The Unrecorded Fines: How § 202.006 Makes HOA Penalties Disappear Until They’re Filed — And What It Means When The HOA Gives Them Up

The Ninth Problem

The previous parts of this series told the story of a Texas homeowner whose house was sold at HOA foreclosure through a chain of statutory defects: unclaimed certified mail and a process server who knew the house was displaced (Part One); a defective Sec. 209.0064 collection notice (Part Two); unsecured debt quietly converted into a secured claim (Part Three); a board vote on a vague agenda (Part Four); a $200/day fine resurrected from a 2022 notice (Part Five); CARES Act pandemic-relief money paid to the HOA followed by same-day notices and an intent-to-sue (Part Six); a phantom 2015 amendment vote that authorized the inflated dues (Part Seven); and an inflated bill supported by a sworn affidavit that misrepresented the work performed (Part Eight).

This part is about the fines themselves — and a statutory rule that may have made them unenforceable from the moment they were charged.

Texas Property Code Sec. 202.006 requires property owners’ associations to file all of their dedicatory instruments in the county real property records. Subsection (b) says, in language the Legislature does not typically use: a dedicatory instrument “has no effect until the instrument is filed in accordance with this section.” Subsection (c), added by SB 1588 in 2021, goes further: an HOA “may not collect a regular assessment… if the dedicatory instrument authorizing the collection of the regular assessment is not filed.”

The fines in this case were charged under a schedule that was never recorded. A former board member — the homeowner — knew when the schedule of fines was filed, and knew it never was. The HOA nonetheless sued for those fines, filed a lien based on them, and then — when challenged — dismissed its lawsuit, satisfied all liens, and reversed every fine and collection fee. That sequence is not a settlement. It is a concession that the fines were not lawfully owed in the first place.

The statute gave the homeowner a clean, structural defense to every fine the HOA ever tried to collect — and the HOA’s own conduct in the 2019 lawsuit proved the defense was correct.

What Sec. 202.006 Actually Says

The full text of Sec. 202.006, as amended through 2021:

(a) A property owners’ association shall file all dedicatory instruments in the real property records of each county in which the property to which the dedicatory instruments relate is located.

(b) A dedicatory instrument has no effect until the instrument is filed in accordance with this section.

(c) A property owners’ association may not collect a regular assessment, as defined by Section 209.002, if the dedicatory instrument authorizing the collection of the regular assessment is not filed as required by Subsection (a).

A “dedicatory instrument” is broadly defined in Sec. 202.001(1) to include restrictive covenants, conditions, and restrictions; bylaws; rules and regulations; and any amendment to those instruments. The schedule of fines an HOA uses to charge its members is a rule or regulation imposing a financial obligation. Under Sec. 202.001, it is a dedicatory instrument. Under Sec. 202.006(a), it must be filed. Under Sec. 202.006(b), it has no legal effect until it is filed.

Read that subsection again. Not “may be challenged if not filed.” Not “is voidable.” It “has no effect.” Period. An HOA fining a homeowner under an unrecorded schedule of fines is fining that homeowner under a document that, as a matter of statute, does not exist.

The Legislature made this rule strict on purpose. HB 1821 (2011) added subsection (b) so that dedicatory instruments would not bind owners until they were publicly filed. SB 1588 (2021) added subsection (c) to make sure HOAs could not even collect assessments under unfiled instruments. The direction of the statute is clear: unfiled dedicatory instruments do not bind owners.

How That Rule Interacts with Fines

A fine schedule is a “dedicatory instrument” under Sec. 202.001(1). It must be filed under Sec. 202.006(a). Until it is filed, it has no effect under Sec. 202.006(b). Fines charged under an unfiled schedule are therefore not legally owed — because the schedule authorizing them has no legal effect.

This rule is reinforced by other parts of Chapter 209:

• Sec. 209.0061 requires HOAs to adopt “reasonable written policies” regarding fines and enforcement. That policy must be in writing — but more importantly, it must be one the HOA actually adopted and made available. An unrecorded schedule of fines is, at best, not the operative policy.
• Sec. 209.006(b) requires notice before fines can be levied. The notice must “describe the violation or property damage that is the basis for the suspension action, charge, or fine.” A notice that references an unpublished, unfiled schedule does not give the owner the information the statute requires.
• Sec. 209.0063 sets the priority of payments, with fines in the lowest tier. The HOA cannot satisfy the priority rule using fines that were never lawfully charged.

The combination is decisive: a fine charged under an unfiled schedule is not legally owed; the lien securing such a fine is not lawfully created; and the foreclosure that collects such a fine is not lawfully justified.

