California HOA Governing Statute
California HOA Governing Statute
1. Overview — How HOAs are governed in California
California runs the largest homeowners association market in the United States. As of the Foundation for Community Association Research’s 2024 Statistical Review, the state holds 51,250 common interest developments that house 14,412,000 residents — about 36.8 percent of the population. Its governing statute, the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, ranks among the most detailed bespoke (non-UCIOA) frameworks in the country.1
The Act lives at California Civil Code § 4000 et seq. Assembly Bill 805 (2012) comprehensively reorganized it effective January 1, 2014, moving Davis-Stirling from the former Cal. Civ. Code § 1350 series to the current § 4000 series — and it did so without altering most of the substantive rules.2
Davis-Stirling reaches every residential common interest development in California: condominiums, planned developments, stock cooperatives, and community apartment projects, whether they were created before or after the Act’s January 1, 1986 effective date.3
One of the statute’s most distinctive features is the assessment cap in Cal. Civ. Code § 5605. It bars a board from imposing a regular assessment more than 20 percent greater than the prior year, or aggregate special assessments exceeding 5 percent of budgeted gross expenses, unless a majority of a quorum of members approves.4 Davis-Stirling also routes most enforcement disputes between an association and a member through alternative dispute resolution before litigation under Cal. Civ. Code § 5925 et seq., and § 5950 requires the filing party to certify that step in the initial pleading.5
California is not a Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act state. Davis-Stirling predates UCIOA and the drafters wrote it independently, so UCIOA mechanisms such as deemed-rejection budget ratification do not carry over into California law.6
No California agency regulates ongoing HOA operations. The Department of Real Estate reviews public reports for new common interest developments under the Subdivided Lands Act, but it exits the picture once a project is built out and sold.7 Boards, managers, and counsel therefore work primarily from the statute itself, the recorded governing documents, and a sizable body of California appellate case law.
2. The statutory framework
The Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act
The Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act occupies Cal. Civ. Code § 4000 through § 6150 and makes up Part 5 of Division 4 of the Civil Code.8 The Legislature originally enacted it in 1985 (Stats. 1985, ch. 874), effective January 1, 1986, consolidating and standardizing rules that had been scattered across the Condominium Act of 1963 and other authorities.9 AB 805 (2012) then repealed the original Title 6 of Part 4 of Division 2 of the Civil Code (former § 1350 et seq.) and replaced it with the current § 4000 series, operative January 1, 2014.10
The statute applies to all “common interest developments” as Cal. Civ. Code § 4100 defines them, covering four project types: community apartment projects, condominium projects, planned developments, and stock cooperatives.11 An “association” is the entity, typically incorporated as a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation, that the declaration charges with management.12 “Common area” is the property the members or the association own in common, and “exclusive use common area” is a portion of the common area set aside for one or more — but fewer than all — of the separate-interest owners (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 4095, 4145).13
The Act runs through chapters that cover general provisions and definitions (§§ 4000–4190), governing documents (§§ 4200–4370), ownership rights and interests (§§ 4500–4790), governance including elections and open meetings (§§ 4800–5145), records inspection (§§ 5200–5240), insurance and liability (§§ 5800–5810), discipline and enforcement (§§ 5850–5865), assessments and assessment collection (§§ 5600–5740), and internal and alternative dispute resolution (§§ 5900–5965).14
Two provisions deserve particular attention, because they have no UCIOA analogue and they constrain board action regardless of contrary language in the governing documents. First, Cal. Civ. Code § 5605(b) provides that “notwithstanding more restrictive limitations placed on the board by the governing documents, the board may not impose a regular assessment that is more than 20 percent greater than the regular assessment for the association’s preceding fiscal year or impose special assessments which in the aggregate exceed 5 percent of the budgeted gross expenses of the association for that fiscal year without the approval of a majority of a quorum of members.”15
