F.S. 720.312 is the statute that says what happens when the HOA pays for work the parcel owner was supposed to pay for. Common scenarios: the association mows a lot the owner let go to seed, paints a fence the owner refused to repaint, replaces a fallen tree in the setback the owner ignored. The statute permits the association to recover those costs through the assessment-lien mechanism rather than chasing the owner through small-claims court. The procedure is narrow; boards that short-circuit it expose the recovery to member challenge.

What the statute says

F.S. 720.312 (paraphrased from the operative language):

If an association undertakes work on or about a parcel that the owner was obligated by the governing documents to perform, after giving the owner notice and an opportunity to cure, the association may charge the cost of the work as an assessment against the parcel + treat any unpaid portion as a lien on the parcel in the same manner as any other delinquent assessment.

Three pieces are load-bearing: "governing-documents obligation," "notice and opportunity to cure," and "same manner as delinquent assessment."

"Which owner obligations qualify?"

Three classes of obligations that typically trigger F.S. 720.312:

1. Lot maintenance covenants. Mowing, weeding, edge trimming, debris removal when the declaration makes the owner responsible.
2. Structural maintenance covenants. Roof repair, paint, fence repair, window replacement where the declaration assigns responsibility to the owner rather than the association.
3. Code-compliance obligations. Removal of a nuisance per declaration language or compliance with a cease-and-desist from local code enforcement where the declaration binds the owner.

Three obligations that do NOT qualify:

1. Obligations assigned to the association itself. The association cannot bill the owner for work the declaration says the association does.
2. Obligations created only by rule (not declaration). Board- adopted rules that impose owner obligations may be enforceable, but F.S. 720.312 requires the obligation to flow from the "governing documents." Rules are weaker authority for lien purposes.
3. Discretionary aesthetic judgments. "The yard does not match the community character" is not an obligation breach without specific declaration language.

"What notice-and-cure procedure does the statute require?"

The statute does not specify a precise notice form. Florida case law + CAM practice have converged on:

1. Written notice specifying the obligation + the breach. Certified mail to the parcel + any alternate owner address on file.
2. 30-day minimum cure period. Shorter windows (14 or 21 days) survive challenge when the declaration specifies them; absent specification, 30 days is defensible.
3. Documentation of the owner's non-response or inadequate response. Second written notice at day 30 + photographs before any association-performed work.

A board that bypasses this chain faces the same procedural-defect defense as a skipped fine-hearing.

"How does the recovery work mechanically?"

Three-step sequence:

1. Association performs the work. Contemporaneous documentation (invoices, photos, dated timesheet entries) gets collected.
2. Board passes a resolution charging the cost to the parcel. Resolution specifies the F.S. 720.312 basis, the declaration provision breached, the prior-notice dates, and the cost.
3. Cost gets added to the parcel's assessment ledger. The owner now owes the association for the recovered cost as if it were an assessment. Unpaid, the cost accrues interest + late fees under F.S. 720.3085, becomes a lien after a Notice of Lien, and is eligible for the foreclosure sequence if the balance exceeds the declaration + statutory thresholds.

"What if the owner disputes the charge?"

The owner's primary defenses:

1. Obligation-not-in-declaration defense. Owner argues the breach was under a rule, not the declaration. Moves the recovery outside F.S. 720.312 + into general contract law, where the lien mechanism does not attach.
2. Inadequate-notice defense. Owner argues the 30-day window was not run cleanly or the cure opportunity was not meaningful.
3. Unreasonable-cost defense. Owner argues the association overpaid for the work. Recoverable cost is typically market- rate for the specific service; associations that hire premium vendors without market-rate comparison expose themselves.

The association's counter: clean declaration text + dated notifications + documented market-rate comparison usually prevails.

"Does this apply to emergency work?"

F.S. 720.316 emergency powers + F.S. 720.312 recovery authority interact. During a governor-declared emergency, the association may enter a parcel to remove debris + perform emergency work per F.S. 720.316(1)(f). Recovery of the cost follows F.S. 720.312 procedure as if the work had been performed after ordinary notice, with the emergency declaration substituting for the usual 30-day cure period.

Document the emergency + the specific parcel work + the cost basis contemporaneously. Post-emergency members are much less likely to dispute the charge when the documentation is clean.

Why this post exists

HOAStream surfaces F.S. 720.312 alongside the declaration's owner- obligation clauses in under 500 milliseconds, so the CAM team has the recovery-authority framework ready before the association performs owner-obligation work + bills the cost to the parcel. Nothing in this post or in the product is legal advice. For a specific recovery matter where the owner is disputing, a retained Florida HOA attorney is the right call.

If you want the full cost-recovery statute stack alongside your community's declaration, sign up at /cam or /board.