Can I Sue My HOA for Emotional Distress?

INTRODUCTION

Can you sue your HOA for emotional distress?

The answer to that question is an easy one—Yes.

What it takes to do so, however, is much more complicated and nuanced.

Disputes between California homeowners and their HOAs can, and often do, escalate into significant legal battles. In some cases, homeowners may consider pursuing emotional distress damages against their HOAs. This article examines the feasibility of such claims, focusing on the legal framework, challenges, and practical considerations associated with making and ultimately proving claims for emotional distress.

WHAT IS EMOTIONAL DISTRESS?

Emotional distress describes a highly unpleasant emotional reaction resulting from another’s conduct, often manifesting as fear, anxiety, sadness, humiliation, and/or grief. In a legal context—and more specifically within the context of homeowner disputes with their HOAs—emotional distress claims generally fall into two primary categories—intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”) and negligent infliction of emotional distress (“NIED”). These claims are rooted in tort law and require a plaintiff to demonstrate that the defendant’s actions caused severe and verifiable mental suffering.

The mental suffering must also typically be of such an enduring or substantial quality that no reasonable person in a civilized society should be expected to endure it. Mere discomfort, worry, or anxiety is insufficient.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

To prove and prevail on a claim for IIED, a plaintiff must prove:

• • Extreme and Outrageous Conduct. The defendant’s actions must be so egregious that they exceed the bounds of decency tolerated by society.
  • Intent or Reckless Disregard. The defendant must act with intent to cause emotional distress, or with reckless disregard of the probability of causing such distress.
  • Severe Emotional Distress. The plaintiff must actually experience emotional distress that is substantial and enduring (i.e., not merely fleeting or trivial).
  • Causation. A direct link must exist between the defendant’s conduct and the plaintiff’s emotional distress.

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

As for NIED, some explanation is necessary. Courts in California have held that negligent infliction of emotional distress is not technically an independent tort, but instead is a part of the tort of negligence. And to prove and prevail on a claim of negligence—and therefore NIED—a plaintiff must prove:

• • Duty of Care. The defendant owes the plaintiff a legal duty of care.
  • Breach of Duty. The defendant must breach that duty by failing to act as a reasonable person would have under similar circumstances. Unlike the case of IIED, proving a claim for NIED requires neither intent, nor recklessness.
  • Damages. As with IIED, the plaintiff must suffer from substantial and enduring emotional distress.
  • Causation. The breach of duty must directly cause the plaintiff’s emotional distress.

AVAILABLE DAMAGES

Generally, when you sue someone in court, you’re either asking the court to order the defendant to do or stop doing something (otherwise known as injunctive relief), or you’re seeking damages in the form of money. With emotional distress claims, it’s money that the plaintiff is seeking (which are sometimes referred to as money damages). There are different types of money damages available to plaintiffs suing for emotional distress.

In IIED claims, two types of damages are available: (i) compensatory damages—e.g., medical/therapy expenses, any financial losses that are directly attributable to the emotional distress, and non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering; and (ii) punitive damages—damages designed to punish and make an example of the defendant (these are typically available in cases when the defendant’s conduct is particularly egregious, and since proving that type of conduct is an element of the tort of IIED, punitive damages awards are common in such cases).

In NIED cases, however, prevailing plaintiffs are only entitled to compensatory damages. Punitive damages are unavailable in NIED cases.

LIMITATIONS ON DAMAGES IN EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CASES

To begin with, a majority of HOA cases center on breaches of fiduciary duty, property damage, or contractual obligations (e.g., breaches of the CC&Rs), which do not typically lend themselves to emotional distress claims unless the HOA’s conduct transcends ordinary negligence or bad faith. Emotional distress damages are also not available in most negligence, trespass, nuisance, or negligent misrepresentation cases. In short, in most HOA disputes, claims for emotional distress damages are simply not viable.

As stated above, in IIED cases, the defendant’s conduct must meet a high threshold of being “extreme and outrageous,” and the plaintiff must demonstrate clear evidence of severe (i.e., substantial) distress. That’s an extremely high evidentiary threshold to meet.

In NIED cases, which if you’ll remember, are really negligence cases, the availability of damages often hinges on the existence of a physical injury or impact to the plaintiff. California courts have, however, carved out an exception to this limitation called the “bystander rule.” The “bystander rule” allows recovery for emotional distress when the plaintiff witnesses a traumatic event caused by the defendant’s negligence, but only in cases where the plaintiff has a close relationship with the victim and was present at the scene. This too is a difficult bar to reach.

TYPES OF EVIDENCE REQUIRED TO PROVE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CLAIMS

To prove the severe emotional distress described above (and to prove that such distress was of a substantial and enduring quality), a plaintiff may introduce a variety of different types of evidence. Documents evidencing the HOA’s egregious conduct will almost always be necessary, and those might take the form of emails, letters, photographs, videos, or meeting minutes showing reckless or intentional conduct.

