Overview

In the aftermath of the devastating fires that swept through Altadena, the Pacific Palisades, Malibu, and surrounding areas in early 2025, many homeowners are now facing a second crisis: massive HOA special assessments that HOA boards imposed to repair fire-damaged common areas. In at least one widely reported Altadena community, homeowners were hit with an emergency special assessment of $23,000 per unit, with a short payment deadline and the threat of liens and foreclosure if they failed to pay. For families already dealing with displacement, insurance claims, and the loss of their homes, these demands created a level of financial pressure that bordered on the cruel.

For homeowners who have already lost homes, possessions, and stability, a massive assessment on a compressed timeline is not just frustrating, it can feel devastating, and in many cases, completely unmanageable. While repairs to common areas may be necessary, that does not give HOA boards a free pass to impose financial demands in a way that ignores the real-world impact on their members. The timing, structure, and enforcement of these assessments matter, and when handled poorly, they can turn an already catastrophic event into a prolonged financial crisis for the very people the HOA is supposed to serve.

Unfortunately, the reporter who wrote the news story that prompted this Fact Sheet appears to have relied on the same type of misplaced trust that many homeowners place in highly visible online content, confusing ubiquity with actual expertise. This unfortunate reporter quoted my oft-cited “bad HOA lawyer” (i.e., the professional promoter), who in typical fashion provided an obvious, surface-level “analysis” that lacked any useful information. In short, the purported “expert” highlighted in that story offered little beyond what was already obvious, and that lack of depth matters. Homeowners in this situation need more than surface-level reactions. They need to understand what questions to ask and where the real pressure points may exist. When experts provide no deeper analysis, the people affected remain without meaningful guidance at the exact moment they need it most.

This Fact Sheet picks up where that bad HOA lawyer’s “expert” take stopped.

For a deeper dive into how the Altadena/Palisades fires directly led to a major change in California law, read my Fact Sheet “Can My California HOA Block Me from Rebuilding After the Palisades Fire or Other Disasters?” You can also watch an episode of my podcast, HOA HELL, where I addressed that same issue.

Key Points

The Los Angeles Times article that prompted this Fact Sheet described a situation in Altadena where homeowners, after losing homes or suffering major damage from the 2025 fires, were hit with a roughly $23,000 per-unit special assessment to cover an estimated $6.4 million shortfall for common area repairs. Homeowners reportedly had about 34 days to pay, with the threat of liens, interest, and foreclosure if they failed to do so. That situation created immediate financial pressure on people who were already dealing with catastrophic loss.

At the same time, the article featured the bad HOA lawyer that I’ve highlighted previously, and his superficial “expert” take offered nothing beyond the obvious while failing to provide a single meaningful point of guidance for homeowners facing this exact situation. This is yet another example of how content made possible by AI coupled with aggressive pay-per-click marketing can manufacture the appearance of expertise, allowing professional promoters to dominate visibility while offering only superficial analysis that lacks nuance and real-world utility.

The following points address both problems by identifying what homeowners should have been asking, where the real pressure points existed, and why superficial “expert” commentary like this is not just unhelpful, but dangerous.