The Pattern in This Case

In this case, the homeowner — a former board member — knew personally that the schedule of fines had never been recorded in the county real property records. The HOA nonetheless pursued fines against him through three escalating steps:

Step 1 — Sue for the fines

The HOA filed the first foreclosure action in 2019, based on the homeowner’s withholding of payment for fines. The HOA’s current law firm represented it in that action.

Step 2 — File a lien based on the fines

The HOA recorded a lien against the homeowner’s property based on the unpaid fines. Under Sec. 209.009, the HOA cannot foreclose a lien whose debt consists solely of fines — so the lien itself was doubly improper. Even setting aside Sec. 209.009, the underlying fines were charged under an unfiled schedule, so they were not lawfully owed, so the lien did not lawfully attach.

Step 3 — When challenged, drop everything

When the homeowner objected and threatened legal action, the HOA dismissed the 2019 lawsuit, satisfied all liens, and reversed every fine and collection fee. The HOA walked away from the entire matter.

That last step is the smoking gun — and it gets sharper once you see what came next.

Step 4 — Six years later, do it again

After the 2019 reversal, the HOA’s current law firm continued representing it. By October 2022, the underlying assessment debt had been satisfied through a federal CARES Act payment. (See Part Six.) In 2025, the same law firm filed a new lawsuit that once again relied on fines and fine-related claims, including a $200/day “fine” resurrected from a 2022 notice. (See Part Five.) And in November 2025, the HOA foreclosed on the home.

The same firm that had to back out of fines-only collection in 2019 came back in 2025 and tried to do it again.

That sequence is decisive on at least three points:

1. The HOA knew — as of 2019 — that fines under its unfiled schedule were not lawfully owed. A firm doesn’t dismiss a lawsuit, satisfy every lien, and reverse every fine it just spent months pursuing unless it has concluded the underlying claim is not enforceable. The reversal is not a tactical decision. It is a concession that the foundation was defective.
2. The HOA did nothing to fix the foundation. If the problem was that the schedule of fines had never been recorded, the HOA could have recorded it. It didn’t. By 2025, the schedule had still not been filed.
3. The 2025 foreclosure is the second time the law firm has been put on notice. A 2019 reversal satisfies any “I didn’t know” defense. A lawyer who dismissed a fines-only lawsuit once, satisfied the liens, and reversed every fine is on actual notice that fines under the unfiled schedule are not enforceable. Filing a 2025 foreclosure that relies on the same kind of fine-related claims is not an oversight. It is a deliberate course of conduct that the firm has already been told doesn’t work.

An HOA that knows it has a valid lien and valid fines does not give them all up for nothing in 2019 — and then, six years later, attempt to foreclose on substantially the same theory again.

Why This Matters for the 2025 Foreclosure

What makes the 2025 foreclosure particularly troubling is that it came after the HOA had already abandoned the same kind of fines once — by the same law firm that is representing it now.

The 2019 reversal was not a one-time correction. It was a structural defect the HOA knew about, never fixed, and then deliberately repeated in 2025. That pattern — a law firm tries fines-based collection, gets reversed, then tries again six years later with substantively the same conduct — does not look like oversight. It looks like a deliberate enforcement strategy that put the firm’s experience ahead of its duty of candor to the court.

If the schedule was unfiled in 2019, it was unfiled in 2022. If Sec. 202.006(b) made it no-effect in 2019, it made it no-effect in 2022. If the HOA’s 2022 reversal (Part Six) ended the matter, the 2025 lawsuit revived claims that the HOA had already conceded were not lawfully owed. The 2025 foreclosure is not just a procedural irregularity. It is the second attempt to use instruments that have “no effect” under Sec. 202.006(b) — this time, by a firm that knew better.

That makes the 2025 foreclosure a candidate not just for ordinary challenge but for sanction-level scrutiny. When a party obtains relief through a foreclosure and then files a separate action relying on substantially the same invalid foundation, every piece of paper filed in the new case becomes a candidate for legal-discipline review. The Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct require candor toward the tribunal (Rule 3.03) and prohibit asserting positions for which there is no nonfrivolous legal basis (Rule 3.01). Filing a foreclosure action based on fines that the filing party has previously been forced to abandon implicates both rules.

That means every fine the HOA has tried to collect from this homeowner — in 2019, in 2022, in 2025, and any time in between — was charged under an instrument that has “no effect” under Sec. 202.006(b). Every lien that included those fines was improperly recorded. Every foreclosure amount that included those fines was inflated by amounts the HOA had no legal authority to collect.

