CALIFORNIA HOA FINE LIMITS UNDER AB 130

OVERVIEW

California’s newly enacted AB 130, effective June 30, 2025, capped HOA fines at $100 per violation under newly revised Civil Code section 5855. On the surface, it feels like a long-overdue consumer protection: a clear, homeowner-friendly reform to stop petty punishments from overreaching bad HOAs. But the reality is far more nuanced and concerning.

While AB 130 will almost certainly curb abusive tactics by aggressive HOAs, it also risks disarming well-managed HOAs from holding “neighbors from hell”—bad HOA members—accountable for repeated or disruptive misconduct. The law contains no meaningful guidance on repeat violators, escalating fines, or how to enforce multi-day or ongoing infractions. Rather than curbing actual HOA abuses, the Legislature may have created a bigger problem—one that could push HOAs to file more lawsuits to compel compliance as fines lose their deterrent value.

And it’s no accident. This fine cap wasn’t driven by a genuine desire to help HOA members against abusive boards or as a result of self-described pioneering lawyers trying to imply some responsibility for the law’s passage. Rather, the $100 fine cap was quietly folded into a sweeping housing reform package that aligns with our governor’s broader political agenda. California’s governor has spent the last several years reengineering land use in California to promote dense, urban, transit-oriented housing over traditional single-family suburban development. He has consistently championed legislation that weakens local control in favor of state-mandated housing density—e.g., by backing laws like SB 9 and SB 10 (which undermined single-family zoning), along with CEQA carveouts and fast-tracked infill projects. What’s framed as homeowner protection is just another lever in California’s state-driven shift away from neighborhood autonomy.

I have championed homeowner rights in California for decades. I pioneered this particular area of the law by training the founding shareholders of California’s two largest competing law firms focusing on HOA-member rights in my systems and methods. Those are my credentials. But when a law masquerades as a protective measure while eroding genuine homeowner safeguards, it’s my duty to call it out. AB 130 may help in the short term. But in the long run, it could leave responsible communities defenseless against the very behaviors they exist to prevent.

AB 130 AND HOA FINES: WHAT THE NEW CALIFORNIA LAW SAYS AND WHAT IT DOESN’T

California Civil Code sections 5850,  5855,, etc. has been around for years. But under AB 130, it now includes a critical new limitation: HOAs cannot impose a monetary penalty greater than $100 per violation unless the violation involves a “significant and imminent threat to health or safety.”

That might sound straightforward. It’s not.

The new law does not define what counts as a single violation. It doesn’t explain whether repeat offenses, like leaving trash bins out every week, count as separate violations. It doesn’t explain whether the $100 cap applies only to the initial fine, or also to escalating penalties for ongoing or continuing noncompliance. And it says nothing about whether a homeowner can be fined again for the same violation after a hearing if they refuse to cure it.

In other words, the Legislature added a hard cap without answering any of the questions that actually matter.

What we do know is this:

As of June 30, 2025, no HOA in California may fine a member more than $100 per violation, unless it’s a genuine health or safety issue.
The burden is on the HOA to prove that a larger fine qualifies for the health/safety exemption.
The new cap applies to any monetary penalty, regardless of how it’s labeled in the HOA’s fine schedule or hearing notice.

That last point is critical. HOAs may try to reclassify fines as “compliance charges,” “rule enforcement assessments,” or some other made-up term. It doesn’t matter. The law applies regardless of terminology.

The law also allows homeowners to avoid a disciplinary hearing if, at least seven days beforehand, they either (a) cure the violation, or (b) show they’ve made a “financial commitment” to cure it. But here again, the statute leaves key terms undefined.

What does a “financial commitment” mean? A signed landscaping contract? A $25 deposit? A verbal promise to commit financially? And what does “commitment” even mean in the context of this new law?

I don’t know. Do you?

Without clarity, the provision is ripe for abuse, by both boards and homeowners. Boards are left guessing, and serial violators can game the system. And disputes that could’ve been resolved with a warning or hearing now risk escalating into lawsuits just to compel compliance—lawsuits where the HOA will be entitled to its attorneys’ fees and costs if it prevails. These will be lawsuits that would never have been filed before AB 130 went into effect because the HOA could have relied on escalating fines as a deterrent.

