Overview

Most homeowners assume they can recover their attorneys’ fees if they win a lawsuit against their HOA. In the HOA context, that assumption is often correct, but not for the reason most people think. Many homeowners believe that the losing side automatically pays the winner’s legal fees. That is not, however, how California law works. California follows the American Rule, which means each side pays its own attorneys’ fees unless a statute or a contract specifically provides otherwise. In HOA disputes, the reason homeowners are often able to recover their fees is because specific statutes override that default rule.

California’s Davis-Stirling Act includes a series of targeted fee-shifting provisions that allow homeowners to recover attorneys’ fees when they prevail in certain types of HOA disputes. These statutes apply only if a claim fits within the scope of a specific statute containing a fee provision. If a homeowner’s case falls outside those statutes, they might win their lawsuit but never have a right to be reimbursed the money they paid their attorneys.

These fee-shifting provisions serve the singular purpose of leveling the playing field. The Legislature understood that the crushing cost of litigation allows bad HOA boards to bully homeowners into submission. By forcing the HOA to pay for homeowners’ attorneys in defined circumstances, the law creates a powerful incentive to enforce board obligations and penalizes bad HOAs for their obstructionism and other wrongful conduct.

Not all attorney fee statutes operate the same way, and that difference matters a lot. Some statutes award attorneys’ fees to whichever party wins. Others provide a higher degree of protection (and incentive) for  homeowners by allowing them to recover fees if they prevail while severely limiting the HOA’s ability to recover fees if the worst happens and the HOA wins. And then there’s the statute that allows a homeowner to recover attorneys’ fees without any risk of paying the HOA’s fees if the HOA prevails. While that type of one-way fee protection appears more often in other areas of California law, such as certain employment disputes, in the HOA context, that law is unique.

This Fact Sheet identifies the key HOA-related statutes that allow you to force the HOA to pay your legal fees. Understanding these specific codes is the difference between a high-risk gamble and a calculated strategic victory. Homeowners who master these fee-shifting rules gain immediate leverage over those who don’t, as the latter will always be at the mercy of their HOA’s financial superiority.

[If you’re interested in learning more about the American Rule and the broader issue of recovering attorneys’ fees in HOA lawsuits, you can read my article, “Can I Recover My Attorney’s Fees If I Sue My HOA in California?” or my Fact Sheet, “Can California Homeowners Recover Attorney’s Fees in HOA Lawsuits?” If you’d prefer to watch an episode of my HOA HELL podcast addressing this topic, you can tune into “If I Sue My HOA Will I Get My Attorney’s Fees Back?”]

Key Points

Understanding whether you can recover your attorneys’ fees in an HOA dispute requires more than knowing that fee-shifting laws exist. California does not follow a general loser-pays system. Instead, California follows the American Rule, which means that whether a prevailing party is entitled to their attorneys’ fees will depend on whether a statute or contract give them that right. But even when such fee-shifting statutes or contract provisions do exist, they aren’t all created equal and they don’t all operate the same way.

Fee-shifting statutes or contractual fee provisions fall into one of three categories: (1) the first category awards attorneys’ fees to whichever side wins; (2) the second category awards fees to a prevailing homeowner, but never to a prevailing HOA; and (3) the third category awards fees to the homeowner if the homeowner wins, and only awards fees to a prevailing HOA under limited circumstances. The category that a particular statute falls into matters because it directly affects not only the degree of financial risk you’ll take in filing a lawsuit, but also whether your HOA is likely to take the claim seriously enough to resolve it sooner rather than later.

