Home Case Law: Association Operations

AI Tools in CIDS: User Beware

Jillian M. Wright, Esq.

Shareholder

858.527.0111
Email
Practice: Community Association Counsel

Share this article:

AI Tools in CIDs: User Beware

For better or worse, artificial intelligence has arrived in our industry. Both board members and homeowners alike across California are turning to large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT and Claude to navigate the complicated world of community association governance. While convenient for some, the risks are real. If used carelessly, AI can expose confidential information, generate legally inaccurate advice and information, and arm adversarial homeowners with enough inaccurate (and lengthy) ammunition to keep a board busy and asking for legal intervention and interpretation. In this article we highlight the pitfalls of AI and provide tips on how to avoid them.

Preserving Executive Session Confidentiality and Attorney-Client Privilege

Boards members must exercise serious cautious when using AI. The California Civil Code allows boards to hold executive sessions, also known as closed session, meetings to discuss specific sensitive matters like litigation, the formation of contracts, member discipline, personnel matters, and delinquencies. These sessions exist precisely because the California legislature recognized that the topics should remain confidential. What a board discusses in executive session cannot be disclosed to the general membership without board authority.

In light of that, when a board member copies and pastes executive session notes or details of pending litigation, for example, into a commercial AI tool to get a summary or draft a response, they may be unwittingly pushing that information into a system they do not control. Most consumer-facing LLMs retain conversation data to some degree and use inputs for training unless users opt out. The LLMs store information on servers governed by terms of service, not California law. As such, using LLMs for association purposes may unwittingly breach the confidentiality of executive session without board authorization.

This exposure is not hypothetical. Indeed, in the federal case of United States v. Heppner (2026), the court ruled that documents generated using a publicly available AI tool are not shielded by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. In the case, Heppner used an AI tool for guidance on his legal case. Heppner created documents through the AI tools and shared them with his legal counsel. The court ruled that the documents created were not protected by attorney-client privilege. While the court limited the ruling, acknowledging that the outcome may differ with alternative facts – for example, if the attorney had used the AI tool – and this case is not direct precedence in California, this case is a warning for all boards. If you share what you consider confidential information with an LLM, there is little protection for the work product that results. Exposing confidential information and waiving attorney-client privilege without board authority could be seen as a breach of fiduciary duty to the association.

 

PRACTICE TIP:

Never input names, addresses, account balances, legal strategy, personnel matters, or any information discussed in executive session into a commercial AI tool. Use AI for structure and language – not processing content or asking for specific legal advice.

 

When Owners Use AI Against the Board

 We have recently seen in our practice an uptick in homeowners using AI tools strategically against the association. Homeowners who believe the board has violated their rights are armed with open-source summaries that have boards working overtime. Being informed about the applicable law is not inherently problematic. Informed homeowners will hopefully make for healthier communities. However, AI-generated content is not always accurate. This is because many AI tools are designed in a sycophantic nature; meaning these tools are designed to generate responses the system thinks the prompter wants, as to opposed to providing the most accurate and correct response.  The results produced are produced with such clarity that homeowners have been known to use legal misinformation with confidence and stubbornness. When boards attempt to correct the record or provide the necessary context, the perception of bad faith can spiral quickly.

In this upswing in AI usage, we have also received lengthy association record demands as the AI tools dramatically lower the effort required to generate formal-sounding demand letters and Public Records Act-style document requests. A single motivated homeowner can now produce a volume of written demands that would previously have required legal representation. Management companies are flooded with correspondence that is time-consuming to answer, even when meritless.

Conclusion

While it is unlikely that boards or owners will abandon AI tools, both sides should use them with clear-eyed awareness of the limitations. Boards may want to consider adopting an AI policy determining which tools are approved and how. Owners should treat AI output as a starting point for research, not a final legal opinion. For both owners and boards, when a dispute may have serious consequences, reach out to legal counsel. It is worth the cost to double check the advice from AI and to be able to rely on attorney-client privilege to protect the advice given to the board.

AB 130…Here to Stay

Jacquelyn E. Quinn, Esq.

Senior Attorney

858.527.0111
Email
Practices: Community Association Counsel | Commercial CID

Share this article:

California Assembly Bill 130, enacted on June 30, 2025, was revised at the very last minute to include amendments to Civil Code Sections 714.3, 5850 and 5855, which address association fines and enforcement procedures. The changes were added just days before the bill was signed into law without any committee hearings or opportunity for feedback. Leaving those most impacted by it, associations, with bad law and more questions than answers.