And the 2019 reversal proves the HOA knew it.

What the Statutes Build Together

The relevant provisions form a layered defense the homeowner can raise:

1. Sec. 202.006(b): The schedule of fines has no effect because it was never recorded. Fines charged under it are not lawfully owed.
2. Sec. 209.009: Even if the fines were valid, a lien consisting solely of fines and fine-related attorney’s fees cannot be foreclosed at all.
3. Sec. 209.0061: Fines must comply with a reasonable written policy. A schedule of fines that is unrecorded, vindictive, or imposed arbitrarily fails this standard.
4. Sec. 202.004(a): Discretionary enforcement is presumed reasonable only “unless the court determines by a preponderance of the evidence that the exercise of discretionary authority was arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory.” Fines described as arbitrary, capricious, vindictive, or punitive flip that presumption.
5. The HOA’s own conduct: The reversal of every fine and satisfaction of every lien is contemporaneous evidence that the HOA knew the fines were not enforceable. An HOA cannot now revive the same kind of fines and claim they were always valid.

These defenses are independent of the ones in Parts One through Eight. Even if every procedural challenge fails — every notice properly served, every hearing properly held, every vote properly counted — the Sec. 202.006(b) defense to the fines alone would prevent their inclusion in the lien and the foreclosure amount.

What Homeowners Should Do

If you are facing HOA fines, or have been in the past:

1. Check the county records. Go to the county clerk’s website or office and search for your HOA’s dedicatory instruments. Look for a “schedule of fines,” “fine schedule,” “enforcement policy,” or anything labeled as rules or regulations. If the schedule is not there, Sec. 202.006(b) says it has no effect.
2. Ask the HOA directly. Under Sec. 209.005 (records request), demand the recorded dedicatory instruments and the recorded schedule of fines. If they cannot produce a recorded schedule, that is direct evidence the fines they charged were unauthorized.
3. Check your own records. If you were ever a board member, your board-meeting minutes will reflect when the schedule was adopted. If they show it was adopted but the county records show it was never recorded, the gap is documented.
4. Watch for the Sec. 202.006(c) angle. SB 1588 in 2021 added subsection (c), which prohibits the HOA from collecting regular assessments if the authorizing instrument is not recorded. The same logic applies to fines — and in any case where the HOA is collecting on assessments, the rule is explicit. If your HOA’s assessment-authorizing amendment is unfiled, the HOA cannot lawfully collect a dollar of those assessments.
5. Document the arbitrary/vindictive character of the fines. Sec. 202.004(a) presumes HOA enforcement is reasonable — but the presumption flips on a preponderance showing that the enforcement was arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory. If the fines against you were retaliatory for asserting your rights, punitive in amount, or inconsistent with how the HOA treats other owners, that is evidence of arbitrary enforcement.
6. Ask whether your HOA previously backed down. If your HOA ever dropped fines, dismissed a suit, or satisfied liens after you challenged them, that is contemporaneous evidence the fines were never valid. Hold onto the dismissal orders, satisfaction documents, and any correspondence. They are not just history — they are admissions.

The Bigger Point

The Texas Legislature did not write Sec. 202.006(b) by accident. “Has no effect until filed” is a strict rule with a clear purpose: an HOA cannot bind owners to obligations that have never been made public. The schedule of fines is the kind of instrument that affects every owner’s wallet, and the Legislature decided that homeowners should not be bound by a schedule they cannot find in the public records.

When an HOA charges fines under an unfiled schedule, it is not enforcing a rule. It is making up the rule as it goes. When that HOA files a lien based on those fines, the lien is not security for a valid debt. When that HOA forecloses based on that lien, the foreclosure is not the product of lawful enforcement.

And when the HOA itself — faced with a credible challenge — backs out entirely, satisfies every lien, and reverses every fine, the concession is the most powerful evidence in the case. The HOA already admitted, by its own conduct, what the statute required.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Statutes cited: Tex. Prop. Code §§ 202.001, 202.006, 209.006, 209.0061, 209.009, 209.0063. This article is the ninth in a series on Texas HOA enforcement notices. Part One addressed certified-mail delivery and unclaimed notices; Part Two addressed the defective § 209.0064 collection notice; Part Three addressed the conversion of unsecured debt into a foreclosed lien; Part Four addressed the board vote authorized on a vague or missing agenda; Part Five addressed the resurrected 2022 violation used to claim a $200/day fine; Part Six addressed the federal CARES Act payment followed by same-day notices; Part Seven addressed the fraudulent 2015 amendment vote; Part Eight addressed the inflated bill and false affidavit.