Home Community Association Law

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.

photo of one hundred dollar bills

2025 HOA Disclosure Workshop: Lending, Insurance & Disclosure Risks

Kieran J. Purcell, Esq., Managing Shareholder for Epsten, APC, participated on a webinar hosted by Keystone Pacific Property Management, diving into how HOA operations affect lending, insurance, and disclosure requirements. This panel breaks down key risks that can lead to loan denials, project ineligibility, and compliance issues, especially with new 2025 standards on the way.

The Grass Isn’t Greener on the Other Side of AB 1572: How to Handle California’s Nonfunctional Turf Removal Mandate

Jillian M. Wright, Esq.

Senior Attorney

858.527.0111
Email
Practice: Community Association Counsel

Share this article:

In response to California’s persistent drought conditions, Assembly Bill 1572 (AB 1572) became law on January 1, 2024, placing new water conservation mandates on common interest developments (CIDs). Most notably, the bill prohibits the use of potable water to irrigate nonfunctional turf in common areas and requires CIDs to either convert those areas to drought-tolerant landscaping or transition to non-potable water sources. As legal counsel to numerous associations in Southern California, I’ve seen firsthand the confusion and urgency this law has introduced.

This article offers guidance to boards of directors navigating AB 1572’s requirements and outlines best practices to ensure legal compliance while maintaining aesthetic and functional community standards.

 

Understanding the Law

AB 1572 amends Section 10608.12 of the Water Code and adds Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 10608.14) to Part 2.55 of Division 6 to the Water Code. This law prohibits the use of potable water to irrigate nonfunctional turf in CIDs beginning January 1, 2029.  

AB 1572 defines nonfunctional turf as lawn areas not used for recreation or community purposes—typically decorative grass in medians, parkways, and buffer zones.  The law explicitly targets turf watered with potable water in these settings and compels CIDs to eliminate or retrofit such areas. Turf that is fenced or barricaded to permanently prohibit human access for recreation or assembly is nonfunctional turf. 

Importantly, the law does not ban turf entirely. Functional turf—such as lawns used for gatherings, sports, or playgrounds—remains permissible. Additionally, associations may still maintain turf irrigated with recycled or non-potable water. The key lies in how the space is used and the water source.

Additionally, CIDs with more than 5,000 square feet of irrigated common area must certify to the State Water Resources Control Board commencing June 30, 2031, and every three years thereafter through 2040, that their property is in compliance with these requirements.  

Both the applicable public water agency and local government are authorized to enforce these new requirements, and CIDs that do not comply with the requirements of this new law can be subject to civil liabilities and penalties.

 

First Steps for Boards

      1. Inventory Turf Areas
        Begin by conducting a thorough assessment of all turf areas in the common areas. Work with landscape contractors or a landscape architect to identify which portions qualify as nonfunctional under AB 1572. This process should include mapping out irrigation systems and determining the source of water (potable vs. recycled).
      2. Review Your Governing Documents
        Before implementing any landscape changes, review your governing documents, including the CC&Rs and landscape guidelines. Some associations require member approval for major landscape modifications, while others delegate this authority to the board. Legal counsel should review whether proposed turf removal projects could be construed as a capital improvement or a material alteration requiring a vote of the membership.
      3. Prioritize Communication
        Clear communication with the membership is vital. Boards should proactively educate homeowners about the reasons behind the turf changes, the mandates of AB 1572, and how these efforts align with broader water conservation goals. Transparency will reduce resistance and build community support. To soften the blow, it may help to remind owners that water rates are increasing throughout the state; reducing potable water usage will eventually mean lower operating costs.

 

Legal and Financial Considerations

      1. Budgeting and Special Assessments
        Turf removal and landscape or irrigation conversion are not inexpensive. Boards must evaluate whether existing reserve funds can cover these costs or if a special assessment is necessary. Consider phasing the work over several fiscal years to ease financial strain. Engage legal counsel when considering special assessments or borrowing from reserves to ensure compliance with Civil Code §§ 5600 and 5510.
      2. Vendor Contracts
        Review existing landscaping contracts to determine if turf removal or irrigation modifications are covered services. If not, seek competitive bids and ensure new vendor agreements include warranties, insurance provisions, and performance benchmarks. Legal review of any significant contract is strongly recommended.
      3. Local Incentives
        Some municipalities and water districts offer turf replacement rebates or grants to encourage compliance with water conservation laws. Boards should consult with their legal or management team to research available programs and submit applications where appropriate. These rebates can significantly offset costs.
      4. Resident Safety

If your association converts spaces to recycled water, consider your local municipality’s recycled water rules and regulations. The association would also be required to post signs that read “RECYCLED WATER – DO NOT DRINK” and display the international “Do Not Drink” symbol or an alternative accepted by the State Water Board (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 22).