Second, Cal. Civ. Code § 5930 bars an association or member from filing an enforcement action involving the governing documents in superior court unless the parties have endeavored to submit the dispute to alternative dispute resolution, and § 5950 requires the filing party to attach a certificate of compliance to the initial pleading.16
Structurally, Davis-Stirling differs from UCIOA in ways that matter to multi-state practice. UCIOA contemplates a single uniform set of governance rules and a deemed-ratification budget mechanism under UCIOA § 3-103(c). California instead requires an affirmative member vote for assessment increases that exceed the § 5605 thresholds, and it uses prescriptive election procedures under §§ 5100–5145 rather than UCIOA’s quorum-based scheme.17
Pre-2014 reorganization and citation continuity
AB 805 (2012) repealed and re-enacted the entire Act effective January 1, 2014 with renumbered sections. Most substantive rules carried forward; the reorganization was primarily structural, as the Legislature sought better readability and a coherent chapter structure after nearly three decades of piecemeal amendment.18
Because pre-2014 appellate decisions cite the former § 1350 series, practitioners working with older case law must translate citations to the current § 4000 series. The California Law Revision Commission published an official conversion table, and several practitioner sites maintain searchable cross-references between the former and current sections.19 The substantive holdings of pre-2014 decisions generally remain good law unless a later statutory amendment supersedes them, but each holding depends on whether the cited provision carried forward rather than dropped out.
The continuing role of CC&Rs and corporate law under Davis-Stirling
Davis-Stirling does not displace the recorded declaration. Many statutory provisions function as defaults that the declaration may vary, while others are mandatory and override contrary governing-document language — including the § 5605 assessment cap, the § 5100 et seq. election procedures, the § 5200 et seq. records-inspection regime, and the § 5930 ADR prerequisite.20 Cal. Civ. Code § 4205 sets the order of precedence: in the event of any inconsistency among the governing documents, the declaration controls over the bylaws, the bylaws control over the operating rules, and to the extent the governing documents conflict with the law, “the law shall prevail.”21 A declaration can also lapse on its own terms, and one new statute addresses that in a single county: AB 2692 (Ch. 124, Stats. 2026), an urgency measure effective August 24, 2026, added Civil Code § 4276, which lets a declaration terminated by its own initial-term provisions be reinstated by the percentage the declaration requires to extend its term, or by a majority of all members if it is silent, effective only after member approval, written certification by the designated officer or the president, and recording; the new term is the initial term or 20 years, whichever is less, and copies go to each member under § 4040.22 Section 4276(f) limits it to Los Angeles County, and § 4276(g) repeals it on January 1, 2028.22
Most California HOAs organize as nonprofit mutual benefit corporations, which subjects them to the California Nonprofit Mutual Benefit Corporation Law at Cal. Corp. Code § 7110 et seq. for matters Davis-Stirling does not address — including the standard of care for directors under § 7231, election and recall mechanics under §§ 7510 and 7616, member inspection of corporate records, and indemnification.23 That corporate-formation act also settles a federal question many boards still ask about: because a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation comes into existence by filing with the California Secretary of State, it is a “domestic entity” under the current federal beneficial-ownership reporting rule and owes no BOI report to FinCEN, a status HOA Weekly’s federal Corporate Transparency Act coverage tracks in detail.24 That interplay was on display in Takiguchi v. Venetian Condominiums Maintenance Corp., 90 Cal. App. 5th 880 (2023), where the Fourth District held that Cal. Corp. Code § 7510 authorizes a court to order an HOA to count ballots cast in a thwarted election.25
The Subdivided Lands Act at Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 11000 et seq. governs the developer phase. Before units may be offered for sale in a new common interest development, the Department of Real Estate must issue a public report based on its review of the proposed declaration, bylaws, budget, and reserve study under Bus. & Prof. Code § 11018.6.26 Once the project is built out and turned over to the association, the Department exercises no ongoing supervisory role.