Most notably, AB 130 caps fines for many governing document violations at $100 per violation. The major takeaways regarding changes to permissible fines include:

      • Fines for violations are now capped at $100 per violation or a lesser amount adopted by fine schedule. As of June 30, 2025, associations are prohibited from imposing fines over $100 unless the exception discussed below applies.
      • The exception to the $100 fine cap is for violations that may result in an adverse health or safety impact on the common area or another association member’s property. To invoke this exception, a board must make a written finding at an open board meeting specifying the adverse health or safety impact of such violation. One way a board may satisfy this requirement is by making a finding in an open meeting a specific violation is adverse to health or safety on a violation by violation basis. Alternatively, an association could amend its rules to provide a general category of violations are adverse to health or safety (i.e., speeding, glass at the pool, off leash dogs in common areas) and therefore, subject to fines in excess of $100 without having to re-vote on the same violations over and over again.
      • Board shall not impose discipline on a member when the member cures the violation prior to the hearing and, in situations where curing the violation would take longer than the notice period before the hearing, when the member provides “financial commitment” to cure the violation. AB 130 does not define or provide an example of what a “financial commitment” is, but one option may be to impose a fine and hold it in abeyance subject to the member curing the violation by a reasonable deadline.
      • No late charges or interest may be charged for a fine.
      • Fines Imposed Prior to June 30, 2025, are not impacted. While AB 130 alters how associations may impose fines going forward, it does not invalidate previously imposed fines.

The new language of the statute also modifies part of the enforcement process, including:

      • If the board and owner are not in agreement following a hearing, the owner may request IDR. This is not a change to current law since an owner could always request IDR regarding an association dispute.
      • If the board and owner reach an agreement after the hearing, the board must prepare a written resolution to be signed by the board and the owner. The resolution will be judicially enforceable.
      • Written notice of a Board’s decision to impose disciplinary action is now due within 14 days of the hearing. Previously, notice within 15 days was required.

In summary, associations must immediately comply with AB 130, including generally no longer imposing fines in amounts more than $100 after June 30, 2025, unless a written finding is made by the Board at an open meeting the violation will have an adverse health or safety impact. AB 130 also does not necessarily require an association to suspend any enforcement actions until it amends its rules or fine policy, but boards will need to review and revise these policies to bring them into compliance with AB 130 before they are distributed with their annual policy statement. Associations should consult with their community association legal counsel regarding how to best integrate and comply with the new requirements of AB 130 for their specific community.

Automated License Plate Reader Cameras and Mandatory Policies

Emily A. Long, Esq.

Coachella Valley Office Managing Shareholder

858.527.0111
Email
Practices: Community Association Counsel | Civil Litigation

Share this article:

Flock cameras and other Automated License Plate Reader (“ALPR”) cameras have been used for 10 years or more by cities and law enforcement. More recently, ALPR cameras have become popular in community associations due to the cameras becoming more affordable, smaller, and easier to install. As to community associations, ALPRs allow for easy entry into gated communities by capturing still images of a vehicle’s license plate, not video, that are extracted by artificial intelligence for cataloging and retrieval purposes and allow access to residents if on an approved list. Pictures also may include the make, year, model, and color of a vehicle. Depending on the angle of the camera, the vehicle’s occupants also may be discernible.

In California, the use of ALPRs is governed by Civil Code sections 1798.90.5-1798.90.55, which require that all persons operating an ALPR system maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect ALPR information from unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure. “Persons” include an “association” or “corporation” under the statute, meaning that community associations are required to maintain these security procedures required under law.

Civil Code section 1798.90.51(b)(2) also requires community associations and other ALPR operators to implement a usage and privacy policy in order to ensure that the collection, use, maintenance, sharing, and dissemination of ALPR information is consistent with respect for individuals’ privacy and civil liberties. This policy must address various enumerated subjects, including the authorized purposes for using the ALPR system and collecting ALPR information; a description of how the ALPR system will be monitored to ensure the security of the information and compliance with applicable privacy laws; the purposes of, process for, and restrictions on, the sale, sharing, or transfer of ALPR information to other persons; and the length of time ALPR information will be retained. The policy must be made available to the public in writing, and, if the ALPR operator has a website, the usage and privacy policy shall be posted conspicuously on the community association’s or other operator’s website.