A new twist buried in the statute raises even more concern. Subsection (e) of the revised law says that if the board and the homeowner “are in agreement after the meeting,” the board shall draft a written resolution. That resolution—if signed by both parties—becomes judicially enforceable.

As I said, this is new.

Prior to AB 130, disciplinary hearings didn’t result in judicially enforceable contracts. The board made its decision, sent a letter, and moved on. Now, the law creates a pathway to something that functions more like a settlement agreement or stipulated judgment, both of which can be enforceable like any civil judgment.

But here’s the problem: there are no procedural safeguards in place to govern how this works. As you may recall from my recent 1-Minute Attorney Tip on my HOA Hell podcast, although many HOAs allow members to bring their attorneys to disciplinary hearings, HOA boards are not required to allow member attorneys. You can access that episode by clicking here.

Does the homeowner now have a right to bring an attorney to the hearing? Obviously not. The statute said nothing about that, so there’s no reason to think that anything changed in that regard. But if the board’s resolution will be binding and enforceable in court, how can they legally prevent a homeowner from seeking counsel, or from bringing that counsel with them to the hearing? I go into more detail on this issue below, so read on.

In the meantime, also left unstated are a few other issues, such as:

Isn’t it more likely that HOAs will now demand that their attorneys appear at EVERY hearing? If so, that will greatly increase costs, which will likely result in increased dues across the board.
What happens if the member wants to negotiate but not sign the agreement on the spot (assuming that, as I later in this article, an HOA interprets this statute to require that the agreement be signed at the hearing and not at a later time)?
What if the board demands an agreement and threatens discipline if the member refuses?

The statute is silent, but leaves those open questions. And that lack of clarity invites abuse from both boards and homeowners. And unfortunately, that’s just one of many structural defects this law introduces.

A LAW FULL OF HOLES: WHAT AB 130 FAILED TO ADDRESS

The Legislature didn’t just impose a simple $100 fine cap. It left behind a patchwork of stupendously important unanswered questions, structural flaws, and hopelessly vague directives that will now have to be interpreted by boards, lawyers, courts, and eventually, by homeowners themselves. Below (in no particular order) are some of the most glaring oversights and ambiguities in the new version of Civil Code sections 5850, 5855, etc.

Right to Legal Counsel

This is the most troubling issue of all and was discussed in the prior section. But it’s worth repeating here because it implicates one of the most fundamental principles of our legal system: the right to have legal representation when consequences are enforceable in court.

AB 130 added a new provision to Civil Code section 5855 that says that “[i]f the board and the member are in agreement after the meeting, the board shall draft a written resolution. The written resolution, signed by the board and the member of the dispute pursuant to procedures not in conflict with the law or governing documents, binds the association and is judicially enforceable.”

The fact that AB 130 is silent on the issue of homeowner representation at a disciplinary hearing raises two giant problems. First, since the statute says nothing about allowing homeowners to have an attorney with them at such hearings almost certainly means that the existing law on the subject remains the same—i.e., homeowners do not have the right to have an attorney present at a disciplinary hearing. That omission leads directly into the second problem. If, in fact, it’s now mandatory that the board and homeowner must draft a written resolution (the “agreement”), and if that “agreement” is now judicially enforceable, meaning that it can be enforced by a court according to its terms, then how can a homeowner be prevented from having an attorney present to review the “agreement” and advise the homeowner?

The revised statute now gives disciplinary hearing outcomes potentially the same legal force as formal settlement agreements. That means your HOA hearing could effectively bind you, but without the basic legal safeguards that normally apply.

So what happens if your HOA refuses to let you bring your attorney to that hearing?

HOA boards were never required to allow attorneys before. But now that those hearings can result in judicially enforceable outcomes, the rules have changed. But the problem is that nobody seems to have thought about that when it came to this new law. So AB 130 is silent on that topic, meaning that the status quo is in effect. But the status quo is intolerable.