Finally, common-law contract and property doctrine continues to inform how courts interpret recorded covenants. California courts treat recorded CC&Rs as equitable servitudes that are presumptively enforceable under Cal. Civ. Code § 5975, and they apply a deferential standard of review to board decisions made in good faith on a reasonable investigation under Lamden v. La Jolla Shores Clubdominium Homeowners Assn., 21 Cal. 4th 249 (1999).27 Operationally, this means a California board must evaluate its compliance posture against four layers in sequence: mandatory Davis-Stirling provisions, the recorded declaration, applicable Corporations Code rules, and the operating rules and bylaws.
3. Compliance obligations created by the statutory framework
Governance obligations
Davis-Stirling imposes detailed governance requirements that the governing documents cannot vary. The Common Interest Development Open Meeting Act at Cal. Civ. Code § 4900 et seq. requires that board meetings stay open to members, that the association distribute notice and an agenda at least four days before a regular meeting under § 4920, and that the board not act on business outside a properly noticed meeting except in narrowly defined emergencies under § 4923.28
Election procedures at Cal. Civ. Code § 5100 et seq. require secret ballots, an independent inspector of elections, and adopted election rules. SB 323 (Wieckowski, 2019), signed October 12, 2019 and effective January 1, 2020, overhauled election law and imposed prescriptive ballot, candidate-qualification, and inspector-of-elections requirements, and AB 2159 (2024) added an opt-in electronic voting framework in new § 5116 effective January 1, 2025.29
Members may inspect association records under Cal. Civ. Code § 5200 et seq., with enhanced records subject to additional protections.30 Directors of associations organized as nonprofit mutual benefit corporations owe the duty of care that Cal. Corp. Code § 7231 prescribes, which requires good-faith action with the care an ordinarily prudent person would use in similar circumstances.31 All four sets of obligations are mandatory.
Financial obligations
Boards must levy assessments sufficient to perform the association’s obligations under Cal. Civ. Code § 5600(a), and assessments may not exceed the amount necessary to defray the costs for which the board levies them under § 5600(b).32 The § 5605 assessment cap is mandatory and applies notwithstanding more restrictive limits in the governing documents: a regular assessment increase exceeding 20 percent over the prior year, or aggregate special assessments exceeding 5 percent of budgeted gross expenses, requires approval by a majority of a quorum of members.33
Cal. Civ. Code §§ 5550 and 5570 govern reserves: the association must perform a full reserve study with visual inspection at least every three years, update it annually, and review the reserve account quarterly.34 Associations that meet statutory size thresholds must obtain annual reviewed or audited financial statements under Cal. Civ. Code § 5305, and every association must prepare an annual budget report under § 5300 and distribute it 30 to 90 days before the fiscal year begins.35 These obligations are mandatory; the governing documents may impose stricter requirements but cannot loosen them.
Disclosure obligations
Davis-Stirling requires two recurring annual disclosures. The annual budget report under Cal. Civ. Code § 5300 must include a pro forma operating budget, a summary of the reserve study, the percent-funded calculation, the assessment and reserve funding plan, and insurance coverage summaries.36 The annual policy statement under Cal. Civ. Code § 5310 must include the name and address of the person designated to receive official communications to the association, a statement of assessment collection policies, the dispute resolution procedures, architectural guidelines, and the association’s enforcement and discipline policy.37
On resale, the seller must give the prospective purchaser the documents that Cal. Civ. Code § 4525 lists, including the CC&Rs, bylaws, operating rules, the most recent annual budget report and policy statement, assessment and lien information, and pending-litigation disclosures.38 These obligations are mandatory.
Dispute resolution obligations
Internal dispute resolution under Cal. Civ. Code § 5900 et seq. lets a member request a meet-and-confer with the board; if the association lacks a written procedure, the default procedure in § 5915 applies, and the association cannot refuse a member’s request, though the member may refuse the association’s.39
Alternative dispute resolution under Cal. Civ. Code § 5925 et seq. is mandatory before most enforcement actions: under § 5930, an association or member may not file an enforcement action in superior court for declaratory, injunctive, or writ relief, or for that relief together with monetary damages within the small claims jurisdictional limits, unless the parties have endeavored to submit the dispute to ADR.40 The filing party must serve a Request for Resolution under § 5935 and, when it later files suit, attach a certificate to the initial pleading under § 5950; failure to do so is grounds for dismissal absent substantial prejudice.41
A court may weigh a party’s refusal to participate in ADR when it awards attorneys’ fees and costs to the prevailing party under § 5960. These ADR obligations are mandatory, and the governing documents cannot waive them.
