Overview

When AB 130 took effect, I made a series of very specific predictions about how it would play out in the real world. Although I’m widely regarded as California’s most groundbreaking HOA attorney on the homeowner-side (meaning that my law firm, MBK Chapman, only represent homeowners), and I am thus staunchly pro-homeowner and anti-bad HOA, I made it clear from the beginning that AB 130 was a terrible law and the wrong solution for a real problem. In fact, I said that AB 130 would create confusion, shift enforcement behavior, increase costs, and that both bad HOAs and bad homeowners would find ways to exploit its gaps, while good HOAs and good HOA members would suffer because of the law. Nine months later, those predictions are no longer theoretical. They are occurring. Events have since proven me right, much to my disappointment.

The problem is not the idea behind AB 130. Nobody disputes that excessive HOA fines constituted a serious problem that needed a solution. The problem is how the Legislature chose to address it. Legislators didn’t think through how to write AB 130. Rather, the authors wrote the bill quickly and introduced it at the last minute as part of an amendment to a budget bill. It’s clear to me that they pushed through the HOA fine cap without considering the real-world consequences that any competent HOA attorney could’ve predicted. The result was inevitable. By capping fines without defining key enforcement terms or addressing obvious real-world scenarios, AB 130 left HOAs, homeowners, and even attorneys without clear guidance on how the law should operate in practice. That lack of clarity did not eliminate disputes. It multiplied them.

What we now see confirms exactly what I predicted. Homeowners are treating the $100 fine as a cost of doing business. Bad HOAs are attempting to work around the cap by reinterpreting what counts as a “separate violation.” Other bad HOAs are redefining commonly understood words and phrases solely to perform an end-run around AB 130. Good HOAs are pulling back from enforcement altogether because they fear running afoul of the new law. And in the background, costs are rising, litigation is increasing, insurance costs are rising, and parties use ambiguity as both a shield and a weapon depending on who is in control.

This Fact Sheet breaks down where those predictions have come true, using real-world examples and patterns that the HOA lawyers at my law firm, MBK Chapman, have seen in consultations and active disputes during the last nine months. This Fact Sheet also briefly explains how AB 130 operates in practice, where the statute still falls short, and what homeowners should understand before they assume that a $100 fine is the full extent of their exposure.

For those who’d like to learn more about AB 130, in addition to the substantial space I gave to AB 130’s “fine cap” in my best-selling book, HOA HELL | California Homeowners’ Definitive Gide to Beating Bad HOAs, I’ve written a number of articles and Fact Sheets on different aspects of AB 130, including my predictions about its fallout and its effects on HOA and homeowner behavior. My writings include:

• How California’s AB 130 Limits HOA Fines and Enforcement
• AB 130’s “Financial Commitment” Loophole: Why It’s a Problem
• California’s AB 130: Why the $100 Fine Cap Is Already Causing Chaos
• Why Celebrating AB 130 Is a Mistake: The Still Obvious Risks of California’s $100 HOA Fine Cap

And for those of you who are interested in how AB 130 actually modified California statutes, I created a handy table that lists the specific statutes that AB 130 created and modified, along with a brief explanation of the nature of the changes: AB 130 in California: Table of Statutory Changes Affecting HOAs and Homeowners.

Key Points

AB 130 is playing out exactly as I predicted, and the problem is not hard to identify. The Legislature capped fines without thinking through how HOAs and homeowners would deal with continuing violations, bad-faith actors, undefined exceptions, or the inevitable shift toward ADR and litigation. Nine months later, those gaps are producing exactly the confusion, cost, hesitation, and abuse that I warned about from the beginning. Below, I discuss some of the predictions that I made after AB 130 went into effect.