 

Conclusion

AB 1572 presents both a challenge and an opportunity. While compliance may require upfront investment and some aesthetic adjustments, the long-term benefits—reduced water bills, improved drought resilience, and regulatory compliance—far outweigh the initial hurdles. Boards that approach this transition thoughtfully, with strong communication, legal guidance, and financial planning, can turn this mandate into a meaningful step toward sustainability and stewardship.

As always, consult with association legal counsel before taking action, particularly when modifying common area landscaping or seeking member contributions for these projects.

AB 130 Effective Immediately: Association Fines Capped at $100

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 this week 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.

Architectural Reviews and Approvals in Rebuilding

Karyn A. Larko, Esq.

Senior Attorney 

858.527.0111
Email
Practices: Community Association Counsel 

Share this article:

Considerations For Associations Dealing With Destruction Caused by Natural Disasters

*Article originally published in CACM The Law Journal, Summer 2025

California has been hit by wildfires and other natural disasters in recent years. In the aftermath of such disasters, associations and their members may be faced with having to reconstruct their communities. Some of the issues association boards and managers should consider when homes and condominiums (“Dwellings”) must be reconstructed are addressed below.

FACILITATING RECONSTRUCTION

The reconstruction process can take years to complete. By acting now to ensure the original construction plans are kept in a safe place, if there is a disaster, the association can compare owner submitted plans for reconstruction with the original construction plans, and more quickly identify and evaluate any differences that will impact the appearance of the new dwellings. A licensed architect should be retained to perform this comparison and assist the board or architectural committee (“AC”) in evaluating differences.

The board should also adopt clear and detailed guidelines with the help of an architect, addressing the information and documentation needed to review owner reconstruction applications. These guidelines, which can be adopted through the rule adoption procedures in Civil Code § 4360 (or as emergency rules, if necessary), should address whether any changes in the dimensions or locations of the reconstructed dwellings will be considered, as well as whether any other modifications will be considered or required. Providing this information up front can save owners time and money in planning for their reconstruction, reduce owner frustration and expedite the reconstruction.

Because building code requirements may have changed since the initial construction of the dwellings, the board or AC should work with an architect or general contractor to identify any such changes that will impact the appearance of the reconstructed dwellings, preferably before applications to reconstruct are submitted. This will further facilitate the application review process.

REQUESTS TO CHANGE DIMENSIONS OR LOCATIONS OF RECONSTRUCTED DWELLINGS

While the association is generally responsible for the reconstruction of the buildings in a condominium complex, there are instances where condominiums are built as single family detached dwellings or duplexes, for example, and the CC&Rs assign responsibility for reconstruction to the owners. In such instances, it is generally not possible for the board or AC to approve changes to the dimensions or locations of units and buildings because the dimensions and locations of the units and buildings are dictated by the condominium plan. To approve such changes, the condominium plan must be amended.

When it comes to planned developments, the board or AC may generally approve alterations to reconstructed dwellings, subject to any size, set back or other construction requirements and restrictions contained in the CC&Rs and rules. It may be possible for a board to grant variances to requirements set forth in the CC&Rs, if appropriate, depending on the precise wording of the CC&Rs. Upon a vote of the members, it may also be possible to amend the CC&Rs to revise these requirements as the board deems appropriate.

In the event construction requirements and restrictions are contained solely in the rules, the board or, in some instances, the AC, may amend the rules.

REQUESTS FOR OTHER CHANGES TO RECONSTRUCTED DWELLINGS

For aspects of construction which may not be specified in the CC&Rs (e.g., color schemes, exterior finishes), an association can be more flexible in approving modifications to the originally constructed dwellings. However, as quickly as feasible, the board or AC should meet with an architect to determine what kinds of changes should and should not be permitted to ensure the reconstructed dwellings are in harmony with any surviving structures. If necessary to expedite approvals to avoid risk of substantial economic loss to the association, these changes can be adopted as emergency rules pursuant to Civil Code § 4360(d) so owners have this information when planning their reconstruction.

A board may also want to consider amending the CC&Rs or rules to allow or require nonflammable roofs, fire-resistant landscaping or other changes, to better protect the community from future disasters.