Presumably, bad HOAs will have the right to have their attorneys present at disciplinary hearings, but not afford the same right to homeowners. And HOAs will now find themselves paying much more in fees to ensure that their attorneys are present (when that was rarely the case), which will increase dues for homeowners across the State of California.

These aren’t fringe hypotheticals. They’re real, immediate problems caused by poor legislative drafting.

[Now, I recognize that this new change to 5855 does not state that the “agreement” has to be drafted and signed at the meeting, but that’s how I read it. And whether I’m wrong or right isn’t the point. The point is, that the statute is not clear about it, meaning that some HOAs will interpret it to say what I think it says, and others won’t (in which case, a homeowner would have the chance to have an attorney advise them, and it won’t present a due process problem). It’s the potential due process issue that concerns me here.]

What Does “Per Violation” Actually Mean?

The statute says that an HOA may not impose a monetary penalty “greater than one hundred dollars ($100) per violation.” But what is a “violation”? If a homeowner leaves their trash bins out every week for four weeks, is that one violation or four? What if a member installs illegal lighting and leaves it in place for a month. Can the HOA fine them again after the first $100? The law doesn’t say. And without that clarity, boards are stuck guessing. Bad HOAs will abuse this. Good ones will error on the side of caution and do nothing.

And the losers? Good HOA members, like you. You’re the ones who will be left either exploited or unprotected, depending on which kind of board governs your community. You’re also the ones who will likely see significantly increased dues because of the need to involve HOA attorneys more often.

Are Escalating Fines Now Illegal?

Most HOA fine schedules include escalating penalties for repeat violations—e.g., $50 for the first offense, $100 for the second, $200 for the third, and so on. AB 130 doesn’t address whether those escalating schedules remain enforceable.

Can an HOA still escalate penalties if the violation happens multiple times? Can it impose another $100 fine for a violation that hasn’t been cured? If not, then one of the most effective deterrents to repeat violations—cost—has just been eliminated.

This is especially dangerous for habitual offenders who know how to “toe the line” just enough to avoid default. They may now see the $100 fine as the cost of doing business.

And again, you’re the ones who will be left either exploited or unprotected, depending on which kind of board governs your community. You’re also the ones who will likely see significantly increased dues because of the need to involve HOA attorneys more often.

What Counts as a “Health and Safety” Violation?

The only express exception to the $100 cap is for violations that involve a “significant and imminent threat to health or safety.”

That’s a very high threshold, and again, completely undefined. Does that include any of the following?

Driving recklessly through private streets?
Letting dangerous dogs roam off leash?
Blocking fire lanes?
Hoarding in a unit that emits foul odors or attracts vermin?

The statute doesn’t say. Which means any HOA that invokes the health/safety exemption now risks being second-guessed in court unless the danger is so obvious and extreme that even a layperson would recognize it.

That uncertainty won’t deter serious violators. But it will deter cautious boards from enforcing rules when the line isn’t crystal clear—especially when the prevailing party is entitled to its attorneys’ fees and costs after prevailing in court.

Does the Cap Apply to Per-Day Fines?

Some HOA fine schedules impose a daily fine for continuing violations. For example, $25 per day until the violation is cured. That model has long been used to ensure timely compliance.

But AB 130 is silent on whether per-day fines are permitted so long as they don’t exceed $100 total, or whether they’re allowable as long as each new day counts as a “new” violation.

In other words: is a continuing violation one violation or many?

HOAs have no guidance. And courts will likely come to different conclusions. That opens the door to more litigation and more uneven enforcement.

Will HOAs Start Filing More Lawsuits

When fines lose their deterrent value, lawsuits become the next tool in the HOA’s enforcement arsenal.

Before AB 130, an HOA might impose a $100 fine, then escalate to $250 or $500 if the violation continued. Now, they’re stuck. The board can either impose another $100 (which may not be enforceable), or it can initiate formal legal action to compel compliance.

The new statute makes that path much more appealing, especially since § 5975 allows the prevailing party in a lawsuit to recover attorneys’ fees and costs.

In other words, AB 130 may drive up litigation, not reduce it.

