Overview
AB 130 has been hyped by some as a homeowner victory. Some newspapers, like the San Francisco Chronicle, spoke with opponents and supporters from both sides of the HOA debate (homeowner and HOA alike) and then published balanced stories on the subject, highlighting AB 130’s very real problems. Other newspapers, however, like the Los Angeles Times, published highly imbalanced stories on the law being a panacea to the evils of HOAs. [Regarding the latter LA Times piece, look out in the near future for a podcast episode dedicated exclusively to the myriad problems associated with that LA Times story (“AB 130: Bad Laws and Sloppy News Reporting Don’t Solve HOA Abuses”), including what made the story so imbalanced, and my ultimately unsuccessful efforts to reach out in good faith to the reporter who wrote the story to discuss the error in his reporting (i.e., the fact that he didn’t bother speaking with any homeowner-side attorneys who were strongly against AB 130).] You’ll find that episode of HOA HELL on YouTube, as well as wherever else you listen to your podcasts.
In reality, AB 130 is producing confusion that will result in dramatically increased costs for everyone. Despite that fact, however, there are a very few so-called experts out there who are praising AB 130. One of those, a self-styled “thought leader” in homeowner-side HOA law, recently wrote a typo and gibberish-laden, SEO dump of an “article” in which he tripled down on his praise for AB 130 despite the fact that one his partners (who actually has some trial experience) already publicly acknowledged AB 130’s problematic ambiguities. This Fact Sheet explains the specific risks AB 130 creates for homeowners and for well-run boards.
For a quick-reference guide to more on the topic of AB 130’s loopholes and ambiguities, see my Fact Sheet “AB 130’s “Financial Commitment” Loophole: Why It’s a Problem.”
For a table of statutes changed by AB 130 and a brief description of the change, see my Fact Sheet “AB 130 in California: Table of Statutory Changes Affecting HOAs and Homeowners.”
I’ve also written full-length articles on the subject if you’d like take a deeper dive into AB 130.
Key Points
What are the real-world risks of AB 130 that put your pocketbook, property value, and neighborhood stability at risk?
- $100 cap invites “cost of doing business” behavior. A $100 maximum per violation encourages chronic violators (i.e., Bad HOA members) to ignore rules, eroding property values and neighborhood safety for everyone else. And we’re already seeing this happen in our office on a weekly basis.
- “Stacking” uncertainty paralyzes enforcement. AB 130 doesn’t say whether boards may re-notice ongoing violations, so good boards fear “stacking” claims and either do nothing or escalate straight to legal action by initiating the pre-litigation ADR process (as a precursor to filing lawsuits) (Civil Code 5930). Both outcomes dramatically raise costs and tensions. And we’re already seeing evidence of this.
- “Health and safety” is undefined. Civil Code 5850 allows higher fines where health or safety is at issue, but the statute doesn’t define the standard, inviting inconsistent decisions and disputes with homeowners. Good HOAs, and some are “good,” won’t want to risk guessing incorrectly, and then having to pay a member’s attorney’s fees. So they’ll either do nothing, or skip negotiations, and move directly onto the litigation track discussed above. And we’re already seeing evidence of this.
- The “financial commitment” trap. AB 130 added a cure-or-“financial commitment” pathway (Civil Code 5850, 5855) that forces boards to cancel hearings even when the “commitment” is vague or unverifiable. This accomplishes nothing other than to create uncertainty, delays, gamesmanship, and new litigation flashpoints.
- Good HOA members bear the burden for the conduct of the bad HOA members. You either live next to violations that never get cured, or you sue your own board for failing to enforce the governing documents. Both scenarios drain time, money, and neighborhood goodwill.
- Only a couple of narrow positives. Two parts of AB 130 stand out to me as good things. First, I fully support AB 130’s ban on interest and late fees attached to unpaid fines. I also support AB 130’s amendment to Civil Code 714.3, which clarified that “reasonable restrictions” on the construction of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) were those that didn’t unreasonably increase costs or effectively prohibit their construction. It also made it clear that ADU-related “fees” were prohibited. Those are not, however, enough to fix the statute’s much more serious defects.
Taken together, these risks show why AB 130 is not a homeowner win. It replaces clarity with loopholes and shifts costs from small fines to expensive litigation.
FAQs
Can my HOA fine me more than $100 for a violation after AB 130?
Not unless the board documents a valid health or safety justification in an open meeting (Civil Code 5850). Even then, the standard is undefined and will likely spark disputes.
Who actually benefits from AB 130?
Well, other than a few of AB 130’s good provisions, such as prohibiting interest or late fees related to fines and increased protection of homeowner rights regarding ADUs (both of which benefit everyone), the only ones who benefit from AB 130 are bad boards, which already ignore the law, and bad homeowners, who will just do what they want and accept the $100 fine as the cost of doing business. Good homeowners and good HOAs are the ones who are already suffering from uncertainty and rising legal costs.
What counts as a “financial commitment” to cure?
Good question. Nobody knows. Civil Code 5850 and 5855 use the phrase but don’t define it. Boards are forced to cancel hearings without verifying whether the commitment is real. This invites abuse and delay. Remember this, because it’s a truism that applies to all civil cases in California: ambiguities = litigation. AB 130 is chock full of ambiguities (ambiguities that could’ve easily been avoided if some thought had gone into the statute rather than having it rushed through).
Does AB 130 stop HOAs from stacking fines?
Good question. Nobody knows. Some boards are afraid to re-notice ongoing violations, while others risk stacking claims by trying. The ambiguity is causing paralysis and premature litigation.
What should I do if my board cites AB 130 to justify its enforcement approach?
Get legal advice. The statute is riddled with ambiguities, and both homeowners and boards risk serious missteps without guidance. Things will remain this way until the Legislature elects on its own to shore up the weaknesses in AB 130, or the courts start publishing opinions interpreting the statute.
Why are some seemingly prominent attorneys still championing AB 130?
This is just my opinion. But as far as I’m concerned, the only attorneys who are still championing AB 130 as an overall good law (and there are relatively few of them) are the ones who are just ignorant. There isn’t a nicer way to say that. One self-styled “thought leader” continues to publish celebratory “articles” on AB 130 even though one of his own partners publicly acknowledged the law’s ambiguities. I suspect he’s tripled down because he took such a strong position, quite publicly, in favor of the law when it went into effect, and he might now feel that backtracking will make him look bad. Who knows?
While I’m on the subject, people should judge attorneys whom they’re thinking of hiring by their work product. If you’re thinking of hiring a law firm, look at their website and review their published articles. If those articles are badly organized, full of typos, or laden with grammatical errors, that should tell you everything you need to know about the work ethic of the firm’s leadership.
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