• AB 130 created confusion because the Legislature failed to define key enforcement terms. That failure did not create a minor interpretive problem. It created a daily operational problem for homeowners, HOA boards, managers, and attorneys who now must guess how the statute applies in recurring real-world enforcement scenarios.
  • AB 130 does not define what “per violation” means. That omission creates one of the most important unanswered questions under AB 130: when a homeowner leaves a condition unchanged, does the HOA face one continuing violation or a new violation each day? Our firm’s HOA lawyers confronted that exact issue in a real dispute involving a homeowner who made unapproved balcony improvements. The HOA issued a $100 fine after a hearing, then sent 14 separate violation notices on 14 straight days, all tied to the same hearing date. We argued that the HOA could not convert one unchanged balcony condition into 14 separate violations simply by changing the date on the notice. We also argued that the HOA’s decision to schedule one hearing for all 14 notices showed that even the HOA viewed this as one enforcement event, not 14 distinct violations. The HOA backed off and reversed the fines. But AB 130 still gives nobody a clear answer as to what would happen if the HOA tried the same tactic again with separate hearing dates.
  • Bad HOAs are already abusing the health and safety exception because the Legislature never defined the term’s limits. We are now seeing bad HOAs stretch ordinary concepts beyond recognition in order to escape AB 130’s $100 fine cap. For example, some bad HOAs have already begun recasting ordinary noise complaints as health and safety issues by claiming that disrupted sleep increases stress and cardiovascular risk. Other bad HOAs have started to characterize short-term rentals as health and safety violations by pointing to generalized security concerns, transient occupants, or a supposed strain on HOA infrastructure. Once bad boards start twisting the commonly understood meaning of ordinary English words solely to get around the fine cap, the exception stops acting like an exception and starts swallowing the rule.
  • The financial commitment provision of AB 130 creates exactly the uncertainty that every competent HOA attorney saw coming. HOAs do not know what qualifies, what proof they may demand, or how long they must wait before resuming enforcement. Meanwhile, bad HOA members who want to take advantage of the uncertainty surrounding AB 130 have every incentive to submit vague statements of intent, incomplete contractor quotes, or other weak materials that create just enough uncertainty to stall the process. AB 130 does not explain who decides sufficiency, whether an HOA may challenge defective proof before canceling a hearing, or what happens when a homeowner makes a supposed financial commitment and then does nothing. [When I say “competent HOA attorney,” I am talking about HOA lawyers with substantive experience, not the professional promoter, aka the “bad HOA lawyer,” that I’ve written extensively about].
• Homeowners are treating the $100 fine as a cost of doing business. That prediction has played out in numerous consultations MBK Chapman has conducted since last July. In one example, a homeowner applied in June of 2025 to install a modern metal-and-glass front door. The HOA denied the application because the design truly did clash with every other front door in the community. After AB 130 took effect a month later, the homeowner installed the door anyway and decided to absorb the $100 fine rather than find a compliant door, reapply, and incur the additional expense. That calculation made sense only if the fine represented the full exposure.
  • That strategy can collapse the moment the HOA decides to pursue ADR or litigation instead of guessing how far it may push fines. That is exactly what happened in the front-door dispute. The HOA did not try to stack fines, recharacterize the front door issue into a health and safety matter, or manufacture repeated hearings. Instead, it sent a formal Davis-Stirling Act ADR demand (Civil Code 5935), then sent a draft lawsuit showing it was prepared to sue if the homeowner refused to immediately remove the door. When the homeowner came to us, we advised him to remove it. He had no viable defense, and if he fought and lost, he faced a devastating attorneys’ fees and costs award that would dwarf the original $100 fine, possibly by a factor of 1,000. That example captures one of the most dangerous misconceptions surrounding AB 130: homeowners who fixate on the fine cap can miss the much larger litigation exposure sitting right behind it.
• Good HOAs are responding to AB 130 in the two ways that I predicted, both of which hurt the communities. Some good HOAs have decided that rather than guess how AB 130 applies to continuing violations, they will move more quickly toward ADR, mediation, or litigation when the violation matters enough. This, of course, will continue to increase the number of mediations demanded and lawsuits that will be filed. Other good HOAs have taken the opposite path and stepped back from enforcement altogether because they do not want to gamble on an unclear statute, spend enormous sums on litigation, or expose the community to the risk of having to pay expensive attorneys’ fees simply because the Legislature passed an ambiguous law.
  • At MBK Chapman, we saw that dynamic in a dispute involving a homeowner whose neighbor aimed cameras into his private property. The HOA called the camera owner to a hearing, imposed a $100 fine, and the owner simply paid the fine and left the cameras in place. The HOA then faced the dilemma I mentioned above regarding what “per violation” means. The HOA’s attorneys concluded that the board could not confidently keep fining the same conduct, but the HOA did not want to spend the money to sue. So it stood down. We then stepped in and pursued ADR against both the HOA and the neighbor. The HOA agreed that the cameras violated the nuisance provisions and that our client had suffered a wrong, yet it still hesitated because AB 130 had left it with an unattractive choice: gamble on litigation or do nothing. That is not smart reform. That is a statute that punishes good actors for trying to behave responsibly. The dispute is currently pending.
• AB 130 is increasing legal, management, insurance, and enforcement costs, exactly as I predicted. HOAs now spend more time consulting counsel, evaluating gray-area enforcement questions, preparing ADR demands, revisiting hearing procedures, and assessing litigation risk. Those costs do not remain theoretical. They show up in real budgets, real invoices, increased insurance dues, and real strategic decisions.
  • Homeowners ultimately pay those costs through higher assessments, special assessments, and other community-wide financial consequences. The front-door example illustrates the point. If that homeowner had ignored our advice and forced the HOA to file the lawsuit it had already prepared, the HOA would have funded that litigation from community resources. Insurance does not pay for an HOA to prosecute its own enforcement claims against homeowners. So when AB 130 pushes good HOAs away from clear fine-based enforcement and toward litigation, the entire membership will subsidize the fight.
• Bad HOA members are benefiting from AB 130 in exactly the way I predicted. They are pushing boundaries with good HOAs, assuming that hesitation, caution, and a desire to avoid bad-faith enforcement will translate into weakness. In many cases, that assumption proves correct. A homeowner who knows the board does not want to sue, does not want to guess how courts will interpret “separate violation,” and does not want to absorb heavy legal fees holds far more leverage than before.
• Bad HOAs are also benefiting because statutory ambiguity gives them room to weaponize enforcement in creative ways. That is why I warned from the beginning that AB 130 would reward both sides of the bad-faith spectrum. Bad homeowners exploit the cap to ignore rules. Bad HOAs exploit undefined terms and broad exceptions to keep pressuring owners anyway. Good HOAs and good homeowners sit in the middle and absorb the consequences.
• AB 130 forced HOAs into the exact dilemma I predicted: weak fines, expensive litigation, or surrender. That is the real lesson of the last nine months. The Legislature did not just cap fines. It destabilized the enforcement structure without providing meaningful guidance for what should replace it. Bad HOAs do what they’ve always done: ignore the law and overreach. Good HOAs react by caving in or moving directly to ADR and litigation, thus avoiding the uncertainty that comes from litigating over the Legislature’s intent. All of them spend more time and money trying to navigate a law that competent HOA attorneys could have told the Legislature was badly drafted from the outset.
• If your HOA is using AB 130 as a shield, a loophole, or a weapon, call the highly respected HOA attorneys at MBK Chapman, and we’ll set your HOA straight. Our expert HOA lawyers understand how AB 130 works in the real world, not just on paper, and we know how to respond when bad HOAs or bad members try to exploit a poorly written law.

