HOA / CC&R Disputes

VI. HOA / CC&R Disputes

A. Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act (Civ. Code § 4000 et seq.)

Davis-Stirling, recodified in 2014, governs all California common interest developments — condominiums, planned developments, stock cooperatives, and community apartment projects. Core requirements:

• Recorded declaration (CC&Rs) that runs with the land (§ 4250);
• Association organized as a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation (typically) with bylaws and operating rules (§ 4340);
• Open meetings (§ 4900) and member access to records (§ 5200);
• Reserve studies every three years (§ 5550) and disclosure to members;
• IDR (Internal Dispute Resolution) under § 5910 and ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) under § 5930, both mandatory before enforcement litigation between an association and a member regarding the governing documents.

B. Architectural Approval and Enforcement

Architectural review committees ("ARCs") must act in good faith and within the procedural framework of § 4765, which requires (i) a fair, reasonable, and expeditious procedure, (ii) decisions in writing with reasons, and (iii) a right of reconsideration by the board. Arbitrary or capricious denials are reviewable under the deferential "rule of judicial deference" of Lamden v. La Jolla Shores Clubdominium Homeowners Assn. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 249 — but only when the decision falls within the board's authority and was reached through an investigation reasonable under the circumstances.

Enforcement of CC&Rs (typically by injunction and fine) requires (i) reasonable enforcement under § 5975, (ii) compliance with IDR/ADR, and (iii) the equitable defenses of waiver, laches, and selective enforcement, which apply with particular force where the board has tolerated similar violations.

C. Anti-SLAPP in HOA Disputes

HOA disputes increasingly draw anti-SLAPP motions under CCP § 425.16. Board votes, member-recall efforts, election challenges, and architectural-review communications can constitute "protected activity" — particularly where they touch on issues of public concern within the community. Talega Maintenance Corp. v. Standard Pacific Corp. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 722, and its progeny, illustrate how broadly the doctrine reaches; defamation, abuse-of-process, and breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims arising from board conduct routinely face anti-SLAPP scrutiny.

The two-step framework requires the moving party to show protected activity, after which the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show minimal merit. A losing plaintiff faces mandatory attorney's fees under § 425.16(c)(1).

This analysis is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult qualified counsel for advice specific to your situation. Attorney advertising.