Washington State Human Rights Commission v. Summerwalk Homeowners’ Association
Wash. State Human Rights Comm’n v. Summerwalk Homeowners’ Ass’n, No. 61643-2-II (Wash. Ct. App. Div. II July 21, 2026). Decided July 21, 2026
Washington Extends Fair Housing Protections to HOA Covenant Enforcement After Closing
In a published decision issued July 21, 2026, Division II of the Washington Court of Appeals resolved a question of first impression that directly affects every homeowners’ association and community manager in Washington state: does Washington’s Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) reach an HOA’s enforcement of its covenants after a home is sold? The court held that it does.
WLAD makes it unlawful to discriminate in the terms, conditions, or privileges of a real estate transaction, or in the furnishing of facilities or services connected with one. RCW 49.60.222(1)(b). The court held that covenant enforcement is a service connected to the original purchase – the homeowner became bound by the CC&Rs as a direct result of buying the home, creating an ongoing relationship. Treating the closing date as a cutoff, the court reasoned, would put whole categories of discriminatory conduct beyond WLAD’s reach, which is a result the legislature could not have intended. The court reinforced its reading with closely analogous federal cases interpreting the Fair Housing Amendments Act, noting WLAD is construed at least as broadly as its federal counterpart.
The decision confirms that an association’s day-to-day enforcement (issuing fines and warnings and providing access to amenities and meetings, parking, use of common areas) is subject to anti-discrimination scrutiny long after closing. Selective enforcement claims are among the most common discrimination allegations minority homeowners bring against associations, and this ruling gives the Human Rights Commission clear authority to investigate them.
Importantly, the court did not decide whether Summerwalk actually discriminated; that decision goes back to the administrative law judge for further proceedings. The primary takeaway here is that the door has been opened to WLAD liability for conduct occurring after a parcel is sold in a common interest community governed by a community association. Owners, developers, lenders, and counsel advising community associations should read the decision with that expanded exposure in mind.
Note as well that this decision is not necessarily the last word. Summerwalk may seek review in the Washington Supreme Court, and that court could accept review and affirm, modify, or reverse the holding. Until the time for seeking review has run (or the Supreme Court declines review), community associations should treat the decision as controlling authority in Division II while recognizing that it may yet be revisited.
What associations can do now
The best protection is demonstrable consistency. Associations should document enforcement decisions, apply written standards uniformly, and treat every homeowner the same regardless of protected-class status. Boards and management companies should understand that WLAD governs ongoing conduct, not just the sale. The possibility of further appellate review is not a reason to defer these steps; consistent, well-documented enforcement is sound practice regardless of how the case is ultimately resolved. When an enforcement decision is close, contested, or involves a homeowner who has raised a fairness concern, counsel should be involved before the association acts rather than after a complaint is filed. Proactive review of governing documents and enforcement practices is far cheaper than defending an investigation by the Human Rights Commission (and certainly in the event that the Commission takes action on an investigative finding).
Practical Steps for Associations and Their Advisors
- Audit covenant-enforcement records: track every violation notice, fine, and warning by property to demonstrate consistent, even-handed application across all owners.
- Adopt written, objective enforcement procedures and apply them uniformly (discretionary or ad hoc enforcement is where disparate-treatment exposure is likely to be found).
- Train boards and management companies that WLAD (and its federal FHAA analog) governs post-sale conduct, not just the original sale, including access to meetings, amenities, parking, and common areas.
- Route close or contested enforcement decisions through counsel before acting, particularly where a homeowner belongs to a protected class or has raised a fairness complaint.
- Review governing documents and enforcement policies with counsel to identify facially neutral rules that could produce, or be perceived to produce, disparate impact.
We advise Washington owners associations, community managers, developers, and property owners statewide – contact us to discuss what this decision means for your covenant-enforcement policies and documentation practices.
This alert is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please consult counsel regarding your specific circumstances.
Brett Sullivan is a Director in Fennemore’s Spokane office, advising individuals and businesses on real estate and business law matters. He provides guidance on entity formation, governance, financing, and operations to facilitate successful transactions. He can be reached at bsullivan@fennemorelaw.com.