In the 1st District Court of Appeal case, Bartholomew v. Parking Concepts, Inc., 118 Cal. App. 5th 438, Brendan Bartholomew sued Parking Concepts, Inc. alleging that it automatically collected his license plate information when Bartholomew parked his vehicle in its parking garage without implementing and making publicly available a policy regarding the collection and use of the data collected in violation of Civil Code §§ 1798.90.5-1798.90.55.

The Court agreed that the collection and use of Bartholomew’s license plate data without implementing a statutorily required privacy policy, constituted harm in and of itself. There was no need for Bartholomew to prove damages in that Parking Concepts illegally shared Bartholomew’s license plate data or used it for any particular purpose.As a result, if your community uses ALPR cameras and does not have a privacy policy that is accessible to community residents on your website, the association should work with its ALPR vendor and/or community association legal counsel to prepare and adopt such a privacy policy.

Emerging Generative Artificial Intelligence Governance in Community Associations

Gabriel P. Huerta, Esq.

Attorney at Law

858.527.0111
Email
Practices: Civil Litigation & Appeals

Share this article:

On July 29, 2024, the American Bar Association issued Formal Opinion 512, its first formal ethics guidance on the use of generative artificial intelligence (referred to as “GAI”). While addressed to attorneys, these ethical guideposts affect directors and managers when employing GAI in the daily operations of their community associations.

Formal Opinion 512 highlights the duties of competence and confidentiality under Model Rules of Professional Conduct sections 1.1 and 1.6. Directors and managers hold similar fiduciary duties, which have been discussed in the previously posted Best Practices article. The key takeaway as to competency is that directors and managers need to understand that GAI can “hallucinate” – that is, produce false or misleading content. Thus, all GAI-assisted output should be treated as an assistant for the first draft, not as the final editor. Directors and managers can be trained in GAI literacy by focusing on input parameters and output verification to ensure accurate work product.

As for confidentiality, directors and managers are custodians of association records. For every GAI software that an association utilizes, it is important to verify each software’s policies pertaining to data encryption, storage location, document retention, and user accessibility. It is also important to know whether data input by the user is used to train language learning models. These verifications ensure data security and privacy compliance as GAI becomes integrated into the standard operating procedures of associations, especially for niches such as the Safe at Home Program under Civil Code section 5216.

Additionally, Formal Opinion 512 highlights the importance of transparent communication under Model Rules of Professional Conduct section 1.4. Just as attorneys must disclose substantive GAI tool usage to clients, directors and managers have the same obligation. For example, directors and managers maintain a duty to disclose to the community whenever GAI is used to help perform association duties, such as GAI-assisted dictation software that produces meeting transcripts. Disclosing to the community of said use would create an expectation to have all meetings, as well as hearings, transcribed. In turn, transcripts would be responsive to formal records request under Civil Code section 5200 et seq. and become further discoverable in litigation. While GAI-assisted transcription may help document exactly what members say at meetings, the persistent use of GAI-assisted dictation software may burden the association more than help it.  

Further, Formal Opinion 512 also impacts attorneys’ fees under Model Rules of Professional Conduct section 1.5, stating that attorneys should bill only for reviewing GAI output and not simply using it. Directors and managers would be keen to review their engagement agreements and applicable vendor contracts for any terms requiring GAI disclosure and verification. Soon, more attorneys are going to be required to disclose GAI use in fee agreements, and whether the time spent learning or training to use GAI is billed.

Though GAI implicates several fiduciary duties, it also presents an opportunity for community associations to enhance their standard operating procedures. Implementation can start with straightforward, low-sensitive tasks such as a resident newsletter or a welcome flyer to build user confidence. Over time, directors and managers can develop prompting skills without simply pasting content into GAI software and thus inadvertently exposing sensitive information. (e.g., draft a concise, understandable [output] for residents about [topic]; change tone to courteous but firm; create a seasonal maintenance checklist for a community association with [type of amenities] and [X] as the budget).

There are free and very affordable, low-cost options for GAI software, many of which contain templates for infographics, FAQs, or meeting slides. As automated usage grows, associations may need to budget for upgraded versions of software, so long as the cost is justified by work product. At a higher budget tier, and with guidance from legal counsel and an Artificial Intelligence Governance professional, chatbots can be designed and integrated to field association duties when managers are off the clock, such as maintenance requests. Using predictive analytics, directors or managers with business backgrounds may be able to utilize GAI to forecast maintenance and other financial needs when completing reserve studies.

