Legislative Terminology
Ranking of Laws. The three sources of law are constitutional, statutory, and case law. The sources are ranked as follows: first, constitutional; second, statutory; and third, case law.
Laws & Ordinances. 
Bills (proposed changes to the law) are introduced into the legislature in Sacramento. Once a bill has been approved by both houses of the legislature (the Assembly and Senate) and signed by the Governor, a bill becomes a statute or "statutory law." The Davis-Stirling Act (Civ. Code §§ 4000-6150) is an example of statutory law. Regulatory laws are adopted by executive agencies based on statutes. Ordinances are passed by counties and cities.
Enrolled. A bill that passes both houses is sent for proofreading for consistency before being sent to the Governor for approval.
Transmitted to Governor. The governor must sign or veto legislation within ten days after transmittal, or it becomes law without his/her signature. For bills transmitted after session adjournment, the governor must act within 30 days after the end of the session, or the legislation becomes law without being signed.
Chaptered. A bill is "chaptered" once it is signed by the Governor. It becomes law on January 1 of the following year unless it contains an urgency clause (takes effect immediately) or specifies an effective date.
2024 Legislation Affecting HOAs
AB 1313. Older individuals/case management. The bill would, until January 1, 2030, require the department to establish a “case management services pilot program,” the purpose of which is to expand statewide the local capacity of supportive services programs. It would provide case management services to older individuals who need assistance to maintain health and economic stability, would require the Counties of Alameda, Marin, and Sonoma to participate in the pilot program, submit reports containing data on performance outcomes, and help determine the effectiveness of developing a master plan for aging. (Dead)
AB 2114. Inspection of exterior elevated elements. Civil Code § 5551 requires the board of a condominium association to conduct a visual inspection, at least every 9 years, of the exterior elevated elements for which the association has maintenance or repair responsibility. Prior to this bill, only architects or licensed structural engineers could perform the inspections. This bill authorizes licensed civil engineers to also perform the inspection. (Chaptered and effective as of July 15, 2024)
AB 2149 Alex Quanbeck Gate Safety Act. Would mandate new safety standards for certain gates in California. It defines a "regulated gate" as any gate over 50 pounds and more than 48 inches wide or 84 inches high in areas accessible to the public. If chaptered, by July 1, 2026, building departments must update their codes to ensure these gates meet specific safety requirements, such as ASTM standards and motorized operator compliance. Gate owners would need to inspect their gates by the same date, maintain compliance reports for at least 10 years, and ensure prompt repairs of any safety hazards. Failure to comply can result in fines and the designation of the gate as a public nuisance, with enforcement actions by local authorities.” (Dead)
AB 2159. Electronic secret ballot. This bill amended Civil Code §§ 5105 and 5115 and authorizes the use of electronic secret ballots if allowed by the Election Rules. The law does not apply to elections regarding regular or special assessments. (Chaptered)
AB 2260. FAIR Plan Reporting. The bill would require the California FAIR Plan Association, until December 31, 2027, to provide the specified information every quarter about policies and clearinghouse program progress to the Insurance Commissioner, the Assembly Committee on Insurance, and the Senate Committee on Insurance, and to post the information on the California FAIR Plan Association’s public internet website. Additionally, the bill would require insurance brokers to determine if California FAIR Plan Association policies can move to the voluntary insurance market before renewal. (Dead)
AB 2460. Member Election. This is a cleanup bill to AB 1458 brought to address some ambiguity on decreased quorums. There has been some confusion as to whether the board or the Association members have the authority to reconvene a meeting at the lower quorum percentage (20% unless the documents provide for a lower quorum threshold). As amended, the bill provides a statement that 20% of the association’s members (unless the documents allow for a lower percentage) voting in person, by proxy, or secret ballot satisfies the quorum for the election of directors at the reconvened meeting. (Chaptered)
AB 2996. California FAIR Plan Association. The California FAIR Plan Association is a joint reinsurance association in which all insurers licensed to write basic property insurance participate in administering a program for the equitable apportionment of basic property insurance for persons who are unable to obtain that coverage through normal channels. The California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank is authorized to issue bonds upon request by a state entity. This bill would authorize the California FAIR Plan Association to request the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank to issue bonds, and would authorize the bank to issue those bonds to enhance the California FAIR Plan Association’s solvency. (Dead)