• The article accurately described what happened, but failed to tell homeowners what to do about it. The HOA hit homeowners with a roughly $23,000 special assessment, gave them about 34 days to pay, and threatened them with liens and foreclosure if they didn’t. The HOA actually sued one homeowner. Those facts should have driven a deeper analysis, including what parts of the HOA’s decision-making owners could challenge, what questions homeowners could’ve asked their HOA, and where homeowners might have leverage.
  • The bad HOA lawyer’s “expert” analysis added nothing beyond what was already obvious. The professional promoter suggested that homeowners should check whether the HOA “followed required procedures when levying the assessment and pursuing collection.” That is baseline. That is the starting point in every HOA dispute. It does not identify a strategy, a pressure point, or a path forward. It simply restates the obvious without advancing the analysis.
• This situation reflects a real and difficult tension that should have been explained to homeowners. If too many homeowners failed to pay, the HOA risked classification as “unavailable” under Fannie Mae guidelines, which could affect financing and crash property values across the entire community. At the same time, the HOA still had discretion in how it structured the assessment, and the board appears to have exercised that discretion in a way that needlessly increased the burden on already-devastated homeowners.
• The 34-day payment window was completely unnecessary. There is nothing inherent about disaster recovery that requires a large special assessment payment within roughly one month. There were no facts that indicated a true emergency necessitating such a tight deadline. That deadline, therefore, cruelly increased pressure on homeowners and limited their ability to explore options or properly scrutinize their HOA’s decisions.
  • The HOA likely had alternative ways to structure the financial burden and appears to have elected not to use them. Instead of requiring immediate lump-sum payments, the HOA could have explored obtaining a loan and allowing homeowners to pay over time through increased monthly assessments or staggered, smaller special assessments. The HOA could have also coordinated with homeowners regarding insurance claims where their own policies covered special assessments. These are not theoretical options. They are common tools that can materially reduce hardship.
• The most important question seems to have been ignored: why didn’t the HOA’s insurance cover the $6.4 million shortfall? That issue sits at the center of the entire situation. Homeowners should have been asking whether the HOA carried adequate coverage, whether limits were updated, and whether prior decisions by the HOA board contributed to the gap now being passed on to members. In other words, why was there a $6.4 million shortfall in the first place? Depending on the answer to that question, it may also raise issues under the HOA’s management liability policies, such as D&O or E&O coverage, if board-level decisions falling below the applicable standard of care caused the shortfall.
  • The bad HOA lawyer failed to raise any of these pressure points. Instead of identifying these kinds of practical and legal pressure points, he stayed at the level of describing the situation as “hyper-aggressive” and questioning whether it was “in the community’s broader interest.” In other words, this “expert” added nothing useful to anyone in terms of what actions they might take next.
  • This is the danger of the professional promoter model. The creation of AI and aggressive pay-per-click marketing allow pretenders to create the appearance of authority by dominating search results and media visibility. It’s when the public mistakes that visibility for expertise that they receive superficial commentary instead of analysis, and even misstatements of the law. [For an example of the dangers of the professional promoter class of HOA attorney, see my Fact Sheet “California HOA Statutes of Limitations in California: Correcting More Errors by a Bad HOA Attorney.”]
• The real leverage in these situations comes from specific, answerable questions tied to legal and practical realities. For example:
  • Did this Altadena HOA properly qualify the repairs as an emergency to avoid a membership vote?
  • What insurance policies were in place, and what exactly did they cover or exclude?
  • Did the board evaluate and reject alternative funding options, such as loans or staged payments?
  • Did the HOA offer to work with homeowners’ insurance policies to determine whether they would cover the special assessment?
  • Why didn’t the HOA provide a sufficient breakdown of how it would use the $6.4 million in assessment, especially after some homeowner insurance companies pushed back on that point?
  • Did the HOA provide the contractor bids and scopes of work to the homeowners to present to their insurance companies?
  • And finally, we come to the only question the purported “expert” quoted asked, which was whether the collection steps the HOA took were consistent with statutory requirements and timelines?
  • Those are the types of questions that any competent HOA lawyer would’ve recommended that homeowners ask because those are the questions that create real leverage. They create leverage because they force the HOA to justify its decisions with facts, documents, and legal authority.
• If you are facing a post-disaster HOA assessment, call the real expert HOA attorneys at MBK Chapman. The difference between reacting and responding comes down to asking the right questions. Surface-level reactions do not change outcomes. Focused, informed questions do.

The takeaway is straightforward. The article captured the problem, but the bad HOA lawyer’s response failed to provide the solution. When professional promoters fill that role, critical issues go unaddressed and homeowners are left without the guidance they need. By focusing on the right questions instead of the obvious reactions, homeowners can identify where real leverage and real options may exist.

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