What is the difference between terminating for cause and without cause?

Without cause means you can end the agreement for any reason or none, by giving the stated notice. For cause means you must establish a specific failure, usually defined in the agreement, and usually with a cure period attached.

Most agreements offer both, and the practical difference is the notice period and the money. No-cause might require ninety days and an early termination fee; for-cause might allow thirty days and none. That gap is why Boards reach for cause — and why they should be careful about it.

Cause provisions almost always include a right to cure: written notice specifying the failure, then fifteen or thirty days for the company to fix it. Skip the notice, or terminate before the cure period runs, and the association is the party in breach. That converts a clean exit into a dispute.

Unless the conduct is serious and well documented, most Boards are better served by the no-cause route even at some cost. It is certain, it is quick, and it does not require proving anything. Where you genuinely have cause — missed statutory deadlines, unreconciled accounts, funds mishandled — document it contemporaneously in the minutes and get counsel involved before the notice goes out.