Nine months of real-world disputes have confirmed what I warned about when AB 130 first appeared: the law did not solve the excessive-fine problem in a thoughtful way. It created a broader enforcement mess, rewarded bad-faith behavior on both sides, raised costs, and left good HOAs and good homeowners paying the price for the Legislature’s poor drafting.

FAQs

About MBK Chapman Fact Sheets

Homeowners searching for answers online will often come across articles that appear authoritative, but are actually written as search-engine marketing content rather than by an experienced HOA lawyer. These pieces tend to prioritize keyword density over clarity, accuracy, or legal context, which often leaves homeowners more confused than informed.

At MBK Chapman, our Fact Sheets are part of our HOA Law Library and are written by Michael Kushner, an HOA lawyer with decades of hands-on experience representing California homeowners. In fact, Michael Kushner is the HOA lawyer who pioneered the systems and strategies used by some of California’s most successful homeowner-side HOA law firms.

Each Fact Sheet is deliberately concise, statute-based, and designed as a quick-reference guide to help homeowners understand key HOA laws and enforcement rules at a glance.

AND DON’T FORGET TO TUNE INTO MY PODCAST, HOA HELL

YOU CAN ALSO ORDER MY GROUNDBREAKING BOOK

HOA HELL | California Homeowners’ Definitive Guide to Beating Bad HOAs

Amazon  |  Barnes & Noble