A plaintiff’s medical records are almost always mandatory as well. Those records will include things like a therapist’s notes, psychiatric records, diagnoses (related to emotional distress), prescription records, and other similar items.

And, of course, witness testimony is also an important type of evidence necessary to prove an emotional distress claim. This includes testimony from not just the plaintiff, but also the plaintiff’s family, friends, and experts retained by the plaintiff (e.g., treating psychologist and other medical professionals).

THE DOWNSIDE OF ALLEGING EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

There are a number of significant downsides (or “cons”) to bring an emotional distress cause of action against your HOA. If, therefore, you’re considering alleging a claim for emotional distress, it’s important for you to first conduct a risk v. reward analysis before you make a decision.

Emotional Costs to the Plaintiff

Ironically, most homeowners significantly discount the additional emotional impact that bringing an emotional distress claim will have on their lives. Aside from the normal stress and anxiety related to litigation in general, which, even in the best of circumstances, is a grind, a plaintiff bringing an emotional distress claim will face additional emotional obstacles (none of which, by the way, will be relevant in proving their underlying emotional distress claims):

• • Invasive Discovery. Emotional distress claims open the door to extensive discovery into the plaintiff’s mental health history, medical records, and even unrelated personal matters. Plaintiffs will be required to undergo independent medical/psychological examination by the defendant’s experts, and will almost certainly face deposition questions about deeply private issues.
  • Stigma. All individuals who sue their HOAs face the possibility of scorn from their fellow HOA members for costing the HOA money to defend against their claims. But even then, it’s often easy for a plaintiff to gain support from their neighbors when the claims relate to objectively simple topics such as property damage or failure to enforce the governing documents. But in cases where the plaintiff is seeking damages for emotional distress, we tend to see a much lower rate of such neighbor support. Right or wrong, there is a stigma attached to such claims, and it’s something that a plaintiff needs to consider.

Meeting the High Evidentiary Bar

The bar to successfully proving a claim for emotional distress is high, which means that it’s very difficult to prove such claims. As was explained above, each of the following represents a significant barrier to succeeding in an emotional distress cause of action:

• • Causation. Establishing that the HOA’s conduct directly caused emotional distress can be difficult, especially if the plaintiff has ever had any pre-existing mental health conditions or other stressors.
  • Severity of Conduct. Remember, defendant’s conduct must be “beyond all bounds of decency.” Disputes over fines, parking, or maintenance issues almost always fail to meet this standard.
  • Limited Precedent. California courts have not broadly recognized emotional distress claims in HOA disputes, making it even harder for plaintiffs to meet already exacting legal thresholds.

The Financial Toll

When clients hire my firm, we make it crystal clear that if the case ends up having to be litigated, that it will be extremely expensive. Plaintiffs interested in bringing claims for emotional distress must be prepared to deal with the financial toll of doing so, including:

• • Expert Testimony. Plaintiffs typically need at least one medical expert (usually a psychologist or psychiatrist) to testify about the nature, severity, and cause of their emotional distress. Expert testimony is required in these types of cases to prove causation, and while all expert witnesses (in all types of cases) are relatively expensive, that is especially so with medical experts. It is not uncommon, for example, for a medical expert to charge $1,000 per hour to evaluate documents and prepare to testify (at deposition or trial), and then $5,000 per half-day of actual testimony at a deposition or trial. In short, medical experts are horrendously expensive, and a plaintiff should expect to pay tens of thousands of dollars for their necessary testimony.
  • Litigation Fees. In addition to the expert fees, the plaintiff will still face the regular fees that any litigant in an HOA case generally faces—including the fees associated with the plaintiff’s own attorney (i.e., people like me). Unlike personal injury cases, which are almost always taken on a contingency basis (i.e., the plaintiff only pays if they win and collect), HOA attorneys are almost always hired on an hourly basis.
  • Litigation Costs. And then there are the normal litigation costs, such as mediation fees, deposition fees (i.e., court reporters), filing fees, and other similar costs that arise in every lawsuit.

PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Before pursuing emotional distress claims against an HOA, homeowners should weigh the potential benefits against the drawbacks. While emotional distress claims can provide a path to compensation for significant harm, they require substantial evidence, financial investment, and emotional resilience. Plaintiffs must also navigate the risks of invasive discovery and public scrutiny.

While alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, such as mediation, almost always provide a less adversarial and more cost-effective means of resolving HOA disputes, when the issue in dispute is emotional distress damages, the likelihood of being able to settle a dispute without having to actually file a formal lawsuit is very slim. The attorneys representing the HOAs are aware of the significant hurdles facing such claims, and they’re therefore much less likely to allow their clients (the HOAs) to pay emotional distress-related damages at the ADR stage.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Claiming emotional distress damages against an HOA is possible under California law, but it is fraught with legal and practical challenges. Homeowners must establish either extreme and outrageous conduct or negligence by the HOA and prove a direct link to their emotional suffering. The process requires thorough evidence, expert testimony, and significant financial resources, making it essential for plaintiffs to carefully consider whether the potential rewards outweigh the risks and costs of litigation.