SB 477 (urgency statute). Accessory Dwelling Units. This bill reorganized and renumbered the Government Code sections pertaining to ADUS and JADUs to Government Code §§ 66310-66341 and made minor modifications. (Chaptered)
SB 900. Repair and Maintenance. This bill makes community associations responsible for repairs and replacement of gas, heat, water, or electrical services when services involving these components are interrupted to the extent the components originate in the common area. Associations are required to commence a process to make necessary repairs within 14 days; however, if a vote is not taken within 14 days, the Association can obtain financing to commence the repairs without a membership vote. This action requires a resolution containing written findings on the nature of the association’s expenses and how the reserves would not cover the necessary costs. The bill also expands the definition of an “extraordinary expense” to include situations where threats to “personal health” are discovered, and not simply personal safety. The requirement to perform these repairs does not apply during declared states of disaster or emergency. (Chaptered)
SB 1060. Risk Modeling. The bill would authorize property insurers who use risk models for underwriting purposes to authorize the models to account for wildfire risk reduction associated with hazardous fuel reduction, home hardening, defensible space, and fire prevention activities. It would require insurers using such models for underwriting purposes to provide related compliance information annually to the Department of Insurance, beginning January 15, 2026. The information reported to the Department of insurance will be required to be posted on its internet website. The bill proposes to keep the statute in effect until January 1, 2036. (Dead)
SB 1212: Housing/investments. This bill would prohibit an “investment entity” (as defined by Corporations Code Sec. 23000, or a real estate investment trust or entity that manages funds pooled from investors and owes a fiduciary duty to those investors) from purchasing or acquiring an interest in a single family residence or other dwelling that consists of one or two units. These violating purchases or acquisitions would be considered void. Nonprofit organizations would be exempt from consideration as investment entities. As well, home sellers would avoid liability if the seller obtains a written release from the buyer stating the seller is not an investment entity. (Dead)
2024 HOA Case Law
Case Law Defined. Case law is created by judicial decisions in California's appellate courts and supreme court. Statutory law demands or prohibits certain acts. Case law interprets statutory law. The cases also explain how the justices arrived at their particular conclusions. If published, their rulings serve as precedence for cases that follow.
Colyear v. Rolling Hills Community Association of Rancho Palos Verdes. When the HOA was established in 1936, CC&Rs were filed with the initial properties that established a general plan for the development. Over time, other tracts were annexed into the development, each with a separate annexation declaration. Some annexations declarations included tree-trimming provisions while others did not. Plaintiff’s annexation declaration did not contain a tree-trimming provision. The court determined that the tree trimming provision in the general plan did not apply to those with declarations that did not contain the provision. Since the original CC&Rs containing the tree-trimming covenant was not recorded against plaintiff’s property, the court found he did not impliedly agree to the original CC&Rs’ terms.
Doskocz v. Als Lien Servs (partial publication). A homeowner filed a class action lawsuit against ALS Lien Services, a company hired by her HOA to collect delinquent assessments. The homeowner claimed that ALS violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and California’s unfair competition law. The key issue to the dispute was ALS’ practice of having homeowners waive Civil Code § 5655(a) when entering into payment plans for delinquent assessments. Section 5655(a) mandates that payments must first be applied to outstanding assessments before any other charges (i.e., collection costs). Both the federal and state courts held that the waiver of Section 5655(a) was void because it contravened public policy. The courts reasoned that the primary purpose of Section 5655(a) is to protect homeowners from foreclosure by ensuring that payments are allocated to reduce their delinquent assessments promptly, thereby safeguarding their equity and rights. As such, any attempt to waive this statutory protection would undermine the legislative intent and public interest served by the provision, rendering such waivers void as against public policy. The court concluded that HOAs and third-party collection agencies must abide by Civil Code § 5655(a), which cannot be waived.