• Attorney fee recovery in HOA disputes exists only because a statute or contract overrides the American Rule. Under the American Rule, each side pays its own attorneys’ fees unless a law or contract says otherwise. That is the starting point in every California lawsuit, including HOA disputes. So when a homeowner asks whether the HOA will have to reimburse legal fees, the correct response is never “yes, if you win.” The correct response is “only if your claim falls within a fee-shifting statute or an enforceable contract provision that awards fees.” That is why identifying the right legal basis for the claim at the outset matters so much.
• The fee statutes discussed in this Fact Sheet fall into three different categories, and each category creates a different level of risk and leverage. Category 1 statutes award attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party, which means the winner gets fees whether the winner is the homeowner or the HOA. Category 2 statutes award attorneys’ fees to the homeowner if the homeowner prevails, but do not allow the HOA to recover fees if the HOA wins. Category 3 statutes award attorneys’ fees to the homeowner if the homeowner prevails, while allowing the HOA to recover fees only if the court rules that the homeowner’s lawsuit was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation. With respect to Category 3 statutes, which make up a good number of the statutes discussed in this Fact Sheet, HOAs will rarely ever have sufficient evidence to convince a court that the homeowner’s claim was frivolous. That difference is not academic. It determines whether a homeowner is taking on equal fee exposure, no fee exposure at all, or a greatly reduced fee exposure.
• Civil Code 5975 is the single most important homeowner-side fee statute in HOA litigation because it broadly governs actions to enforce the governing documents. The fee-shifting provision found in Civil Code 5975 falls into Category 1, which means that the winner gets their attorney fees. While Civil Code 5975 does not apply to every dispute involving an HOA and a homeowner, it applies to all of the claims that seek to enforce the governing documents. That scope is broad, which is why this statute appears in so many HOA lawsuits. It is also why homeowners and their lawyers must think carefully about how the claim is framed before filing it. Civil Code 5975 applies to all enforcement cases, including:
  • Selective enforcement claims. These claims arise when the HOA treats some homeowners differently from others, such as when they enforce a rule against one homeowner while ignoring the same violation by others. A common example is an HOA fining one owner for a parking violation while ignoring identical violations by board members or favored neighbors. Because the claim challenges the HOA’s unequal enforcement of the rules, the fee-shifting provision in Civil Code 5975 will apply.
  • Architectural disputes. These disputes arise whenever the HOA is attempting to enforce its vision of the HOA’s architectural rules/guidelines by denying a homeowner the right to make an improvement to their property. Such claims typically turn on whether the HOA correctly applied the standards contained in the governing documents and in compliance with the restrictions set forth in the Davis-Stirling Act. A common example is an HOA denying a homeowner’s request for new windows, a patio cover, hardscape, or a paint change even though the submitted plans satisfy the published criteria. When the homeowner sues to challenge the denial as inconsistent with the governing documents, the fee-shifting provision in Civil Code 5975 will apply.
  • Failure to enforce claims. These claims arise when the HOA refuses to enforce the governing documents against another homeowner whose conduct violates them. In those situations, the homeowner suing is not asking the HOA to create a new rule. The homeowner is asking the HOA to enforce the rules it already has. A common example is an HOA refusing to address a neighbor’s repeated short-term rental activity, illegal construction, or use restriction violation even though the CC&Rs or rules prohibit that conduct. Because the lawsuit seeks enforcement of existing governing documents, the fee-shifting provision in Civil Code 5975 will apply.
  • Failure to maintain claims. These claims arise when the governing documents place a maintenance obligation on the HOA and the HOA fails to perform. The legal issue in such cases arises directly out of the HOA’s failure to abide by its obligations as set forth in the HOA’s governing documents. A common example is an HOA refusing to repair common area drainage, roofs, stucco, siding, or structural components that the CC&Rs place within the HOA’s maintenance responsibilities. Because the homeowner is suing to enforce those duties, the fee-shifting provision in Civil Code 5975 will apply.
  • Nuisance enforcement claims tied to the governing documents. Many sets of CC&Rs prohibit noxious, offensive, or nuisance-causing conduct. When that language exists, a nuisance claim may become an action to enforce the governing documents rather than just a statutory dispute between neighbors (where there is no attorneys’ fees provision at all in the statute). A common example is an HOA refusing to address chronic noise, smoke, odor, harassment, or other conduct that violates a nuisance prohibition contained in the CC&Rs. If the homeowner sues to force the HOA to enforce that provision, the fee-shifting provision in Civil Code 5975 will apply.
  • Parking restriction disputes tied to the governing documents. These disputes arise when parking rights or restrictions are created by the CC&Rs, rules, or other governing documents and the HOA misapplies or fails to enforce them. A common example is an HOA towing or fining a homeowner under a parking rule that it interprets incorrectly or enforces in a manner contrary to the governing documents or California law. Because such disputes center on the meaning or enforcement of HOA rules, the fee-shifting provision in Civil Code 5975 will apply.
  • Use restriction disputes. These disputes involve restrictions on how an owner may use the property, such as rental restrictions, occupancy limits, business use restrictions, pet rules, or similar limitations imposed by the governing documents. A common example is an HOA trying to stop a use that the governing documents permit, or refusing to stop a use that the governing documents prohibit. When the lawsuit turns on enforcing those restrictions, the fee-shifting provision in Civil Code 5975 will apply.