Whether drafting documents, managing communications, or analyzing data, the accessibility of GAI to streamline tasks is ever-present. With the right knowledge and discipline, directors and managers can appropriately engage with GAI to make protocol more efficient, creative, and tailored to their members. Despite all that GAI can do, only humans can build communities.

From Proposal to Policy: Navigating the Twenty-Eight-Day Review and Comment Period

Victoria R. Minor, Esq.

Attorney

858.527.0111
Email
Practices: Community Association Counsel 

Share this article:

Regularly reviewing and updating community rules and policies is one of the most effective ways a community association can promote clarity, consistency, and harmony within the association.  Over time, laws evolve, community needs shift, and previously well-intended rules may become outdated or impractical.  By proactively evaluating their operating procedures, boards can ensure their associations’ rules and policies remain legally compliant, reflect current best practices, and continue to support their communities’ long-term goals.

With that in mind, understanding the statutory process for adopting or amending common interest development association rules and policies is critical for boards to ensure effective and compliant governance.

California Civil Code section 4360 grants members of  an association a twenty-eight (28) day period to review and comment on most rules and rule amendments prior to their adoption.  This means, before  a board can formally vote to adopt a proposed operating rule or proposed policy, the board must first allow the members to review the proposed rule or policy and provide their questions and/or comments to the board.  

To begin this process, the board must provide written notice of the proposed rule change to all members at least twenty-eight (28) days before the date of the meeting whereat the board will consider and vote on the proposed rule or policy.  This notice must include the text of the proposed rule/policy, an explanation of the purpose and effect of the proposed rule/policy and the date, time, and location of the meeting whereat the board will consider and vote on the proposed rule/policy.  During this twenty-eight (28) day period, the members may review the proposed rule/policy and submit their comments on the proposed rule/policy to the board for its consideration.  

When considering comments received from the members, the board should keep in mind that while it must review and consider all comments received, it is not required by law to revise the proposed rule or policy in direct response to comments received.  Unless, of course, the comments identify aspects of the rule that would make the proposed rule/policy invalid or unenforceable, as further detailed in Civil Code section 4350.  For example, if the board receives a comment from a member identifying some aspect of the rule/policy that would conflict with governing law or the association’s governing documents, the board must revise the rule/policy to address this conflict.  Otherwise, after considering all comments received from the membership at an open board meeting, a board may choose to move forward with the proposed rule or policy as originally drafted.

After the twenty-eight (28) day comment period comes to a close, the board may vote to formally adopt the rule at an open board meeting.  Once the board has formally adopted a rule/policy, the board must provide the members with general notice of the rule change within fifteen (15) days after making the rule change.

Keep in mind that if your association’s governing documents require a longer than twenty-eight (28) day comment period, that longer period of time may apply despite the twenty-eight (28) day time period stated in Civil Code section 4360(a).  When considering adopting or amending a new rule or policy, it is recommended the board consult with the association’s legal counsel to ensure compliance with the above-mentioned statutory requirements and the association’s governing documents.  

Don’t Get Stuck with the Bill: Protect Your Association from Mechanics Liens

Jacquelyn E. Quinn, Esq.

Senior Attorney

858.527.0111
Email
Practices: Community Association Counsel | Commercial CID

Share this article:

A mechanics lien is a legal claim that contractors, subcontractors, laborers, or material suppliers can file against a property when they are not paid for work or materials provided. Typically, any person who works on the property under a contract—whether directly with the association or through a general contractor (i.e., material supplier)—may have lien rights. In California, this right is protected by statute to ensure that those who contribute to property improvements are compensated.

For community associations, mechanics liens can pose serious risks, especially when work is performed on common areas. A lien on the common area can impact and even prevent owners from selling or refinancing their properties. Even if the association itself has paid its direct contractor, a material supplier who is unpaid may still assert a lien against the common area property or, in some cases, against the individual owner’s separate property. Because of this, an association must take proactive measures to prevent liens from arising and to minimize exposure if one is filed.