Dubac v. Itkoff. An owner within a HOA was sued for making false and defamatory claims and statements about another HOA member, primarily through email. The owner who made the statements filed an anti-SLAPP motion, contending that the statements were of public interest and thus protected. The court ruled that the statements did not qualify as public discourse but pertained to private matters between HOA members. The court's rationale was that the content and context of these statements, primarily conveyed through emails, were focused on personal disputes between neighbors rather than addressing broader public concerns about the HOA’s governance. Moreover, the limited identity and number of speakers involved, confined to neighbors within a small community, indicated the private nature of the issue rather than its public relevance. Notably, these emails were not disseminated to the general public but were directed specifically to individuals or groups within the community, emphasizing the confined audience. The court underscored that HOAs, in essence, represent the opposite of "public" entities; they are inherently private organizations. The fundamental purpose of HOAs is to exercise control over private property to which the public has no inherent right of access.
Haidet v. Del Mar Woods Homeowners Assn. Condominium owners Gregory and Kathleen Haidet sued their HOA and others, alleging that their upstairs neighbors' improperly installed floors were a nuisance. The trial court sustained the HOA's demurrer to the initial complaint, dismissing one cause of action without leave to amend and two causes of action with leave to amend. The Haidets opted not to amend their claims against the HOA in their first amended complaint. The HOA filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice, which the trial court granted and awarded the HOA attorney's fees of over $48,000.00.
Morris v. W. Hayden Estates. Plaintiffs hosted a large Christmas event outside their home and wanted to continue the tradition when they moved to a new neighborhood governed by an HOA. The board drafted a letter to plaintiffs expressing concern because some residents were avowed atheists, and their Christmas display would attract riff-raff like those by WalMart. Before sending the letter, the board amended it to eliminate references to atheists and riff-raff. Instead, the letter expressed concerns for residents who were not Christians. Plaintiffs also claimed the board at a membership meeting painted the Christmas event negatively, and residents voted against allowing it. Plaintiffs sued, claiming religious discrimination. A jury found in plaintiffs’ favor, but the district court granted judgment for the HOA on some issues. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit panel found sufficient evidence that the HOA's conduct in sending the letter to plaintiffs regarding their holiday event interfered with plaintiffs’ rights and was motivated by religious animus.
Nat'l Small Business United v. Yellen. On March 1, 2024, a federal court in Alabama ruled that the Corporate Transparency Act is unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the ruling only benefited the plaintiff in the case. For more information, The Corporate-Transparency Act.
Woolard v. 01174210 Regent Real Estate Servs. Neighboring tenant residents at an HOA did not get along and frequently argued with each other. Their dispute escalated to a physical altercation involving alleged punching, kicking, assault with a flashlight, and stabbing. The owner of one of the units emailed the HOA’s community manager dozens of times regarding the issues concerning their tenants and the neighbor’s tenants. The plaintiffs (the victim tenants) filed a lawsuit against the HOA and its management company, alleging negligence, among other claims. The HOA and community management company filed a joint motion for summary judgment, claiming they did not have a responsibility or obligation to intervene and stop acts of physical violence or to act as a peacemaker in the community. The trial court granted the motion, and the appellate court affirmed it. In so holding, the appellate court found that the HOA and its management company did not owe a duty to mediate, de-escalate, or resolve disputes between neighbors. Additionally, since the plaintiffs were tenants and not members of the HOA, the court found they were in a limited relationship with the HOA and the managing agent and had no legal standing to maintain a complaint that the HOA failed to enforce its governing documents adequately.
Unpublished Cases
The following cases are unpublished opinions and are not binding precedents. However, they give insight into how future courts might deal with similar issues.
Bear Valley Springs Condo Ass'n v. Pina. A homeowner contacted the HOA’s insurance company, claiming the board was negligent in maintaining the roof over her unit. The HOA’s insurance company subsequently issued a notice of non-renewal of the policy. The HOA sued the homeowner for intentional interference with economic relationship and negligence. The homeowner filed an anti-SLAPP motion which the trial court and appellate court denied because the communications the homeowner had with the insurance company were “privately” broadcast.
