$250,000 in punitive damages: when the business judgment rule stops protecting a board
$250,000 in punitive damages: when the business judgment rule stops protecting a board
2026-09-09 · California · Courts
The two doctrines California association boards rely on most — the business judgment rule and Lamden judicial deference — are conditional, and a published 2025 decision shows exactly what forfeits them.
Ridley v. Rancho Palma Grande Homeowners Assn., No. H052560, (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 788, was filed August 28, 2025 and modified and certified for publication on September 29, 2025. Justice Bromberg wrote for the Sixth District.1
Nineteen months of flooding
In April 2018 water began flooding the crawlspace beneath Doug Ridley and Sherry Shen's condominium — a common area under the association's control.
The City, the Water District and three drilling contractors all pointed to the same cause: an abandoned, undestroyed well.
The association formed a “well” committee. Then, in late 2018, it reversed course without expert support, adopting a “high water table” theory and a French-drain plan.
Association counsel's January 2019 letter told government agencies that no experts supported the well theory — when the drilling contractors expressly had. The board president repeated the misstatements. The association excluded Ridley from committee communications after promising inclusion, and did not disclose the suspected well to the workers.
Workers found the wellhead by accident in January 2020, more than 19 months after the flooding began. Mold, termite damage and rot followed.
What the trial court did
After a bench trial exceeding 60 court days, the court found for the homeowners on every claim — breach of CC&Rs, Davis-Stirling violations, negligence, nuisance, breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud.
It issued an injunction requiring specified crawlspace, south-wall and interior repairs, plus $4,000 a month in lost rent and $115 a month in utilities until completion. Punitive damages: $250,000 against the association and $25,000 against the board president.
Affirmed, on the CC&Rs claim alone
The court addressed only the breach-of-CC&Rs claim. The declaration's duty to maintain common areas “to the standard of maintenance prevalent in the neighborhood” carries subsidiary duties to investigate water intrusion and to repair within a reasonable time.
Then the holding that matters: both the business judgment rule and Lamden deference require good faith and reasonable investigation, and substantial evidence showed neither. The association rejected unanimous expert consensus without a rational basis, manipulated expert opinions by withholding the well information, and made false statements to government entities, the membership and the courts.
The CC&Rs' exculpatory clause — which excepted damage “caused by gross negligence” — did not protect the association, because the trial court found gross negligence, and because much of the damage flowed from the failure to repair rather than from the water intrusion itself.
What it changes for boards and managers
Deference is earned, not conferred. The most common misunderstanding of Lamden is that it protects a board's decision because a board made it. It does not. It protects a decision reached in good faith, upon reasonable investigation, within the board's authority. Strip any of the three and the deference is gone — and with it the practical immunity boards assume they have.
Rejecting expert consensus requires a reason on the record. A board is entitled to disagree with its consultants. What it cannot do is discard a unanimous expert view without a rational basis and expect a court to defer. If a board departs from its experts, the minutes should say why, and the why should be something other than cost.
Withholding information from your own consultants is fatal. The association did not merely disagree with the experts — it shaped their conclusions by not telling them about the well. That is the step the court called manipulation, and it converts a defensible disagreement into evidence of bad faith.
Statements to agencies and to the membership are evidence. Counsel's letter asserting no expert support, when three contractors had provided it, was central to the outcome. Correspondence with government agencies is a permanent record that will be read back to the board.
Delay is itself a breach. The duty to repair within a reasonable time is a duty with a clock. Nineteen months of an unresolved water intrusion into a common area was independently actionable, separate from the question of what caused it. An association that is still investigating is not, by virtue of investigating, complying.
Exculpatory clauses do not reach gross negligence. Many California declarations contain a clause limiting director or association liability. This one had one, with a gross-negligence exception written into it — and the finding of gross negligence, defined as both an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct and conscious indifference to consequences, took the clause out of play.
Punitive damages against an association are unusual, and instructive
An award of $250,000 in punitive damages against a homeowners association is rare enough to be worth pausing on. Punitive damages require clear and convincing evidence of oppression, fraud or malice — a standard ordinary maintenance disputes do not meet.
What got there was not the flooding. It was the pattern after it: the unsupported reversal, the withheld information, the false statements. The lesson for boards is that the exposure escalated because of how the association handled a maintenance problem, not because it had one.
The $25,000 award against the board president individually is the second half of that lesson. Directors who repeat statements they have reason to doubt are not insulated by the association's separate liability.
Where the maintenance duty sits now
Two developments touch the underlying duty, and they belong alongside this case.
AB 1892, signed August 31, 2026 as Chapter 169, Statutes of 2026, amends Civil Code section 4775 so the association is responsible for repairs where an interruption in service begins in the common area even if it extends into a separate interest or exclusive use common area, and requires the board to commence the process within 14 days. It permits emergency financing without a member vote where reserves are insufficient. It is operative January 1, 2027.
That statutory 14-day clock and Ridley's reasonable-time standard point the same way. An association facing a common-area service failure now has both a decision deadline and a documented judicial account of what happens when it lets one run.
What to watch next
Ridley is published and final. The California Supreme Court granted review in no common interest development matter during 2026, and this case does not appear among its petition conference actions.
One editorial caution for anyone researching it: at least one case-summary service reports this decision at “110 Cal.App.5th 788” and attributes it to the Fifth Appellate District. Both are wrong. The docket number H052560 and the slip opinion place it in the Sixth District, and the citation is 114 Cal.App.5th 788.
Related California HOA Topics
- Ridley v. Rancho Palma Grande Homeowners Assn., No. H052560 — slip opinion with modification and publication order, Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District ↩
- Publication order, Judicial Branch of California (September 29, 2025) ↩
- Civil Code § 4775, California Legislative Information — allocation of repair and maintenance responsibility ↩
- AB 1892, California Legislature — bill status (Chapter 169, Statutes of 2026; 14-day utility restoration commencement) ↩
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.