TIME LIMITS FOR RECONSTRUCTION

The governing documents may impose time limits on when owners must start and complete their reconstruction. It is important for the board to promptly review any time limits and evaluate whether these limits are reasonable given the extent of the damage to the community and surrounding area, as well as related environmental challenges (e.g. issues related to the removal and disposal of construction debris), the availability of architects and contractors to prepare plans and perform reconstruction, possible permitting and inspection delays, materials shortages and delays in the processing of insurance claims.

If the governing documents mandate a shorter reconstruction timeline than is reasonable under the circumstances, the board should amend the timeline. If the governing documents do not impose time limits on reconstruction, the board may want to amend the governing documents to include a reasonable time limit to help ensure owners diligently pursue the reconstruction of their dwellings.

On a related note, if the governing documents do not impose a reasonable deadline for clearing properties within the community of any construction rubble and other debris, the governing documents should be amended, or an emergency rule adopted, to impose a deadline since the existence of these materials may pose a health and safety hazard for the community. Additionally, it may take years for owners to rebuild and some owners may not be able to rebuild. Removing the rubble and debris will help improve the appearance of the community until the community can be fully reconstructed.

THE USE OF CONSTRUCTION TRAILERS, PORTA-POTTIES, LIVE-IN TRAILERS, RVS, ETC. DURING RECONSTRUCTION

If the governing documents prohibit construction trailers, RVs or porta-potties, the board should consider amending the governing documents, or granting variances, if permitted by the governing documents, to temporarily lift this prohibition in the event of significant destruction. The amendment can and should limit the use of these items to specified periods of time and purposes, such as for construction supervision and meetings.

COMMUNICATIONS

Communicating with displaced owners can be especially challenging. Providing the CC&Rs, architectural/construction rules and the architectural application form on the association’s website and proactively requesting updated contact information can help facilitate the reconstruction process and enable the association to timely address any reconstruction issues.

PRACTICE TIPS

          • Many CC&Rs contain an article that expressly addresses destruction of the community. Reviewing and, if appropriate, amending this article to address reconstruction issues more fully before a disaster occurs could help accelerate the reconstruction process.
          • Proactively establishing an easy process for owners to submit updated contact information to the management company, such as through a website or portal, and periodically notifying owners of this process can help to re-establish communications with owners after a disaster.

Tragedy as a Turning Point

Pejman D. Kharrazian, Esq.

Shareholder

858.527.0111
Email
Practices: Community Association Counsel | Commercial CID | Civil Litigation

Share this article:

How Recent Tragedies are Reshaping the Standard of Care for
California Community Associations and Impacting the Future

*Article originally published in CACM The Law Journal, Summer 2025

This article explores three significant and unfortunate events that are having a lasting impact on California community associations — (1) The 2015 Berkeley, California balcony collapse; (2) the 2021 condominium building collapse in Surfside, Florida and (3) the skyrocketing cost of property insurance in large part due to recent California wildfires. This article also discusses ways to proactively plan for the outcomes stemming from these events. It is crucial for board members and community managers to understand how these developments impact their communities.

The Berkeley Balcony Collapse and the “Balcony Bill”: A New Era of Exterior Elevated Element Inspections

In 2015, six young people tragically lost their lives when a balcony collapsed in Berkeley, California. The aftermath revealed severe dry rot that had compromised the balcony’s structural integrity. The Berkley balcony incident led directly to the California legislature enacting the “Balcony Bill”1 that mandates regular inspections of wooden Exterior Elevated Elements (EEEs) in multifamily buildings with three or more units. The Balcony Bill was codified as Civil Code § 5551.2

As a result, community associations in California are now required to conduct visual inspections of EEEs — including balconies, decks, stairways and walkways — at least every nine years by a licensed structural engineer or architect. The first deadline for compliance was January 1, 2025, and many associations are still scrambling to meet the legal requirements and determine how to fund necessary repairs identified during inspections.

The Balcony Bill mandates proactive compliance. Failure to inspect and maintain EEE’s could expose an association to significant liability, including personal injury claims and fines. Boards should consult with professionals, such as legal counsel and reserve analysts, to review the association’s governing documents and reserve studies to ensure that adequate funding is available for inspections and repairs.

The Surfside Condominium Collapse: A Wake-Up Call on Reserve Funding and Deferred Maintenance

In June 2021, the Champlain Towers South condominium in Surfside, Florida partially collapsed, killing 98 people and drawing national attention to the importance of building maintenance, reserve funding and structural oversight. The lessons from Surfside resonate throughout the country, including here in California.