AB 130 doesn’t just leave holes. It builds a framework that almost guarantees conflict, confusion, and inconsistency. In paying lip service to curbing abusive boards, this law does very little to actually curb abusive boards. But it sure created a minefield that will impact regular HOA members in very real ways unless the Legislature addresses these ambiguities, which I don’t think will realistically occur (because it will force an acknowledgment by the Governor and others that they didn’t think this through very well). So instead, you and your HOA are going to pay the price.

TAKING CREDIT WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THE LAW: HOW AB 130 EXPOSES THE PRETENDERS

In the weeks following AB 130’s passage, one attorney in particular—who previously worked for me and learned this area of law using systems and strategies that I developed and now claims to be this area’s legal pioneer and “thought leader”—published an article strongly implying that he and his firm were instrumental in getting the law passed. His post was carefully worded, but the suggestion was unmistakable: we fought for this reform, and Sacramento listened.

Let’s be very clear. This law was not created by any attorney or “reform movement.” It was not passed in response to any online campaign. AB 130 was buried inside a larger omnibus housing package intended to further the California governor’s political goal of centralizing land-use control, undercutting local authority, and softening the enforcement powers of suburban governance structures, HOAs included.

Anyone paying attention to the broader housing policy landscape in California would have seen this coming. It wasn’t about HOA reform. It was about stripping power from private communities to make way for high-density, state-mandated urban development.

But that’s not how it was framed in this “thought leader” attorney’s article. Instead, the focus was on hashtags, online slogans, and a triumphant tone of grassroots victory—as though California lawmakers were sitting around waiting for a social media campaign to guide their legislative priorities.

Here’s what that “thought leader’s” article didn’t include:

Any meaningful discussion of the statute’s actual language. There was no breakdown of what changed under Civil Code sections 5850, 5855, etc. no mention of the vague “per violation” language, no warning about how the $100 cap might backfire in cases of repeat or continuing misconduct.
No mention of the fact that the law creates judicially enforceable agreements without due process protections. No analysis of how this could impact hearings, rights to counsel, or board procedures. And no championing of the rights of homeowners to have counsel present where they will be expected to come to judicially enforceable agreements.
No discussion of litigation risks or practical consequences. No insight into how this law will increase costs, invite lawsuits, or force boards to file complaints they previously could’ve resolved through escalating fines.

In short, the article was everything wrong with modern legal marketing: short on substance, long on branding. It paraded buzzwords and victory chants in place of statutory interpretation. It took credit for something the author clearly didn’t understand and hadn’t thought through.

And that’s dangerous. Because homeowners in California are going to read that article and think (1) that this guy is an expert, when he isn’t; and (2) that this law is something it’s not: clean, clear, and helpful.

But AB 130 is not any of those.

It’s ambiguous, open-ended, and packed with unintended consequences. And the last thing homeowners need right now is attorneys masquerading as experts and policy architects when they haven’t even taken the time to read the statute, much less analyze it or understand it.

CONCLUDING THOUGHT

AB 130 is being hailed as a win for homeowners. But in practice, it’s a legislative shortcut that creates more problems than it solves. Yes, it reins in certain abusive fine practices. But it does so by stripping HOAs of one of their most effective enforcement tools without giving them any functional alternative.

The result? More lawsuits, more confusion, more inconsistency, and more cost—all of which will be borne, as always, by the good members themselves.

If the Legislature wanted to curb abusive fines, it could have required better notice, more due process, or clearer guidance on proportionality. Instead, it imposed a $100 cap that doesn’t account for repeat violations, doesn’t define key terms, and creates judicially enforceable agreements without addressing representation, consent, or fairness.

AB 130 is not reform. It’s recklessness masquerading as relief.

And when the dust settles, it won’t be the lawmakers who clean up the mess. The Governor will be well on his way to satisfying his presidential ambitions. No, it will be homeowners like you who will have to hire lawyers like those at MBK CHAPMAN to finally figure things out. Because it will be courts who will have to fill in the blanks left by the Legislature. And so, it will be homeowners like you who will pay the price when you guess wrong.

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

How California’s AB 130 Limits HOA Fines and Enforcement