HOA HELL,™ a groundbreaking book for California homeowners by Michael B. Kushner

Order Now
CALL US TODAY (949) 767-3910

The Davis-Stirling Act: How California Homeowners Can Use It to Hold Their HOAs Accountable

by | HOAs, Real Estate

USING THE DAVIS-STIRLING ACT TO HOLD YOUR HOA ACCOUNTABLE

OVERVIEW

California’s Davis-Stirling Act is the foundational law that governs nearly every HOA in the state. It sets the rules for elections, assessments, board authority, records access, dispute resolution, and more. But for most homeowners, the only time they hear about it is when their HOA uses it as a weapon—telling them what they’re not allowed to do, what rule they’ve supposedly violated, or why the board has “discretion” to act unilaterally.

This article flips that narrative. It’s not a summary—it’s a strategy guide. Most boards use the Davis-Stirling Act to control homeowners. This article shows you how to use it against them.

You’ll learn how to force transparency using section 5200, when to push back on illegal assessments, and how to confront selective enforcement and architectural bias.

Most of what you’ll find online about the Davis-Stirling Act isn’t written to help you, it’s written to rank in search engines. These articles repackage the statute, skim past the real enforcement tools, and leave homeowners guessing how the law actually applies.

This article is different. It was written by the attorney who pioneered the legal niche of representing California homeowners against their HOAs—and it’s based on three decades of actually litigating the exact kinds of disputes that boards and management companies don’t want you to understand.

A NOTE FROM THE AUTHOR

If you’ve searched online for help understanding the Davis-Stirling Act, you’ve probably come across articles that look professional, but say almost nothing. Many of them are AI-generated content dumps—written for search engines, not homeowners like you (especially homeowners looking for helpful information). They skim the surface, summarize what’s already in the statute, and pretend that simply rephrasing the law counts as insight.

One so-called local expert in this field—who touts his firm as being one of the nation’s most experienced HOA law firm—has recently published dozens of these “articles” (virtually on a daily basis), all of which follow the same template: bland bullet-pointed legal overviews/summaries (which amount to nothing more than data dumps summarizing various statutes), no real examples, and shallow takes that often skip over critical nuances.

In one piece, for example, he suggests that homeowners are “expected” to participate in Internal Dispute Resolution (“IDR”) when Civil Code section 5910(d) makes clear that homeowners are never required (or “expected”) to participate. That kind of careless, unnuanced guidance doesn’t just confuse people, it gives HOAs a false sense of legal cover.

I write this, and all of my other articles, to educate readers and to empower them. I don’t write these articles for marketing clout or to improve my law firm’s SEO rankings. It’s nice if that happens, but it’s not the primary goal. And I hope that you can tell the difference between the two.

WHY MOST HOMEOWNERS MISUNDERSTAND THE DAVIS-STIRLING ACT

The Davis-Stirling Act is the set of laws that governs nearly every HOA in California. It was enacted in 1985 to replace the patchwork of inconsistent local rules that used to govern common interest developments. It now controls everything from board elections to architectural review, financial disclosures, assessment procedures, member discipline, and more.

But most homeowners misunderstand what the Act actually is, largely because bad HOAs (by and through their attorneys it) never explain it. The law isn’t a built-in protection system for owners. It’s a legal framework. It gives boards power. It gives members rights. But it doesn’t do anything on its own.

A lot of boards rely on that misunderstanding. They invoke the Davis-Stirling Act to justify fines, approvals, denials, and “discretionary decisions.” And when a homeowner pushes back, the board references a Civil Code section—often out of context—and treats that citation as the end of the conversation.

In reality, the Davis-Stirling Act is most useful if you know what to ask for, when to demand compliance, and how to respond when the board either misapplies or flat-out ignores its requirements. That’s what this article is for. To illustrate just a few examples of how you can use the law, not just read about it.

USING CIVIL CODE SECTION 5200 TO EXPOSE WHAT YOUR HOA DOESN’T WANT YOU TO SEE

This is the statute boards hate the most. Why? Because it forces transparency.