4. California’s recent legislative and judicial activity
Recent bills
Lawmakers have moved quickly in the past two sessions, reshaping how associations vote, fine, and handle utility repairs in day-to-day operations.
AB 2159 · Maienschein · Statutes of 2024
AB 2159 added new Cal. Civ. Code § 5116 and amended §§ 5105, 5110, 5115, 5120, 5125, 5200, and 5260 to let HOAs run director elections, recalls, and governing-document amendments by electronic secret ballot, with member opt-out to paper. The bill prohibits electronic voting on regular and special assessment approvals and requires the association to adopt amended election rules at least 90 days before any election that uses electronic ballots.[42]
| Property managers | Election-rule templates for electronic ballots add opt-in/opt-out language, ballot-custody procedures, and the prohibition on floor nominations. |
| HOA board members | An association that votes electronically must adopt amended election rules at least 90 days before the next election, and its inspector runs the dual-track ballot framework. |
| Community association attorneys | Existing election-rule amendments are measured against new § 5116, and contrary bylaw provisions are subject to amendment under § 4205 supremacy. |
| Homeowners | Members may opt in or out of electronic voting, but the right to vote by paper ballot stays available. |
SB 900 · Umberg · Statutes of 2024
SB 900 amended Cal. Civ. Code §§ 4775, 5550, and 5610. Unless the governing documents say otherwise, the association takes responsibility for repair, replacement, or maintenance of any gas, heat, water, or electrical service interruption that originates in the common area, and it must commence repairs within 14 days. The board may impose an emergency assessment or obtain a loan without a member vote when reserves fall short, and the relevant utility lines must appear as line items in the reserve study.[43]
| Property managers | The repair duty covers utility-line emergencies, and the reserve-study scope includes utility infrastructure line items. |
| HOA board members | The board has authority to incur an emergency assessment or loan under § 5610 procedures, and the 14-day commencement standard governs maintenance protocols. |
| Community association attorneys | Advise on how this interacts with existing CC&R maintenance allocations; the default rule applies only when the governing documents do not specify otherwise. |
| Homeowners | Utility interruptions originating in common areas now carry a faster response duty, and emergency assessments without a member vote are possible. |
AB 130 · Committee on Budget · Statutes of 2025
AB 130 is principally a CEQA and housing-development bill, but late amendments before passage modified Cal. Civ. Code §§ 5850 and 5855 to cap monetary fines for governing-document violations at $100 per violation — unless the board makes a written finding at an open meeting that the violation may produce an adverse health or safety impact on the common area or another member’s property. The bill also prohibits late fees and interest on fines, requires an opportunity to cure before the hearing, and shortens the post-hearing notice period from 15 to 14 days.[44]
| Property managers | Fine schedules and disciplinary-notice templates are affected at once; schedules above $100 are unenforceable unless a documented health-or-safety finding supports a higher amount. |
| HOA board members | Fine schedules must reflect the cap, and hearing procedures must include the cure-before-hearing and financial-commitment-to-cure mechanisms in new § 5855(c). |
| Community association attorneys | Counsel boards on the open-meeting written finding required to exceed the $100 cap, and on the greater likelihood that enforcement now means litigation rather than escalating fines. |
| Homeowners | Most rule violations now carry a maximum $100 fine, and an owner who cures before the hearing or commits financially to cure cannot be disciplined. |
Recent court rulings
California’s appellate courts have sharpened the limits of board discretion, the reach of fee-shifting, and what actually counts as a board meeting.