  • Exclusive use common area disputes. These claims arise when the dispute centers on whether a homeowner has rights to use, alter, maintain, or exclude others from an area designated as exclusive use common area under the governing documents. A common example is a dispute over balconies, patios, decks, driveways, or similar areas where the governing documents define the scope of use rights and responsibilities. Because the claim often turns on interpretation or enforcement of those documents, the fee-shifting provision in Civil Code 5975 will apply. [There is a separate fee-shifting statute related to exclusive use common areas (Civil Code 4605, which I discuss below).]
  • Disputes over the meaning of CC&R provisions. Sometimes the fight is not over whether a rule exists or was violated, but over what it means or its scope. Civil Code 5975 often governs those disputes because the homeowner is asking the court to interpret and enforce the governing documents. A common example is a dispute over whether a particular restriction applies to a renovation, a leasing arrangement, a maintenance duty, or a use right.
  • Claims that the HOA violated the governing documents in exercising its authority. These claims arise when the HOA takes action under color of its authority, but does so in a manner that contradicts the governing documents. A common example is an HOA imposing fines, suspensions, or architectural conditions that the governing documents do not authorize, or exercising discretionary authority in a way that violates express procedural limits. Because the lawsuit challenges the HOA’s failure to comply with its own governing framework, the fee-shifting provision in Civil Code 5975 will apply.
  • Breach of fiduciary duty claims tied to governing document violations. Most breach of fiduciary duty claims fit within the fee-shifting provision of Civil Code 5975 because they almost always tie directly back to one or more HOA board members ignoring a legal duty imposed by the governing documents (and applicable statutes).  When the fiduciary theory is anchored to governing document violations, which most are, the fee-shifting provision in Civil Code 5975 will apply.
• Although not part of the Davis-Stirling Act, Civil Code 1717 applies to a lot of HOA disputes. This statute applies when a contract contains an attorneys’ fees clause and a party brings an action on that contract. Unlike Civil Code 5975, which contains a fee-shifting provision that falls into Category 1, Civil Code 1717 simply states that fee provisions found in written contracts must be mutual even if the contract’s language only grants the right to one party. [It’s sort of like the antithesis to the Category 2 statutes.] This means that the extent and scope of the attorneys’ fees provision will always depend on the language of the contract in question. Some provisions are very broad, and some are very narrow. In the HOA context, Civil Code 1717 is relevant for one simple reason: most CC&Rs contain an independent attorneys’ fees clause. This is important because it provides an additional (or alternative) route to obtain fees in cases where the dispute revolves around a breach of the CC&Rs (or, depending on how broadly the fees provision is drafted, the interpretation of the CC&Rs). This could, for example, help in situations where Civil Code 5975 does not apply, and none of the statutes discussed below apply.
• Category 1 statutes award attorneys’ fees to whichever party prevails, which means these statutes create equal fee exposure for homeowners and HOAs. That equal exposure cuts both ways. It gives homeowners the right to recover fees if they win, but it also gives the HOA the right to recover fees if the HOA wins. These statutes therefore provide strong leverage in meritorious cases while creating real downside risk in weak ones. That is why homeowners should never treat a Category 1 fee statute as automatic protection. It is protection only if the homeowner prevails. The following statutes from the Davis-Stirling Act fall into Category 1:
  • Civil Code 4725. This statute concerns a homeowner’s right to install and use certain satellite dishes and antennas. In practical terms, it becomes relevant when an HOA blocks qualifying equipment through rules, architectural review, or outright denial. Because it is a prevailing party provision, the winner gets attorneys’ fees.
  • Civil Code 4705. This statute concerns a homeowner’s right to display the American flag. In practice, it matters when an HOA attempts to prohibit or improperly restrict that display. Like the other Category 1 statutes, it awards fees to the prevailing party rather than favoring only one side.
  • Civil Code 4540. This statute addresses liability for willful violations of HOA transfer disclosure requirements. It comes into play when an HOA fails to provide mandatory sale-related disclosures required by the statutory disclosure scheme. Because it is a prevailing party statute, either side may recover fees if that side wins.
  • Civil Code 4225. This statute concerns actions to force an HOA to remove an illegal restrictive covenant from the governing documents after written notice and failure to act. This particular statute is notable for two reasons: (1) as of 2026, such cases are relatively rare because they involve discriminatory covenants that are often remnants of much older recorded documents that have already been updated; and (2) this statute leaves the awarding of attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party solely in the hands of the judge. Unlike all the other statutes in Category 1, whether to award fees to the prevailing party is discretionary.
  • Civil Code 5380. This statute concerns claims involving how a managing agent handles HOA funds and whether the managing agent violated statutory restrictions governing those funds. It matters because misuse of HOA money by a manager can create direct financial harm to the association and therefore to the homeowners who fund it. This statute also uses a prevailing party fee structure.
  • Civil Code 714. This statute concerns a homeowner’s right to install a solar energy system. Although this statute is not part of the Davis-Stirling Act, it is highly relevant to HOAs because solar panel disputes are common and because HOA restrictions often trigger litigation over those rights. As with the other Category 1 statutes, the prevailing party recovers fees.
