2026-09-09 · California · Courts

A California appeals court has held that a homeowners association's assessment increase was void — not merely challengeable — because the board neither distributed the annual budget report nor obtained the member approval Civil Code section 5605 requires.

Ruffier v. Volcano Hills Road Maintenance Assn., No. C101551, was filed December 15, 2025 and certified for publication on January 6, 2026. It is reported at 117 Cal.App.5th and is citable authority. Justice Boulware Eurie wrote for the Third District, with Acting Presiding Justice Duarte and Justice Feinberg concurring.¹

The facts are small and the holding is not

A 1974 declaration created a common interest development to maintain private roads serving 22 parcels in Amador County. It set assessments at $100 per parcel per year and capped increases at $200 per year per parcel.

At the June 2019 annual meeting, members constituting a bare quorum voted 10–1 to amend the bylaws to eliminate the $200 cap. The board then raised the annual assessment from $200 to $1,000 — a 400 percent increase.

Members sued for declaratory relief. The trial court denied it, reasoning that the $200 cap was unreasonable.

Reversed, and the reasoning is the point

Under Civil Code section 5605(a), an annual increase in regular assessments may not be imposed unless the association either complied with the section 5300 annual budget report requirements or obtained “the approval of a majority of a quorum of members.” Under section 5605(b), an increase greater than 20 percent requires member approval regardless.

The association conceded it had not complied with section 5300. The membership was never asked to approve the increase. The increase was therefore void.

The court rejected each defense in turn:

Whether the cap was unreasonable is beside the point. “[E]ven if the Association's governing documents did not limit the board's ability to increase annual assessments in July 2019, section 5605 did impose limits.”

The governing documents are not the measure. The statute operates independently of what the declaration says or omits.

The section 5610 emergency exception was forfeited, never having been raised below.

Section 5600 does not override. The duty to levy assessments sufficient to perform the association's obligations opens with the words “Except as provided in Section 5605” — so the general funding duty is subject to section 5605's procedural gates, not the other way round.

The court also noted the June 2019 bylaw amendment was itself defective: the bylaws required a majority of all members, not a majority of a quorum.

Disposition: reversed and remanded with directions to enter a declaratory judgment that the increase is void and invalid. Plaintiffs recover costs. The court declined to reach refunds, because the plaintiffs pleaded only declaratory relief and not damages.

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 changes for boards and managers
• The context that makes this urgent
• What to watch next

Unlock California

Already a subscriber? Sign in

Recurring monthly subscription · Cancel anytime · Need help?

Related California HOA Topics

• Assessment Limits
• Budget Approval
• Reserve Studies
• Governing Statute
• Collections & Liens

← All California HOA Topics

1. Ruffier v. Volcano Hills Road Maintenance Assn., No. C101551 — slip opinion with publication order attached, Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District ↩
2. Publication order, Judicial Branch of California (January 6, 2026) ↩
3. Civil Code § 5605, California Legislative Information — operative text of the annual increase limits ↩
4. SB 1007, California Legislature — bill status showing the measure died without an Assembly committee hearing ↩