Ridley v. Rancho Palma Grande Homeowners Association
The Sixth District affirmed a $1.8 million judgment against an HOA that took more than 19 months to investigate and remediate water intrusion in a common-area crawlspace, holding that substantial evidence supported the trial court’s finding that the association breached its CC&R duty to investigate and repair the common area. The court further held that the business judgment rule and the Lamden deference rule do not protect a board that acts unreasonably or in bad faith, and that gross negligence vitiated an exculpatory clause in the CC&Rs. The opinion was ordered published September 29, 2025.[45]
| Property managers | Investigation and remediation timelines carried the case: delays measured in months supported findings of gross negligence and loss of exculpatory protection. |
| HOA board members | Lamden deference is conditional, not automatic; it turns on the investigation, expert consultation, and decision basis behind any common-area maintenance decision. |
| Community association attorneys | Cite Ridley on the limits of business-judgment and Lamden deference, and reassess CC&R exculpatory clauses for enforceability against gross-negligence claims. |
| Homeowners | Owners keep the right to enforce CC&R maintenance duties under § 5975, and substantial damages, including punitive damages, are available where the association acts in bad faith. |
Haidet v. Del Mar Woods Homeowners Assn.
The Fourth District, Division One, affirmed dismissal with prejudice and a $48,229.08 attorneys’ fee award to the association under Cal. Civ. Code § 5975(c), holding that an HOA that achieves its litigation objective through a successful motion to dismiss qualifies as the prevailing party for fee-shifting purposes.[46]
| Property managers | Flag plaintiff demand letters for early counsel review; § 5975(c) fee-shifting now reaches dismissals that achieve association litigation objectives. |
| HOA board members | The prevailing-party fee exposure runs to both sides when a board authorizes or opposes enforcement litigation. |
| Community association attorneys | Haidet applies in fee motions where dismissal achieves the litigant’s objective; the prevailing-party determination is fact-driven and reviewed for abuse of discretion. |
| Homeowners | Plaintiffs who voluntarily abandon claims against an HOA risk dismissal with prejudice and a substantial fee award. |
LNSU #1, LLC v. Alta Del Mar Coastal Collection Community Assn.
The Fourth District, Division One, held that a “board meeting” under the Open Meeting Act at Cal. Civ. Code § 4090(a) requires an in-person gathering of a quorum at the same time and physical location, and that email exchanges among directors discussing association business do not constitute a board meeting so long as the directors take no action in the emails.[47]
| Property managers | Email between directors that merely discusses business does not, by itself, violate the Open Meeting Act, but action items still need a vote at a properly noticed meeting. |
| HOA board members | Board action by email is barred except in qualifying emergencies under § 4910(b), and the written content of email discussions can be quoted in later litigation. |
| Community association attorneys | Reconcile LNSU #1 with § 4910’s prohibition on acting outside a meeting, and consider AB 648 (2023) teleconference rules for fully remote meetings. |
| Homeowners | Members cannot compel notice and participation in director email exchanges, but the prohibition on action outside a meeting remains in force. |
Active legislative debates
Several measures moved in the 2025–2026 session, which ended August 31, 2026, touching utility repairs, electronic ballots, amendment thresholds, management procedures, and construction defect claims.