Bock v. Brentwood Homeowners Association. This is a case from an Idaho Federal District Court. Because it relies on Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal decisions that apply to California federal cases, it is illustrative. In this case, plaintiffs have limited mobility, which they claim affected their ability to care for their property. Although the plaintiffs have not shared their diagnoses with other members of the subdivision, they have disclosed to some members that they have difficulty maintaining their property. Plaintiffs submitted a landscaping application, which the architectural committee rejected because the plan used a different color of gravel from others, extended the gravel area all the way to the curb, and removed too much grass. Plaintiffs filed a complaint claiming the rejection of their plan was, in part, a violation of the Fair Housing Act. Despite the denial of their application, the landscaping was completed. The HOA argued that the plaintiffs weren’t aggrieved persons. The Court agreed that plaintiffs’ allegations do not constitute an injury-in-fact. Plaintiffs sought damages for emotional distress, humiliation, and embarrassment caused by the HOA’s conduct. These allegations “though rather bare” sufficiently allege injury-in-fact. Therefore, the Court found that while the plaintiffs had standing under the FHA, they failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. While some subdivision members knew of their physical limitations, plaintiffs never disclosed specific details about their conditions. While the plaintiffs do not need to disclose the details of their disabilities, they must provide sufficient information to the HOA such that it is aware the plaintiffs have disabilities. Overall, the FHA claim was denied because the HOA had allowed the landscaping that the plaintiffs installed, which they alleged was needed to accommodate a disability.
Casa Blanca Beach Estates Owners’ Assn. v. County of Santa Barbara. The HOA’s predecessor recorded an offer to dedicate an easement for public beach access and to construct a walkway within 180 days of acceptance in 1990. The County accepted the offer in 2011. In 2017, the County and Coastal Commission notified the HOA that it was in violation for not constructing the walkway. The HOA applied for a coastal development permit to build the walkway, but the application was deemed incomplete. In 2018, the HOA filed a complaint seeking declaratory relief that it was not yet obligated to build the walkway. The trial court found the HOA failed to exhaust administrative remedies. On appeal, the court reasoned that the exhaustion of the administrative remedies doctrine requires seeking relief from the administrative agency before going to court. Here, neither the Commission nor the County made a final decision on the HOA’s obligations, fines, penalties, or permit application. Therefore, the HOA’s claim was not ripe for judicial review. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in favor of the County and Commission.
Gair v. Hill. Plaintiff sought a civil harassment restraining order against defendant, then president of the HOA. Plaintiff alleged that defendant followed her in his car on the property and that he used his car to “run me down on the property” by “rid[ing] behind me until I moved out [of] the way as if he was going to hit me.” The petition also alleged defendant was “verbally abus[ive]” and “raised his cane” during an interaction relating to a sign plaintiff installed in the common area. The parties agreed to a temporary restraining order, but later that month, defendant moved for reconsideration. The trial court conducted additional hearings and received further documentary and testimonial evidence. The parties cited no evidence that defendant violated the temporary restraining order in any respect. The trial court entered a one-year restraining order directing defendant to stay at least 25 yards away from plaintiff, three family members, and her apartment. Defendant appealed. The appellate court reversed on the grounds that there was no likelihood of future harm to support the issuance of the restraining order. Defendant was no longer involved in HOA decisions regarding the unit where plaintiff lived and was no longer patrolling the property. The trial court’s order was reversed. Defendant was awarded his costs on appeal.
Galarza v. Quam Props. Hawaii. This is a case from a Hawaii Federal District Court. Because it relies on Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal decisions that apply to California federal cases, it is illustrative. Plaintiffs allege their HOA targeted them because they assisted the US Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Justice with investigations into serious accessibility deficiencies with the HOA. The HOA then passed a rule to stop letting dogs run off-leash at its catchment basin. Plaintiffs said this decision targeted them and brought a lawsuit for unlawful retaliation under the Fair Housing Act. They sought damages and injunctive relief, including the reinstatement of the dog off-leash policy. The Court found that the policy change did not amount to an adverse action under the Fair Housing Act, and therefore, the complaint failed to state a claim as to one plaintiff and three defendants. Notably, however, the Court allowed the lawsuit to proceed against the remaining defendants, which included the HOA.