Under Civil Code section 5200, you have the right to inspect a wide range of association records, including:

  • Membership list, along with email addresses (for those who have no affirmatively opted out) (Civ. Code, § 5200(a)(9)).
  • Governing documents (Civ. Code, § 5200(a)(11)).
  • Monthly and annual bank statements (Civ. Code, § 5200(a)(13)).
  • Canceled checks (Civ. Code, § 5200(a)(13)).
  • Check registers (Civ. Code, §§ 5200(a)(10), 5200(a)(13)).
  • Credit card statements (Civ. Code, §§ 5200(a)(10), 5200(a)(13)).
  • Purchase orders approved by the HOA (Civ. Code, § 5200(a)(13)).
  • Invoices for services rendered to the HOA (Civ. Code, § 5200(a)(13)).
  • Reimbursement requests submitted to the HOA (Civ. Code, § 5200(a)(13)).
  • Certificates of insurance for vendors or contractors (Civ. Code, § 5200(a)(4)).
  • Current and prior master insurance policies (Civ. Code, § 5200(a)(4)).
  • Declaration pages for current-year insurance policies (Civ. Code, § 5200(a)(4)).
  • Notices of all board meetings (Civ. Code, § 5200(a)(8)).
  • Agendas for all board meetings, including executive sessions (Civ. Code, § 5200(a)(8)).
  • Minutes for all open board meetings (Civ. Code, § 5200(a)(8)).
  • Annual budget report, including: the pro forma budget or summary, reserve funding plan, and funding methodology (Civ. Code, §§ 5200(a)(1), 5320(b)).
  • Annual policy statement, including: notice of right to receive board meeting minutes, assessment collection policy, and fine schedule (Civ. Code, §§ 5200(a)(1), 5310(b), 5320(b)).
  • Management agent disclosures (Civ. Code, §§ 5375, 5380).
  • Any full reserve studies (Civ. Code, § 5320(b)).
  • Reserve account balances and records of reserve fund expenditures (Civ. Code, § 5200(a)(7)).
  • All signed contracts not covered by legal privilege (Civ. Code, § 5200(a)(4)).
  • Balance sheets (Civ. Code, § 5200(a)(3)(A)).
  • Income and expense statements (Civ. Code, § 5200(a)(3)(B)).
  • Budget comparisons (Civ. Code, § 5200(a)(3)(C)).
  • The general ledger (Civ. Code, § 5200(a)(3)(D)).
  • Federal tax returns (Civ. Code, § 5200(a)(6)).
  • State tax returns (Civ. Code, § 5200(a)(6)).
  • Election rules and board qualification criteria (Civ. Code, § 5200(a)(11)).

Homeowners don’t usually submit 5200 requests just for curiosity. This statute is often the first move in exposing something serious—e.g., financial mismanagement, reserve fund abuse, embezzlement, or internal self-dealing. We’ve seen cases where a single records request led to criminal referrals, board resignations, or the discovery of fraudulent invoices dating back years. And that’s why bad HOAs often resist these requests, or at the very least, try to water them down.

So, if your board tries to prevent you from obtaining ANY of the documents you’re entitled to, or if they try to argue that you can “review” them, but only in person, that’s wrong. You’re entitled to copies. And if they ignore the request? You can file a demand for compliance under Civil Code section 5235 and recover attorneys’ fees, court costs, and up to $500 per document category.

This isn’t a courtesy. It’s an enforceable right. And HOAs that stall, redact without explanation, or pretend to “lose” documents are violating the law.

If you’d like to read my article on the power of Civil Code section 5200 and how you can best make use of it to hold your HOA accountable, click here.

DISPUTE RESOLUTION: WHAT YOU’RE REQUIRED TO DO, AND WHAT YOU’RE NOT REQUIRED TO DO

When you have a dispute with your board, the Davis-Stirling Act provides two paths before litigation: IDR and Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”). A lot of HOAs misunderstand both, or just pretend the law says something it doesn’t.

Here’s what’s true:

  • You can demand IDR. And if you do, the board must participate. (Civ. Code, § 5910(c).)
  • But if the board demands IDR, you don’t have to show up. That’s not a loophole. It’s the law. Civil Code section 5910(d) clearly states that homeowners are never required to participate.

If your HOA says that you’re “expected” (or even “required”) to engage in IDR, or that declining to do so is a failure to cooperate, they’re sadly misinformed.

ADR actually refers to both mediation and arbitration. But in the context of HOA disputes, that almost always mean mediation, so for the purposes of this article, we’re going to ignore arbitration. Mediation, therefore, may be required before certain types of lawsuits (e.g., enforcing CC&Rs), but only in specific cases.

Under Civil Code section 5930, mediation is required before a homeowner or HOA can file a lawsuit (or demand for arbitration) if the lawsuit:

  • Is intended to enforce the governing documents.
  • AND the lawsuit is solely for: (a) for declaratory, injunctive, or writ relief; OR (b) is seeking declaratory, injunctive, or writ relief, along with money damages of up to $12,500.

In all other instances, the parties are not technically required to engage in mediation (or any other type of ADR or IDR).

SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND THE “EMERGENCY” EXCUSE

If your HOA imposes a new assessment—especially one in the thousands—you should ask two things:

  1. Does it exceed 5% of the annual budgeted gross expenses?
  2. Was it imposed without a vote of the membership?

Unless it qualifies as a narrowly defined emergency under Civil Code section 5610, the board must get homeowner approval for any special assessment that exceeds 5%.

Real emergencies—like sudden structural failures or court-ordered repairs—may justify bypassing the vote. But deferred maintenance, “unexpected” cost increases, or vague references to safety concerns do not qualify. To be sure, emergency assessments were never meant to serve as a discretionary tool for mismanaged HOAs to cover years of systemic neglect. Boards that abuse the emergency exception are not only violating the Davis-Stirling Act, but also their fiduciary duties to members.

If your board uses the word “emergency” but can’t document what happened and why it was unforeseeable, the assessment is very likely invalid.

If you’d like to read my article on HOA misuse of the “emergency exception” in issuing special assessments, click here.

ARCHITECTURAL CONTROLS: WHEN THE BOARD STARTS MAKING UP RULES

Architectural review is one of the most common areas where HOAs exercise control—but also one of the most commonly abused.

Under Civil Code section 4765, an HOA must evaluate architectural applications using reasonable, objective criteria. The board must follow a defined approval process, issue a written decision, and apply its standards consistently across all homeowners.

But here’s how boards often get around that:

  • They enforce unwritten standards—e.g., they reject a proposed design because “it doesn’t match the community aesthetic,” even if nothing in the CC&Rs supports that.
  • They issue vague denials like “this isn’t in harmony with the neighborhood,” without identifying which rule was violated or how.
  • They apply the standards inconsistently—e.g., they engage in selective enforcement by, for example, approving one homeowner’s changes while rejecting another’s nearly identical request.
  • They stall. Some boards ignore applications for weeks or months, hoping the homeowner gives up or misses a response deadline.

If your HOA denied your architectural request, you’re entitled to a clear, written explanation of what rule you allegedly violated. If they can’t point to an objective standard—and apply it evenly to everyone—they’re not just being unfair. They’re violating the law.

And if your CC&Rs include an automatic approval clause (which many do), the failure to respond within the time required may mean your application is deemed approved whether the board likes it or not.

This isn’t about design preferences. It’s about process. If the board can’t follow the process, they lose the power.

SECRET MEETINGS, MISSING MINUTES, AND FAKE “BOARD VOTES”

When boards operate in secret, it’s not just bad optics—it’s a violation of California law. The Davis-Stirling Act requires open, accessible meetings for a reason: so homeowners can see how decisions are made, how money is spent, and how power is being exercised.

Under Civil Code sections 4900 through 4935, boards must:

  • Hold open meetings where members can attend and observe.
  • Post agendas in advance.
  • Allow reasonable time for homeowner comment.
  • Take formal votes, with minutes reflecting what was decided.

But many boards don’t follow these rules. They conduct business through email or informal “check-ins,” make decisions offline, or hold executive sessions for matters that don’t qualify for confidentiality. Then they announce the result after the fact, as if the process was never up for review.

That’s not discretion. That’s a violation.

If your board is adopting budgets, approving contracts, denying applications, or imposing fines without holding a proper meeting, they’re bypassing one of the most fundamental safeguards in HOA law: open governance. And when decisions are made in the dark, abuse isn’t just possible, it’s inevitable.

The law gives you the right to know what’s happening in your HOA. If the board isn’t honoring that, it’s time to push back.

WHEN KNOWING THE LAW ISN’T ENOUGH, AND WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT

The Davis-Stirling Act is powerful, but it won’t enforce itself. It won’t force your board to be honest. It won’t audit your management company. It won’t stop selective enforcement, illegal assessments, or backroom meetings unless you know how to make it work.

That’s where most homeowners get stuck. They assume the law protects them automatically, while their board ignores the rules, misstates the law, or hides behind vague references to “discretion.” But unless someone demands compliance, there are no consequences.

If your HOA is using the Davis-Stirling Act to justify bad behavior—or ignoring the parts they don’t like—call us at MBK CHAPMAN. We’ll set your HOA straight.

CONCLUDING THOUGHT

The Davis-Stirling Act isn’t a shield for boards. It’s a weapon for homeowners who know how to use it. The problem is, most people don’t. And that’s exactly what bad HOAs count on.

They count on you not knowing the difference between an optional meeting and a required vote. Between a request and a demand. Between a records policy and a legal obligation.

But once you learn how the law actually works, and how to enforce it, the balance shifts. You’re no longer playing defense. You’re holding them accountable.

That’s what this article was about. Not what the law SAYS, but what it lets you DO.