Following the tragedy, many states began reevaluating how community associations manage reserve funds and capital repair planning. There is growing momentum toward stricter enforcement of reserve study requirements, and it would not be surprising if the California legislature introduced minimum reserve fund requirements in the future. Boards, working with consultants, must now take a harder look at deferred maintenance and determine whether they are meeting their fiduciary duties to maintain the common areas in a safe and habitable condition.

Lenders and insurers are also becoming more cautious about deferred maintenance. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have issued updated lender guidance requiring more information on building conditions and deferred maintenance. For community associations, this translates into increased scrutiny during real estate transactions and the potential for financing delays if documentation is not up to date.

Wildfires and the Soaring Cost of Property Insurance

Wildfires have become a constant threat in many parts of California, and the insurance market has responded accordingly. Community associations across the state — particularly those located in or near designated fire risk zones — are experiencing dramatic increases in property insurance premiums. Some associations cannot obtain insurance coverage at all.

In some cases, insurance premiums have doubled or tripled. In other cases, insurance carriers have completely withdrawn from the market, forcing communities to seek coverage through the excess and surplus lines market, which often offers reduced coverage at a higher cost.

Rising insurance costs put enormous strain on association budgets and raise important questions about adequate reserve funding, regular assessment increases and special assessments. Boards must navigate insurance issues carefully, ensuring transparent communication with members and obtain expert advice on risk management.

Some associations are exploring self-insurance, risk pooling or higher deductibles to manage costs. Insurance, reserve and legal professionals should be involved in evaluating options to ensure compliance with governing documents and statutory requirements. In some cases, a community association’s governing documents may need to be amended to accommodate necessary changes to insurance coverage.

Moreover, the sheer volume of wildfires, including the massive fallout from the 2025 Los Angeles wildfires suggests that building material costs will also rise as communities strive to rebuild.

Conclusion: A Call for Proactive Governance and Consulting with Professionals

These three major events — a balcony failure, a condominium collapse, and persistent wildfire risk — underscore a shared lesson: reactive governance not sufficient. California community associations must adopt a proactive and informed approach to building safety, financial planning, and risk management.

What are some specific steps you can take now?

          • Schedule required Exterior Elevated Elements (EEE) inspections in compliance with Civil Code § 5551;
          • Consult with your reserve analyst and spend more time and effort to help prepare a more detailed and accurate reserve study and reserve funding plan;
          • Engage insurance professionals early in the budgeting process and schedule an annual meeting to review insurance coverage with your insurance agent or broker;
          • Communicate openly with members about risks, funding needs and legal obligations;
          • Consider levying regular, special, or emergency assessments where necessary to defray costs and plan for the future financial needs of your association; and
          • Update maintenance policies to reflect current best practices. In this evolving landscape, community association boards that proactively prioritize diligence and professional guidance will be better positioned to protect their communities and fulfill their fiduciary duties.

In this evolving landscape, community association boards that proactively prioritize diligence and professional guidance will be better positioned to protect their communities and fulfill their fiduciary duties.

[1] California Senate Bill No. 326
[2] Civil Code § 5551 is part of the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act

Understanding Due Process in Association Disciplinary Hearings

Jillian M. Wright, Esq.

Senior Attorney

858.527.0111
Email
Practice: Community Association Counsel

Share this article:

It is not uncommon for an owner receiving a disciplinary hearing notice to respond with something akin to, “I’m bringing my attorney to the hearing!” or “I demand the accuser be at the hearing to allow me to ask them questions!” Associations are responsible for maintaining community standards. Imposing discipline, such as fines or suspensions of privileges, at duly noticed hearings is a tool used to deter violations of those standards. However, many misunderstand members’ due process rights under California law at those disciplinary hearings. The disciplinary process must follow specific legal requirements, particularly those outlined in California Civil Code section 5855.

What Civil Code Section 5855 Requires

Civil Code section 5855 establishes the minimum due process requirements that associations must follow before imposing penalties on an owner, including what the specific hearing notice and results letters must include. However, as for due process at the hearing itself, Civil Code section 5855 only requires the association give the owner the opportunity to attend the hearing and present their side of the story, either in person or in writing. While this process ensures basic fairness, it does not create the same formal due process rights that a homeowner would receive in a court of law. The association retains significant discretion in enforcing its rules, and disciplinary hearings are not subject to strict legal procedures like those found in judicial proceedings.

