2026-09-09 · California · Courts

Read this one with its limits attached: the decision below is unpublished and, under California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), may not be cited or relied on in a California court. It is news about how these disputes are resolving, not authority.

Key v. Hidden Hills Community Assn., No. B339444, was filed February 27, 2026 and marked NOT TO BE PUBLISHED. The California Supreme Court denied review on May 27, 2026 (S296107). Presiding Justice Stratton wrote for the Second District, Division Eight.¹

The protection at issue

California's records inspection statute contains a deliberate asymmetry. Under Civil Code section 5235(c), a prevailing association ordinarily cannot recover costs from a member unless the court finds the action was frivolous, unreasonable or without foundation. Civil Code section 4955(b) does the same for open meeting claims.

The point of that design is to let an ordinary member enforce inspection rights without risking ruin.

What happened

Sarah Key, an owner in Hidden Hills, petitioned for a writ of mandate against her association. Among other claims she alleged that after her records demands the association produced 202 pages that “do not contain a single document relating to the development project,” and that it refused to let members speak at an architectural committee meeting. She also raised safety concerns about two 1940s-era high-pressure gas transmission pipelines running under the community.

The parties stipulated to arbitrate before JAMS.

The arbitrator declared the association the prevailing party on all six claims — and, on the records and open meeting claims, adopted the association's reasoning that they “satisfy the definition of 'without foundation' and… the definition of 'unreasonable' as well.”

That finding unlocked the fee shift.

The number

The arbitration award was $254,815.53 — $206,351.25 in attorney's fees and $48,464.28 in costs — plus $16,500 in post-award fees and $60 in costs, with 7 percent prejudgment interest. Roughly $271,375 against a member who sought records.

Why the Court of Appeal could not fix it

Key argued the arbitrator exceeded his authority by disregarding the Davis-Stirling Act. The court held it could not reach the question: “Courts may not review the merits of the controversy… or the validity of the arbitrator's reasoning,” citing Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1.

It also upheld the allocation of the arbitrator's own fees as costs, under the JAMS rules and the association's bylaws.

Disposition: judgment affirmed; the association awarded costs on appeal.

HOAWeekly

Keep reading with the California State Pass

The rest of this analysis — what an association can actually do, the recent bills and rulings, and how California compares nationally — is for subscribers. $49/month for every California topic on HOA Weekly.

$49/month, $449/year, or a $19.99 day pass.

What you unlock

• What it means for boards, managers and members
• The related point about a claim that was not pleaded
• What the Legislature did and did not do this year

and 1 more section in detail

Unlock California

Already a subscriber? Sign in

Recurring monthly subscription · Cancel anytime · Need help?

Related California HOA Topics

• Records Inspection
• Mediation & Dispute Resolution
• Governing Statute
• Board Elections
• Budget Approval

← All California HOA Topics

1. Key v. Hidden Hills Community Assn., No. B339444 — slip opinion, Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight (marked NOT TO BE PUBLISHED; not citable under rule 8.1115) ↩
2. California Supreme Court, results of the petition conference of May 27, 2026 (S296107, review denied) ↩
3. Civil Code § 5235, California Legislative Information — records inspection enforcement and the limit on awarding costs to a prevailing association ↩
4. AB 1184, California Legislature — complete bill history (last action August 27, 2026, concurrence pending; no vote before the deadline) ↩