Mays v. Oakview Homeowners Association. The HOA was unable to achieve a quorum at its annual meetings for several years, resulting in the same board members retaining their positions beyond term limits. Plaintiff petitioned for a writ of mandate directing the HOA to hold elections. Plaintiff ran for a seat on the board in 2020, 2021, and 2022, but every year, a quorum of the membership was not achieved, and an election of directors did not take place. Although the bylaws said that the members could adjourn the meeting to another date at least five days away, the elections were never adjourned. Plaintiff filed a Writ of Mandate ordering elections to be held, which was granted in part by the trial court, ordering the HOA to hold elections for positions where terms had expired. The HOA subsequently appealed the order requiring it to continue elections, even absent a quorum. The HOA argued that under the bylaws the board could not adjourn the membership meetings – only the members at the meeting could vote to adjourn the meetings to another date and time. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, stating that the intent of the governing documents was to have the members elect directors each year, and the HOA through the board, failed to comply with the governing documents by not holding annual elections to replace board members whose terms had expired. The court found that the HOA’s failure to enforce the governing documents to allow the members to elect directors each year resulted in an abuse of power.
McCreary v. Vicara Homeowners Association. Plaintiff McCreary sued the Vicara Homeowners Association for failure to provide him his due process rights. The complaint in this case did not mention, reference, allude to or cite the governing documents. Plaintiff failed to respond to discovery or appear at his deposition, so the HOA successfully filed a motion to compel. Plaintiff then dismissed his complaint without prejudice. The HOA filed a motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to Civil Code Section 5975 (which provides “In an action to enforce the governing documents, the prevailing party shall be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.”. The trial court denied the HOA’s motion finding it was not the prevailing party. The appellate court held that Plaintiff’s action was not one to enforce the governing documents and therefore the trial court and the appellate court found that the HOA was not entitled to attorney’s fees, even assuming it was the prevailing party. Take away: A plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of a complaint does not automatically make the defendant the prevailing party or entitle it to attorney’s fees. In this case, the plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion for attorney’s fees, so it was difficult to determine whether he dismissed the case because he achieved any of his litigation goals or for other reasons.
R-Ranch Property Owners’ Association v. Bullock. This case arises out of a 2012 recall of four members of the board of the the HOA. The HOA is not a residential community, but a 5,000 acre recreational community with open spaces and common facilities for the benefit of its members. The court reasoned that because R-Ranch has no separately owned interests, the Davis-Stirling Act does not apply in its entirety, though certain provisions were incorporated into the governing documents.
Warner v. Thompson. – An elderly and disabled woman and her caregivers contracted COVID-19 during the pandemic. Defendant instructed the caregivers to relocate to the woman’s condominium building to quarantine together. They did not disclose they had COVID-19. Plaintiff, the HOA’s president, oversaw the HOA’s implementation of comprehensive safety protocols to prevent COVID-19 on its premises before vaccines were available and before there was clarity on how the virus spread. The board discovered the caregivers were entering the building and using the premises without disclosing their COVID-19 diagnosis and voted to ban them from the premises indefinitely. This effectively banned the elderly woman since she needed her caregivers. The woman sued the HOA for discrimination.The board president filed a cross-complaint against the woman and the caregivers based on entering the building and using the premises while infected with COVID-19. Defendant filed an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the cross-complaint. The trial court partially granted and partially denied defendant’s motion. The court denied the motion as to the nuisance and negligence causes of actions because those claims arose from the caregivers’ actions that potentially exposed the HOA’s residents to the coronavirus. The Court determined that the “mixed” emotional distress and elder abuse causes of actions included allegations of both protected and unprotected speech activity.
ASSISTANCE: Associations needing legal assistance can contact us. To stay current with issues affecting community associations, subscribe to the Davis-Stirling Newsletter.