Steps an Association Can Take to Protect Itself from Mechanics Liens

      1. Use Written Contracts with Clear Payment Terms:
        Every project, no matter how small, should be governed by a written contract. The written contract should include provisions that specify payment schedules, require lien releases before payments are issued, and require the contractor to indemnify the association and its members against liens that may be filed. The contract should also require the contractor to comply with all lien laws and to ensure that all subcontractors and suppliers are timely paid.
      2. Obtain and Verify Preliminary Notices:
        Any party supplying labor or materials for a project that is not in direct contract with the association must first serve a preliminary notice (often within 20 days of starting work), which informs the property owner that the subcontractor or supplier has provided, or will provide, goods and services to the property and could file a lien claim if they are not paid. If subcontractors and suppliers don’t provide the association with the notice, they lose the right to file a lien.

        An association should carefully keep track of all preliminary notices received. Oftentimes, however, preliminary notices are sent to the address on file for the association with the Secretary of State, which may be management’s primary office, not on site at the association. Therefore, the association may also wish to request a list of all parties supplying labor or materials to the project from the contractor. This allows the association to verify that each listed entity receives payment or provides a lien release before issuing progress or final payment to the contractor.

      3. Require Conditional and Unconditional Lien Releases Before Making Any Payment:
        Never make a progress or final payment without first obtaining the appropriate lien release(s) from the contractor and all known subcontractors and suppliers.
      4. Use Joint Checks When Appropriate:
        Issuing joint checks that are made payable to both the general contractor and subcontractor or supplier when a contractor has not submitted an unconditional lien release can help ensure that funds reach all parties with lien rights and reduce the risk of unpaid claims that can result in liens being filed against association property.
      5. Monitor Contractor Bonding and Insurance:
        When hiring for large projects, associations might consider requiring contractors provide a payment bond. A payment bond ensures that subcontractors and suppliers are paid, even if the general contractor fails to do so.
      6. Act Promptly if a Lien is Recorded:
        If a lien is filed, an association should consult with its legal counsel immediately. In many cases, the lien can be released by recording a release bond or by demonstrating that proper payments and releases were made. Quick action can prevent escalation and protect the association and its members’ interests. Please also note that Civil Code Section 4620, requires an association to provide individual notice to its members within 60 days of being served with a claim of lien for work performed on the common area.

Mechanics liens can create significant financial and administrative burdens for associations, even when the association has acted in good faith. By maintaining strong contractual safeguards, tracking preliminary notices, and always obtaining applicable lien releases before issuing a payment, an association can greatly reduce the likelihood of a lien being filed against its property.

Codes of Conduct for Association Volunteers

Emily A. Long, Esq.

Coachella Valley Office Managing Shareholder

858.527.0111
Email
Practices: Community Association Counsel | Civil Litigation

Share this article:

Generally, board members of common interest developments are volunteers dedicating their time, skills and energy to serve the communities within which they live. Indeed, without these director volunteers, community associations would be unable to properly function. Similarly, committee members are volunteers who work on specific projects within a community. Often, committee work is a valuable first experience which can entice a member to become more involved and to eventually run for the board. However, there is a steep learning curve upon entering the world of association governance.

In order to help board and committee members understand the association’s expectations for service, codes of conduct can be particularly helpful.  Not only do codes of conduct codify association expectations, they can also serve to educate board and committee members and help minimize association liability.  Boards might therefore consider adopting codes of conduct that cover the following topics, among others:

        • Prohibiting the acceptance of any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan, or any other item of monetary value by a board or committee member from a person who is seeking to obtain a contractual or other business or financial relationship with the association.
        • Clarifying that board and committee members may not engage in any writing, publishing, or speech that defames any other member of the board, committee, employee, or resident of the community.
        • Establishing that board and committee members may not knowingly misrepresent facts to the residents for the sole purpose of advancing a personal cause or influencing the residents.
        • Prohibiting board members from discussing sensitive and confidential matters discussed in executive session, outside of executive session, or with anyone who is not on the board (with the exception of management and association counsel).
        • Prohibiting board or committee members from seeking to have a contract implemented that has not been duly approved by the board.
        • Prohibiting board or committee member interference with an association contractor performing work.
        • Clarifying that board and committee members may not harass, threaten, or attempt through any means to control, instill fear or discriminate against any member of the Association, management company, service provider, or community resident.
        • Preventing interference by board and committee members with the system of management established by the board as a whole and the management company.
        • Reminding board members that they must operate as a board and do not have any individual authority unless it is specifically granted to them in writing by the board or the Association’s governing documents.