Why the Law Grants Limited Due Process

Associations are private organizations, not government entities, which means they are not required to follow the same extensive legal due process standards as courts. Civil Code section 5855 strikes a balance by ensuring homeowners receive notice and an opportunity to be heard, while still allowing associations to efficiently enforce community rules.

For example:

      • The board serves as the decision-maker – Unlike in a courtroom, where a neutral judge or jury decides the outcome, the association’s board itself determines whether a violation occurred and what penalty, if any, is appropriate.
      • No formal rules of evidence apply – The board can consider various types of information, including written complaints, photos, or testimony from neighbors, without strict legal evidentiary requirements.
      • Legal representation is limited – While homeowners may bring an attorney, the board is not obligated to allow lawyers to actively participate in the hearing. In fact, as the hearings take place at board meetings, California case law explicitly allows associations to forbid owner’s attorneys to attend (SB. Liberty v. Isla Verde Association).

 

 

PRACTICE TIP:

While Civil Code section 5855 sets the minimum due process requirements, some associations may have additional protections outlined in their governing documents. Associations should regularly review their bylaws and CC&Rs to determine if they provide:

      • Additional notice requirements beyond the 10-day minimum.
                 
      • Specific hearing procedures that must be followed, including cross-examination and inspection of evidence.

If the governing documents impose these or other due process requirements, consult with legal counsel to discuss the enforceability of such provisions.

 

 

Conclusion

Civil Code section 5855 provides a balanced approach to association disciplinary hearings, granting homeowners basic due process rights while allowing associations to enforce their rules effectively. By carefully following the law and reviewing their governing documents, associations can maintain community standards while ensuring that all enforcement actions are fair, transparent, and legally sound.

Beyond Electronic Voting; Key 2025 Legislation Every HOA Manager Should Know

Karyn A. Larko, Esq.

Senior Attorney 

858.527.0111
Email
Practices: Community Association Counsel 

Share this article:

While the primary focus of the residential community association management industry is AB 2159, which permits electronic voting, several other bills were signed into law in 2024 that managers should be aware of.

SB 900  

SB 900, which went into effect January 1, 2025, significantly amends Civil Code (“CC”) § 4775 to address the maintenance and repair of utility services in common interest developments. SB 900 also makes minor revisions to CC § 5550 and 5610. Specifically, SB 900 makes an association responsible for the repairs and replacement needed to restore interrupted utility services (i.e., gas, heat, water or electrical services) that begin in the common area even when the issue extends into a separate interest or exclusive use common area, unless the association’s CC&Rs expressly provide for a different allocation, or the utility provider or local government is required to perform the work.

SB 900 requires an association to commence the repair process necessary to restore utility service within 14 days of service interruption.

If an association has insufficient reserve funds to cover the needed utility work, SB 900 permits an association’s board to obtain a loan to cover these costs without a member vote. The board may also levy an emergency assessment to repay the loan. Like a board’s existing right to impose an emergency assessment under CC § 5610, before obtaining a loan, a board must pass a resolution containing written findings regarding the nature of the expenses and the insufficiency of reserve funding. This resolution must be distributed to the members via individual delivery with the notice of the emergency assessment. The association must also provide any other notices required by law or the association’s governing documents.

If a quorum of the board cannot meet within 14 days to address the repair process, then at the next duly noticed board meeting, the total number of directors in attendance shall constitute a quorum. If applicable, the meeting notice shall state that the board may meet with a reduced quorum.

The board may also vote to approve the work needed to restore the utility service by electronic means, including email. All records of the electronic vote constitute association records and are subject to member inspection for three years.

In the event an association fails to meet these SB 900 requirements, the association may be held liable for that failure, but individual board members may not be found liable.

An association is exempt from complying with SB 900 requirements if the association is located in an area affected by a federal, state or local state of disaster or emergency, provided the disaster or emergency materially affects the association’s ability to perform its utility repair responsibilities.

The legislature amended CC § 5550 to designate utility services as “major components” to the extent an association is obligated to repair or replace those lines by CC § 4775.

The legislature amended CC § 5610(b) to add operating costs as an extraordinary expense if health or safety hazards are discovered on site.

AB 2114

SB 326 (“The Balcony Bill”) established CC § 5551 as of January 1, 2020. Under CC § 5551, an association is, among other things, required to have a reasonably competent and diligent visual inspection of a random and statistically significant sample of the exterior elevated elements for which the association is responsible for maintaining or repairing at least once every nine years. Previously, only licensed architects and structural engineers were permitted to perform these inspections.