AB 1892 (Davies)
AB 1892 (Chapter 169, Statutes of 2026), signed August 31, 2026 with an operative date of January 1, 2027, rewords the utility service repair obligations enacted by SB 900 in § 4775 and amends §§ 5103 and 5105, shortening the election-by-acclamation notice timeline and directing the electronic-voting notice to members who vote electronically.[48]
| Property managers | The law addresses utility-repair timelines and electronic-ballot notice steps that layer onto existing SB 900 protocols. |
| HOA board members | Updated election-notice obligations apply to elections governed by the amended §§ 5103 and 5105 from January 1, 2027. |
| Community association attorneys | The amendments reword the § 4775 utility-responsibility default and change the §§ 5103 and 5105 notice rules. |
| Homeowners | The law directs electronic-voting notice to the members who vote electronically. |
AB 2035 (Dixon)
AB 2035 would lower the court-approved CC&R amendment threshold for qualifying senior housing developments, making it easier for those communities to update their governing documents; it passed both houses and was presented to the Governor on September 4, 2026.[48]
| Property managers | In qualifying senior communities, a lower threshold would make amendment petitions easier to support. |
| HOA board members | Qualifying senior-housing associations would gain an easier path to amend CC&Rs through a court petition under § 4275. |
| Community association attorneys | Any reduced threshold turns on whether a community qualifies as senior housing. |
| Homeowners | In qualifying senior developments, amendments may pass with a lower approval bar. |
AB 1184 (Patterson)
AB 1184 would have adjusted association management standards and board meeting procedures; it passed both houses, but the Assembly took no concurrence vote before the August 31, 2026 deadline, so it did not become law.[48]
| Property managers | Meeting-agenda and minute rules remain those of existing law, because the bill died. |
| HOA board members | The bill added no new meeting-procedure requirements under the Open Meeting Act. |
| Community association attorneys | The bill made no changes to management standards. |
| Homeowners | Members’ meeting rights remain those of existing law. |
AB 1903
AB 1903 would have rewritten the Right to Repair Act’s construction defect procedures (Civ. Code §§ 895–945.5); it passed both houses, but the Assembly never took the concurrence vote before the August 31, 2026 deadline, so it did not become law.[48]
| Property managers | Claim timing remains governed by existing law, including defect documentation and reserve records. |
| HOA board members | The pre-litigation steps before a defect suit are unchanged. |
| Community association attorneys | The construction-defect process and its deadlines are unchanged. |
| Homeowners | Owners see no timeline changes when the association pursues common-area defect claims. |
5. National positioning and related coverage
California sits in the comprehensive non-UCIOA cluster of states, alongside Florida (Fla. Stat. ch. 718 for condominiums and ch. 720 for HOAs), Texas (Tex. Prop. Code ch. 82 for condominiums and ch. 209 for residential subdivisions), and Arizona (Ariz. Rev. Stat. title 33, ch. 9 for condominiums and ch. 16 for planned communities). Each of these states built its own bespoke statutory framework rather than adopting the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act.49
That cluster stands apart from the UCIOA-adopting states — Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Minnesota, Nevada, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia — and from CC&R-primary states such as Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi, where statutory regulation is thin and the recorded declaration does most of the governance work.50
Within the non-UCIOA group, California stands out in several ways: the size of its market (51,250 CIDs, the largest in the country), the § 5605 statutory assessment cap, the mandatory pre-litigation ADR regime, the absence of any ongoing HOA regulator, and the sheer volume of annual amending legislation. California compliance templates do not translate directly to other non-UCIOA states or to UCIOA jurisdictions, and California amends its common interest development statutes in most sessions.
6. Closing note
Federal frameworks apply to California associations alongside Davis-Stirling. The Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, and the FCC’s OTARD rule each intersect with the Civil Code provisions discussed above, and HOA Weekly’s federal HOA law coverage tracks each in detail. Any specific issue can turn on the state and federal authorities together rather than on Davis-Stirling alone.