Often, codes of conduct may be adopted as rules of procedure by way of approval by the board at an open session meeting, rather than by following the rulemaking procedures spelled out in Civil Code section 4360. However, we encourage you to first speak with your association’s legal counsel to review your association’s governing documents and discuss your community’s particular needs prior to adopting such rules.

Enforceability of these codes of conduct is another important issue to consider when preparing draft rules. It is recommended that any code of conduct specifically list the consequences for a violation of the code of conduct.  Reasonable penalties for violation might include: public or private censure by the board, removal of an officer title, and/or removal from committee service by the board.  It is unlikely that violation of a code of conduct may result in unilateral removal of a board member by the board, but speak with your association counsel on this issue.

Is My Mic On? Concerns Surrounding Recording Board Meetings

Rhonda R. Goldblatt, Esq.

Senior Attorney

858.527.0111
Email
Practice: Community Association Counsel

Share this article:

Is My Mic On? Concerns Surrounding Recording Board Meetings

Association members may try to record board meetings. Such recording may even be surreptitious. However, there are concerns surrounding permitting the recording of board meetings of which boards and management should be aware.

First, recordings may serve as evidence in subsequent litigation. Association members who try to record board meetings may do so in order to compile such evidence to support their claim. Associations should think twice about fueling a member lawsuit for obvious reasons. A single stray remark may end up exposing an association to liability.

Second, those present at the meeting may be uncomfortable being recorded. A recording device may have a chilling effect on directors and management who are trying to conduct association business without worrying about the specter of potential future litigation.

The Davis-Stirling Act does not require board meetings to be recorded. California Penal Code section 632 in fact prohibits recording a confidential conversation without the consent of all parties. Subsection (a) of the statute provides in part:

A person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, uses an electronic amplifying or recording device to eavesdrop upon or record the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) per violation, or imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

Boards may want to consider including a statement on meeting agendas that recording the meeting – via audio or video – is prohibited. Boards can also consider stating at the beginning of a meeting that recording is prohibited (and noting that statement in the meeting minutes). Doing so will help create a documentary record that any recording is nonconsensual per Section 632. This is important because under subsection (d) of the statute, evidence obtained as a result of eavesdropping upon or recording a confidential communication in violation of Section 632 is not admissible in a lawsuit. 

Finally, it is worth pointing out that Section 632 does not apply to the use of hearing aids and similar devices for “persons afflicted with impaired hearing” for the purpose of overcoming the impairment to permit hearing sounds ordinarily audible to the human ear. This caveat essentially brings those with impaired hearing to equity, by allowing them to hear what others do. 

For additional advice on this subject, please reach out to your friendly community association counsel.

What to Do When Quorum Cannot be Met for the Annual Meeting

Victoria R. Minor, Esq.

Attorney

858.527.0111
Email
Practices: Community Association Counsel 

Share this article:

What to Do When Quorum Cannot be Met for the Annual Meeting

Corporations, including many community associations, are required under Corp. Code § 7510 to hold annual meetings of the membership. If the association fails to hold a regular meeting within sixty (60) days of the date designated in its governing documents, any member may bring legal action to compel the association to do so. This puts the association at risk if meetings are not held due to a lack of quorum, which is an unfortunate reality in many community associations today, where obtaining member participation at annual meetings can be difficult. It is important to note that this obligation to hold an annual meeting exists even when an association decides to conduct its director election by acclamation. This article explores the association’s options in navigating this challenge and how it can protect itself from potential liability.

Documenting Efforts to Hold the Meeting

If an annual meeting cannot proceed due to insufficient member participation, the association should thoroughly document its good-faith efforts to meet the quorum. Some of these efforts may include:

• Issuing and mailing ballots
• Sending notices, beyond those required by law, reminding members of the upcoming meeting
• Door-to-door outreach encouraging membership attendance at the meeting
• Posting signs in the common areas of the community
• Adjourning and attempting to reconvene the meeting (discussed more thoroughly below)

To help insulate the association from a potential lawsuit, the association should send a notice to the membership summarizing the association’s efforts to hold an annual meeting if it is unable to meet due to a lack of quorum.

If no members object, the matter may end there. However, in anticipation of potential objections, the association may consider filing a petition in the Superior Court under Corp. Code § 7515. An association should seek advice from its community association legal counsel to understand the circumstances when it may be advisable to file such a petition.