Effective immediately, AB 2114 amended CC § 5551 to permit licensed civil engineers to perform these inspections rather than limiting the inspections to architects and structural engineers.

AB 2460

AB 2460 amends 2023’s AB 1458, which provided that if an association requires a quorum for director and/or recall elections, the association must provide the membership with general notice of the date, time and location of the meeting at which the quorum will be determined, and a statement that the board may adjourn the meeting for at least 20 days if the association fails to achieve quorum. If an association does not reach quorum for a director election, the association may adjourn the meeting to tabulate the votes for a minimum of 20 days. Unless the association’s governing documents authorize a lower quorum, the quorum for the adjourned meeting drops to twenty percent (20%). General notice of the adjourned meeting must contain the following: (1) the date, time and location of the adjourned meeting, (2) the list of candidates, (3) a statement that the quorum requirement is reduced to 20% and (4) that the ballots will be opened if the 20% quorum requirement is reached. The association must provide this notice to members not less than 15 days prior to the adjourned meeting.

AB 2460, which went into effect January 1, 2025, does not substantively change the law. Rather, it clarifies the changes to CC § 5115 and Corporations Code § 7512 made last year by AB 1458. Specifically, AB 2460 further clarifies that the 20% quorum for board elections and the related notice requirements only apply to incorporated and unincorporated associations with governing documents that impose a quorum requirement of more than 20% for reconvened meetings to elect directors, that members can call for a reconvened meeting, and that the notice that must be provided to the members at least 15 days in advance of the meeting date refers to the reconvened meeting date. Finally, AB 2460 clarifies that 20% of an association’s members, voting in person, by proxy, or secret ballot will satisfy quorum for the election of directors at a reconvened meeting and that the ballots will be counted if quorum is reached.

When In Doubt, Check It Out: Homeowners’ Rights to Inspect Association Records

Victoria R. Minor, Esq.

Attorney

858.527.0111
Email
Practices: Community Association Counsel 

Share this article:

In California, homeowners and members of homeowners associations (HOAs) have specific rights to inspect and copy association records. These rights are established under various sections of the California Civil Code and the California Corporations Code.

Under California Civil Code Section 5205, association records must be made available for inspection and copying by any member or their designated representative.  The records should be accessible at the association’s business office or another agreed-upon location within the common interest development.  If no agreement is reached, the association can deliver copies of the records to the member. Cal. Civ. Code §5205.

However, like many things in life, the inspection of records comes at a cost.  The association may charge for the direct and actual costs of copying and mailing the documents, and for the time involved in redacting certain information, up to specified limits (an amount not in excess of ten dollars ($10) per hour, and not to exceed two hundred dollars ($200) total per written request).  Cal. Civ. Code §5205(g).

 

What Records Can Be Inspected?

Members have the right to inspect records for the current fiscal year and the previous two fiscal years. Cal. Civ. Code §5210(a)(1).  Minutes of member and board meetings are permanently subject to inspection. Cal. Civ. Code §5210(a)(2).

Members also have the right to inspect and copy membership lists so long as a written demand is made upon the association to do so.  Cal Corp Code § 8330.  Membership lists are records maintained by the association which include names, property addresses, mailing addresses, and email addresses of members that have not opted out of providing such information.  Cal. Civ. Code §5200(a)(9).  Once the written demand to inspect the membership list has been made, the association then has five business days to make the membership list available for inspection and copying.  Cal Corp. Code § 8330. 

However, certain information may be withheld or redacted by the association. This includes information likely to lead to identity theft or fraud, privileged information, and records that compromise individual privacy. Cal. Civ. Code §5215.  Rather than providing a requesting member a copy of the membership list, Corporations Code Section 8330(c) allows the association to provide the requesting member an alternative method of contacting other members.  Additionally, the use of association records for commercial purposes or any purpose not related to a member’s interest is prohibited. Cal. Civ. Code §5230.

 

What If The Association Withholds Access To Records?

If an association unreasonably withholds access to records, the member can bring an action to enforce their rights.  Courts may award reasonable costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees to the member, and may impose a civil penalty of up to $500 for each denied request.  Cal. Civ. Code §5235(a).

 

Conclusion  

In summary, California law provides robust rights for homeowners to inspect and copy HOA records, with specific provisions to ensure transparency while protecting sensitive information. These rights are enforceable through legal action if necessary, ensuring that members can access the information they need while maintaining privacy and security.