Related California HOA Topics
Footnotes
- Found. for Cmty. Ass’n Rsch., 2024 U.S. National & State Statistical Review (2025). ↩
- Cal. Civ. Code § 4000 (West 2025). ↩
- Cal. Civ. Code § 4100 (West 2025). ↩
- Cal. Civ. Code § 5605 (West 2025). ↩
- Cal. Civ. Code §§ 5925–5965 (West 2025). ↩
- Unif. Common Interest Ownership Act (Unif. Law Comm’n, amended 2021). ↩
- Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 11000–11200 (West 2025) (Subdivided Lands Act). ↩
- Cal. Civ. Code §§ 4000–6150 (West 2025) (Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act). ↩
- Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, ch. 874, 1985 Cal. Stat. ↩
- A.B. 805, 2011–2012 Reg. Sess., ch. 180 (Cal. 2012). ↩
- Cal. Civ. Code § 4100 (West 2025). ↩
- Cal. Civ. Code § 4080 (West 2025). ↩
- Cal. Civ. Code §§ 4095, 4145 (West 2025). ↩
- Cal. Civ. Code §§ 4000–6150 (West 2025). ↩
- Cal. Civ. Code § 5605(b) (West 2025). ↩
- Cal. Civ. Code §§ 5930, 5950 (West 2025). ↩
- Unif. Common Interest Ownership Act § 3-103 (Unif. Law Comm’n, amended 2021). ↩
- S. Floor Analysis, A.B. 805, 2011–2012 Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2012). ↩
- Davis-Stirling Act Conversion Table, Davis-Stirling.com (last visited May 25, 2026). ↩
- Cal. Civ. Code §§ 4205, 5100, 5200, 5605, 5930 (West 2025). ↩
- Cal. Civ. Code § 4205 (West 2025). ↩
- Cal. Civ. Code § 4276, California Legislative Information (reinstatement of a terminated declaration; Los Angeles County only; repealed January 1, 2028; added by AB 2692, Ch. 124, Stats. 2026) ↩
- Cal. Corp. Code § 7110 (West 2025). ↩
- 31 C.F.R. § 1010.380, Reports of beneficial ownership information (current text on eCFR) (ecfr.gov) (domestic-entity exemption for entities created by filing with a U.S. secretary of state or similar office). ↩
- Takiguchi v. Venetian Condos. Maint. Corp., 90 Cal. App. 5th 880 (2023). ↩
- Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 11018.6 (West 2025). ↩
- Lamden v. La Jolla Shores Clubdominium Homeowners Ass’n, 21 Cal. 4th 249 (1999). ↩
- Cal. Civ. Code §§ 4900–4955 (West 2025) (Common Interest Development Open Meeting Act). ↩
- S.B. 323, 2019–2020 Reg. Sess., ch. 848 (Cal. 2019); A.B. 2159, 2023–2024 Reg. Sess., ch. 383 (Cal. 2024). ↩
- Cal. Civ. Code §§ 5200–5240 (West 2025). ↩
- Cal. Corp. Code § 7231 (West 2025). ↩
- Cal. Civ. Code § 5600 (West 2025). ↩
- Cal. Civ. Code § 5605 (West 2025). ↩
- Cal. Civ. Code §§ 5550, 5570 (West 2025). ↩
- Cal. Civ. Code §§ 5300, 5305 (West 2025). ↩
- Cal. Civ. Code § 5300 (West 2025). ↩
- Cal. Civ. Code § 5310 (West 2025). ↩
- Cal. Civ. Code § 4525 (West 2025). ↩
- Cal. Civ. Code §§ 5900–5920 (West 2025). ↩
- Cal. Civ. Code § 5930 (West 2025). ↩
- Cal. Civ. Code §§ 5935, 5950 (West 2025). ↩
- A.B. 2159, 2023–2024 Reg. Sess., ch. 383 (Cal. 2024). ↩
- S.B. 900, 2023–2024 Reg. Sess., ch. 288 (Cal. 2024). ↩
- A.B. 130, 2025–2026 Reg. Sess., ch. 22 (Cal. 2025). ↩
- Ridley v. Rancho Palma Grande Homeowners Ass’n, No. H052560 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2025). ↩
- Haidet v. Del Mar Woods Homeowners Ass’n, No. D082923 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 5, 2024). ↩
- LNSU #1, LLC v. Alta Del Mar Coastal Collection Cmty. Ass’n, 94 Cal. App. 5th 1050 (2023). ↩
- 2025–2026 Hot Bills, Cal. Legislative Action Comm. (last visited May 25, 2026). ↩
- Fla. Stat. chs. 718, 720 (2024); Tex. Prop. Code Ann. chs. 82, 209 (West 2024); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 33, chs. 9, 16 (2024). ↩
- Unif. Common Interest Ownership Act, Enactment Status, Unif. Law Comm’n (last visited May 25, 2026). ↩
Stay on top of California HOA law
Every week: new California legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.