Reduced Quorum and Adjourning a Meeting

An association might make more than one attempt to hold its annual meeting by adjourning its meeting to another date. This may allow for a lower threshold of participation for quorum to be achieved.

Corp. Code § 7512(d) and Civil Code section 5115(b)(6) and (d)(2) provide that in the absence of a quorum (as required by an association’s governing documents), an association may adjourn a proceeding to a date at least twenty (20) days after the adjourned meeting at which time the quorum will be twenty percent (20%) of the association’s members, unless the governing documents provide for a lower amount. Keep in mind, the association is required under Civ. Code § 5115(d)(3) to provide members with notice of the reconvened meeting no less than fifteen (15) days prior to the date of the reconvened meeting, and the notice must state that the reduced quorum will apply.

Petitioning the Court Under Corporations Code Section 7515

Corp. Code § 7515 provides relief when it is “impractical or unduly difficult” to conduct a member meeting, or otherwise obtain the members’ consent, in the manner prescribed by the association’s governing documents. In this instance, the association can petition the Superior Court for an order that the meeting be called “in such a manner as the court finds fair and equitable under the circumstances.” Section 7515(c) authorizes the court to grant a wide range of relief, including an order dispensing with the quorum requirement altogether or the number/percentage of votes needed for approval.

Amending Bylaws to Reduce Quorum Requirements

If member participation is an ongoing issue for the association, the association may want to consider a more long-term solution, such as amending its bylaws to reduce quorum thresholds permanently. However, such action requires membership approval, which can be difficult to obtain if voter participation is low. As such, the association may end up in the same position of trying to solicit enough ballots to establish a quorum. However, again, the association may consider filing a Section 7515 petition to lower the quorum and approval requirements for amending the bylaws in Superior Court, because conducting the meeting is “unduly difficult”.

In order to prevail, the association will need clear evidence demonstrating that lowering the bylaws amendment approval requirement is “fair and equitable under the circumstances,” and that obtaining the members’ approval is “unduly difficult.” This may require the association to send out ballots for the bylaws amendment and do its best to solicit votes. The association could then provide evidence to the court showing how few responses it received, and therefore, that court intervention is needed.

Conclusion

Low voter turnout and lack of member engagement can make holding required member meetings nearly impossible for some associations. However, by documenting diligent efforts, regularly informing the membership, adjourning and attempting to reconvene a meeting, and utilizing legal remedies, such as a Section 7515 petition, associations can both comply with their legal obligations and protect themselves from legal challenges.

DISCLAIMER: The contents provided herein are the suggestions and opinions of Epsten, APC on general legal issues involving California community associations and common interest developments. This content is for educational purposes only, is not intended for commercial use and may not be relied upon in addressing any specific legal issues. Specific policies and procedures that your association, management company and/or law firm have developed may differ and may fully satisfy all applicable laws. Copyright 2025 by EPSTEN, APC, unless otherwise indicated. These materials may not be reproduced or distributed without express permission of Epsten, APC. (Published and/or Last Updated on 8.11.2025)

Best Practices for Community Association Managers and Board Members Using GenAI

Gabriel P. Huerta, Esq.

Attorney at Law

858.527.0111
Email
Practices: Civil Litigation & Appeals

Share this article:

AI has become so prevalent that even the state’s legislature codified “Generative Artificial Intelligence System” (“GenAI” for short) last year. Section 22757.1 of the California Business and Professions Code defines GenAI as “an artificial intelligence that can emulate synthetic content like text, images, audio, or video.” There are over 17 widely used software applications that utilize GenAI as a tool, each available to consumers for free or at an affordable rate. Although a convenient time-saver, particularly for non-sensitive and non-substantive tasks, managers and board members of community associations should exercise the utmost discretion when using GenAI to ensure that fiduciary duties are maintained, especially the duties of confidentiality and care.

First is the duty of confidentiality. In part, this duty requires managers and board members to Protect Personally Identifiable Information (“PII” for short) from becoming compromised. Software applications that utilize GenAI are able to retain data and metadata, meaning each GenAI tool can readily transmit whatever is input. For example, uploading an owner’s vehicle registration document containing a resident’s name, address, birthdate, and driver’s license into ChatGPT would be enough for a third party to identify that resident. If that information were extracted from Open AI’s database, whether through an inadvertent or intentional data breach, or if Open AI were to change its terms of service and sell uploaded information to third-party services, either scenario could be determined to be a breach of confidentiality on the part of the party that uploaded the data. This could, in turn, lead to violations of regulations and laws, such as the California Consumer Privacy Act. That is why it is currently still a best practice to never share PII with vendors that offer GenAI. Taking the time to educate team members on what constitutes PII and how to avoid sharing it helps an association demonstrate its compliance with federal and state privacy laws.