• Category 2 statutes award attorneys’ fees to homeowners if they prevail while giving the HOA no reciprocal right to recover fees if the HOA wins. Any statute that falls into Category 2 creates a very powerful tool that favors the homeowner because removes the homeowner’s fee exposure under that law entirely. In the HOA context, however, it is unique. While this kind of one-way protection appears more frequently in other areas of California law, including certain employment statutes, the Davis-Stirling Act only contains one statute that falls into Category 2. That matters because it dramatically alters litigation risk analysis.
  • Civil Code 4745. This statute concerns a homeowner’s right to install an electric vehicle (EV) charging station. It applies when an HOA blocks or unreasonably restricts a homeowner’s effort to install an EV charging station in the homeowner’s normal parking space (or, in some cases, the common area). If the homeowner prevails, the homeowner gets attorneys’ fees. If the HOA prevails, the HOA does not get its attorneys’ fees from the homeowner. That one-way structure is what makes Civil Code 4745 stand out so sharply. [If you’d like to learn all about your rights to install an EV charging station within your HOA community, read my Fact Sheet “Can My California HOA Stop Me From Installing an EV Charging Station?”]
• Category 3 statutes award attorneys’ fees to homeowners if they prevail while permitting the HOA to recover fees only in limited circumstances. Unlike the Category 1 statutes, statutes that fall under Category 3’s fee-shifting rubric will only allow an HOA to recover its fees upon prevailing in a lawsuit filed by a homeowner if the court finds that the homeowner’s lawsuit was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation. That is a very high standard, which is why HOAs rarely recover their fees in these cases. These statutes provide strong protection and substantial leverage for homeowners. The statutes within the Davis-Stirling Act that fall into Category 3 include the following:
  • Civil Code 4955. This statute concerns actions to enforce a homeowner’s rights under the Open Meeting Act. It applies, for example, when HOA boards conduct business in secret, misuse executive session, fail to provide proper notice or an agenda, fail to keep minutes, or otherwise violate the numerous open meeting requirements required by the Davis-Stirling Act. If the homeowner prevails, the homeowner recovers fees. If the HOA wins, it still does not recover fees unless the homeowner’s case meets the very high frivolous-unreasonable-without-foundation standard.
  • Civil Code 5145. This statute concerns election challenges. It applies when a homeowner sues over violations of election procedures, election rules, candidate qualification issues, balloting requirements, or other statutory requirements governing HOA elections. It is also notable because it expressly preserves the homeowner’s right to recover attorneys’ fees even in small claims court cases.
  • Civil Code 5235. This statute concerns a homeowner’s right to inspect and copy association records under Civil Code 5200. When HOAs refuse to produce HOA-related documents that homeowners are entitled to, it makes it impossible for homeowners to ensure that their HOAs are operating within the limits of California law. Civil Code 5235, therefore, is an important benefit to homeowners. In addition to fee-shifting, this statute can expose the HOA to monetary penalties and other relief, which is why records cases can create significant financial pressure on bad HOAs.
  • Civil Code 4605. This statute concerns actions to enforce a homeowner’s rights under Civil Code 4600, which regulates an HOA’s ability to grant exclusive use of common area to an owner. It matters when an HOA gives one homeowner exclusive rights over common area without satisfying the statutory requirements that protect the membership as a whole. Like the other Category 3 statutes, it strongly favors homeowners without completely foreclosing HOA recovery in truly abusive lawsuits.
• The same dispute can often support more than one legal theory, and the way the case is framed can determine which fee statute governs. That is why these statutes must be analyzed at the planning stage, not after the lawsuit is filed. A homeowner may have one path that creates equal fee exposure under a Category 1 statute and another path that fits a more protective Category 3 statute. When that choice exists, it can materially affect risk, leverage, and settlement posture from the very beginning.
• The practical value of these statutes lies not just in reimbursement after trial, but in the leverage they create before the case ever reaches trial. An HOA that faces meaningful fee exposure must account for the possibility that its own misconduct will force it to fund both sides of the dispute. That pressure changes settlement discussions. It changes case valuation. It changes whether the HOA wants to dig in or resolve the problem. In many cases, attorneys’ fees drive the real economics of the dispute as much as, or more than, the underlying damages.
• If you’re involved in a dispute that falls within one of these fee-shifting statutes, call the HOA attorneys at MBK Chapman. Understanding these fee-shifting laws is not enough if the claim is not framed correctly and enforced aggressively. The right legal theory can determine whether your case is an equal-risk fight, a protected claim, or a one-way fee case that puts the HOA on the defensive immediately. The HOA lawyers at MBK Chapman are respected throughout California for their expertise and training, which is why HOA-side law firms take our clients so seriously.

These fee-shifting statutes exist because the Legislature understood a basic truth: without fee-shifting, many homeowners would never be able to challenge unlawful HOA conduct. The real power of these laws lies in how they change the balance of power before and during litigation. Once you identify the correct fee statute, you are no longer guessing about whether the fight is financially survivable. You are evaluating it strategically. That is the difference between walking into HOA litigation blind and forcing the HOA to confront the real cost of its misconduct.

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