeting. That notice should be posted to the community website and emailed to all members who have provided addresses. For condominium associations governed by Chapter 82 of the Texas Property Code, the statute generally refers back to the association’s bylaws — so your specific requirements may vary.

As a best practice, Holtz recommends treating every association the same: give advance notice to all members via website and email, and include whatever agenda exists at the time.While there is no statutory requirement to share an agenda, doing so reduces the likelihood of surprise confrontations. Transparency at the front end tends to reduce tension at the meeting itself.

Executive Sessions: What They Are and When to Use Them

Executive sessions give a boardthe ability to discuss sensitive matters privately, without the generalmembership present. Common uses include reviewing proposed contracts,discussing enforcement and collection matters, hearing individual homeownerrequests for a meeting with the board, and consulting with legal counsel onpending litigation.

Boards can move into executive session at any point during an open meeting, or hold a completely separate special meeting designated as executive session. What they should avoid is ambiguity. If executive session occurs, it should be noted in the meeting agenda or clearly announced so members understand it is taking place. Holtz recommends the cleaner approach: a formal adjournment of the open session, are convene in executive session, and then a reconvene in open session to formally adjourn.

Open Forum: Structure It or Lose It

Despite what many homeowners believe, Texas law does not require boards to provide an open forum at their meetings. That said, both Holtz and Holbrook advocate for one — with structure.

That means setting time limits for each speaker, establishing a clear sign-in process before the meeting begins, and resisting the impulse for board members to engage in extended back-and-forth with individual homeowners during the forum. The goal is to hear from the community efficiently, not to turn the meeting into an unmoderated debate.

Without those parameters in place, Holtz noted he has sat in meetings that ran until 11:30 p.m. simply because no one established expectations at the start. Homeowners with legitimate, quick questions often end up leaving without being heard because one or two residents have consumed all available time. A structured open forum actually serves more residents, not fewer.

Recording Board Meetings: What Texas Law Actually Says

Texas is a one-party consent state, meaning a participant in a meeting can record it without the consent of others — unless the association has a written prohibition in its bylaws or code of conduct. Holtz’s position is nuanced: boards should be cautious about trying to prohibit recording outright, since members may have legitimate reasons for it. However, members who do record should understand that sharing footage outside the membership — on public social media, next-door pages with open access, or with non-members — is problematic.

There is also a practical concern. If a recording becomes evidence in litigation, it is discoverable. For boards conducting business openly and ethically, that should not be a major issue. But it is worth keeping in mind.

Handling a Disruptive Homeowner: The Legal Toolbox

When a homeowner is disrupting a meeting, the board has a limited but real set of options. A clearly defined code of conduct that outlines a verbal warning, then escalation, then removal, gives the board a documented process to follow. The challenge arises when the person refuses to leave.

Boards cannot physically remove a resident themselves, and they should never attempt to. For meetings where disruption is anticipated, Holtz recommends having private security or a constable present. For situations where that was not anticipated and removal is not possible, the board’s option is to adjourn and reconvene at another time.

Here is where it gets legally tricky: once the meeting is adjourned and reconvened, that same homeowner generally cannot be barred from attending. Every owner in a Texas association has a statutory right to be present at open meetings. There is no carve-out in the Property Code for disruptive residents.

One practical workaround: reconvene over Zoom, where a disruptive attendee can be muted or removed from the meeting room at the click of a button.

Codes of Conduct: Building Your Framework

One of the most actionable segments of this episode covers codes of conduct — both for homeowners and for board members.

A homeowner code of conduct can address harassment, monopolization of management and board time, and appropriate communication channels. Holtz recommends keeping the language general rather than prescribing specific numerical limits — using concepts like "monopolization of time" and "harassment" rather than setting a specific email volume threshold. The goal is to have a documented, enforceable framework for the small fraction of residents who create disproportionate problems for everyone else.

Holbrook shared a real-world example: a community where the board asked management to count emails from a single resident — 173 over four months, each with a list of ten demands. Not one email was inappropriate in tone. The volume itself was the problem. A well-crafted conduct policy gives management and the board a documented path for exactly that situation.

For board members, a code of conduct should reflect the ethical obligations already required under Texas law: acting in good faith, with ordinary care, and in the best interest of the association. It can go further — prohibiting self-dealing, requiring that the board speak with a unified voice after a vote is taken, and establishing expectations around conduct in meetings.

Critically, a board member code of conduct in Texas can include a removal provision. If a board member’s conduct is egregious enough to expose the association to liability, the remaining board members can — by unanimous vote, following a formal hearing — remove that individual. This does not replace the membership’s broader right to remove a director through a recall process, but it provides a faster path when the situation demands it.

For any policy to be legally enforceable in Texas, it must be recorded in the real property records. An unrecorded policy is vulnerable to challenge.

When Nothing Else Works

Holtz closed with a point that is both practical and refreshingly direct. In his experience, the residents who create the most serious conduct issues — the bullies, as he called them — often only change behavior when they face real financial consequences. Attorney letters have lost much of their deterrent effect. The most effective tool is a properly recorded, consistently enforced policy with financial penalties for violations.

That does not mean using enforcement as a weapon. Both Holtz and Holbrook emphasized that these tools are a last resort — reserved for the small fraction of residents who are genuinely making the community unlivable for everyone else. But for those situations, having the framework in place before you need it makes all the difference.