In practice, you may want to use only the vendors that post clear privacy policies. Try to avoid “copy and pasting” an email or document into a GenAI prompt, and if you have to, redact all PII, including the metadata, before uploading. Alternatively, try to use generic prompts if you need to ask GenAI for help, like “draft a concise letter to the Association’s Board President about X” or “provide three different ways to say to Resident A that they violate a rule about Y.” Literally type “Resident A” when you enter the prompt; you will then have to Find & Replace the owner’s actual name in place of “Resident A” before you send the letter. You can also tailor follow-ups to initial prompts, such as “revise the second paragraph in simpler terms,” to engage with GenAI and not merely copy its initial output.

Second is the duty of care, which requires, in part, fiduciaries to use reasonable effort to make informed, competent decisions and to act in good faith. In this context, reasonable effort would mean that outputs of GenAI usage are verified for accuracy before taking subsequent steps involving decision-making, such as posting notices to members, tenants, and guests. A manager or board member can demonstrate competency with GenAI by taking the time to understand its capabilities, limitations, and appropriate use. For instance, substantive tasks such as amending a governing document would require complex decision-making, which is more suitable for the association’s legal counsel to handle, rather than GenAI. Reviewing the substance of the final product created by GenAI is crucial before it is distributed to board members, management employees, or anyone else.

Acting in good faith requires diligence and transparency, which is especially important when work product is assisted by GenAI. Diligence can be demonstrated by disclosing how GenAI was utilized and the steps taken afterward. Regardless of how trustworthy GenAI may be, it would be wise to treat its output as a first draft and easily track how a human verified it for accuracy. To demonstrate transparency, managers and board members should implement internal policies that track all daily operations assisted by GenAI, regardless of how small or mundane a task may seem. Peers can hold each other accountable whenever they spot the use of GenAI without disclosure; doing so ensures compliance, especially if they are ever asked to disclose such information in a Section 5200 document request.

In summary, all fiduciaries should utilize GenAI with privacy and care in mind. Otherwise, absent-minded use of GenAI may expose the manager, the board, or the entire community association to fines, liability, or disciplinary action. Please feel free to reach out to your association’s legal counsel for any questions regarding best practices on using GenAI. Consulting with a certified information privacy professional would also be beneficial. A little caution goes a long way in safeguarding the data and integrity of our community associations.

List of widely used software applications in alphabetical order that utilize GenAI, followed by the company that developed it, the year it was first available, and noteworthy tidbits:

ChatGPT, Open AI, 2022, referred as a Chatbot like Alexa, and used as customer service on websites;
Claude, Anthropic, 2023, inspired by Claude E. Shannon to employ a constitutional approach to AI;
CoCounsel, Thomas Reuters, 2023, caused sanctions for submitting briefs with hallucinated citations;
Copilot, Microsoft, 2023, integrated with various Office software applications;
DeepSeek, High-Flyer, 2023, known for its training data;
Flux AI, Black Forest Labs, 2024, became leader in AI-image generation;
Gemini, Google, 2023, suspended in the past for posting historically inaccurate and offensive images;
GPT-4, Open AI, 2023, passed the Uniform Bar Exam, scoring in the 90th percentile among test takers;
Hippocratic, Munjal Shah, 2023, recognized as a leader in Generative AI for healthcare;
LLaMa, Meta, 2023, designed to be a base model for running a “local ChatGPT” on a PC;
Midjourney, Midjourney, Inc., 2022, utilized Discord App to create award-winning AI-generated images;
Operator, Open AI, 2025, designed as an AI agent that can automate online tasks like a person would;
Perplexity, Aravind Srinivas, 2022, designed as a conversational LLM-powered answer engine;
Protégé, LexisNexis, 2024, personalized AI-legal assistant with generative and agentic AI capabilities;
Speechify, Tyler Weitzman, 2022, originated as a text-to-speech platform and now an AI voice generator;
Veo, Google Deepmind, 2024, released as a multimodal video generative model.