This bill amends existing law (RCW 64.90.685) to set procedures for enforcing rights or obligations under the chapter or the association governing documents. It requires a unit owner to notify the association of an alleged violation before suing; if the association does not cure the violation or provide a substantive response in a tangible medium within 21 days of that notice, the unit owner may bring an action without further notice. The amendment also makes procedural changes about remedies: courts may award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and in an action by a unit owner against an association a prevailing unit owner must be awarded actual damages and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. The bill explicitly allows parties to resolve disputes at any time by binding or nonbinding alternative dispute resolution. This is a modification of an existing statute that creates pre‑suit notice and cure/response procedures (a procedural change) and prescribes fee and damages awards (a change to remedies). The text provided does not include definitions for key terms used, an effective date, or the broader statutory context for adjacent subsections, so those elements are uncertain. The measure is House Bill 2646 (2026 Regular Session) and was referred to the Committee on Civil Rights & Judiciary.

If enacted, the law would make it more likely that condo and homeowners associations must respond quickly to complaints: a unit owner must give written notice of a violation, the association then has 21 days to either fix the problem or give a substantive written response, and if it does not the owner can go to court. That raises the practical risk and potential cost for associations because courts can award the prevailing unit owner actual damages plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, so associations may need new procedures, quicker staffing or legal help, and possibly reserve funds to handle more disputes or settlements; unit owners gain a clearer path to sue and better chances of recovering money and fees if they prevail. Important details are missing that affect how this will work in practice: the bill excerpt does not define key terms like what counts as a “substantive response in a tangible medium,” it does not show an effective date, and it omits surrounding statutory context, so it is unclear how strictly the 21‑day rule will be applied or how other parts of the law might modify these procedures; the option for parties to use binding or nonbinding alternative dispute resolution remains available but is voluntary.