Overview

People familiar with my prior publications know where I stand on AB 130 and the chaos that it has caused under the guise of helping homeowners deal with abusive HOA fines. And those same people know that I’ve also written about AB 130’s positive attributes, including one of its clearest and most homeowner-protective provisions found in Civil Code 5855: if a homeowner cures a violation before the scheduled disciplinary hearing, the HOA board cannot impose any discipline. Not a reduced fine. Nothing. The cure wipes out the board’s authority to act at that hearing, and any fine the board imposes anyway violates the Davis-Stirling Act. That protection sounds simple, and in isolation it is. But the real world has already made it complicated, and homeowners who do not understand exactly how the provision works, and where its limits lie, walk into disciplinary hearings underprepared.

The cure provision of Civil Code 5855 operates as an absolute bar, but only when the homeowner actually cures the violation before the meeting takes place. Neither AB 130 nor Civil Code 5855 defines what “cure” means in every context, and that gap matters. Fixing a landscaping violation by the night before the hearing is a cure. Submitting photos showing the violation still exists but promising to address it soon is not. When the cure is clear and complete, the board’s hands are tied. When the cure is disputed or incomplete, the board retains its authority to proceed, and the dispute shifts to whether the homeowner did enough to satisfy the standard. Bad HOA boards exploit that ambiguity by manufacturing disputes over whether a cure was sufficient, using the uncertainty as cover to impose fines they have no legal right to collect.

When a homeowner cannot cure the violation within the 10-day notice period, Civil Code 5855 offers a second option, i.e., the “financial commitment” to cure. But even if you understand what “financial commitment” means (something else that I’ve written about), this option is narrower than most homeowners and most HOA boards understand. It applies only when the cure genuinely cannot be completed before the meeting, not as a general escape hatch available in every enforcement situation. A homeowner who could fix a simple violation in two days cannot bypass the cure requirement by submitting a vague contractor quote instead. The financial commitment option exists for situations where the remedy requires more time than the notice period provides, such as permitted construction or specialized repairs requiring contractor scheduling. Even then, the statute does not define what a valid financial commitment looks like, and that silence has already produced the confusion and gamesmanship that competent HOA attorneys predicted before AB 130 ever took effect.

This Fact Sheet explains exactly how the cure provision of Civil Code 5855 works, what a valid financial commitment requires when cure is not possible within the notice period, and what tools a homeowner has when an HOA board imposes a fine it had no right to collect. For a broader look at AB 130’s real-world fallout and the chaos its ambiguities have already caused, read “California HOA Fines After AB 130: $100 Limit, Repeat Violations, and Predictions Coming True” and “Why Celebrating AB 130 Is a Mistake: The Still Obvious Risks of California’s $100 HOA Fine Cap.” For a deep dive into the financial commitment loophole specifically, read “AB 130’s ‘Financial Commitment’ Loophole: Why It’s a Problem.”

Key Points

Civil Code 5855 contains one of the few provisions in AB 130 that works cleanly in a homeowner’s favor, at least on its face. When a homeowner cures a violation before the disciplinary hearing, the board loses its legal authority to impose discipline at that hearing entirely. But “works cleanly on its face” is not the same as “works cleanly in practice.” Bad HOAs have already found ways to fight around the cure provision, the financial commitment option creates its own layer of confusion and exploitation, and homeowners who show up to hearings without understanding exactly what the statute requires (and by extension, doesn’t require) hand bad HOA boards the opening they need.

• Civil Code 5855 gives homeowners an absolute defense against discipline when they cure a violation before the hearing. Civil Code 5855(c)(1) states that the board shall not impose discipline if the member cures the violation prior to the meeting. That language is not discretionary. The HOA does not get to decide whether the cure was good enough, timely enough, or aesthetically satisfactory. If the violation is cured before the meeting takes place, the board’s authority to discipline at that hearing is gone. A fine imposed anyway violates Civil Code 5855(g), which states that a disciplinary action shall not be effective against a member unless the board fulfills the requirements of the section. That means a fine imposed after a valid cure is not just improper, but it is legally unenforceable.
• The statute does not define “cure,” and that gap is where bad HOAs make their move. Neither AB 130 nor Civil Code 5855 tells us precisely what it means to cure a violation, and that silence creates the most common flashpoint, at least in terms of what we’ve seen so far, in post-cure disputes. In straightforward situations, the answer is obvious. A homeowner cited for leaving trash bins out removes them. A homeowner cited for an unapproved flag takes it down. The violation is gone, the cure is complete, and the board cannot fine. But in situations involving architectural modifications, landscaping conditions, or ongoing nuisance complaints, the definition of “cure” is not always clear, and can thus sometimes be genuinely contested. And as I predicted when AB 130 went into effect, Bad HOAs would jump on such ambiguities to their advantage.
  • A cure must be complete and verifiable before the meeting, not promised, not in progress, and not partially addressed. A homeowner who submits photos showing the violation still exists but attaches a note promising to address it has not cured the violation. A homeowner who starts remediation but leaves the job half finished by the morning of the hearing has not cured the violation. A homeowner who hires a contractor but cannot show that the work is done before the meeting has not cured the violation. The cure must eliminate the violation, not gesture toward it. Homeowners who want to invoke Civil Code 5855(c)(1) must be able to demonstrate, with dated photographs, contractor completion records, or other verifiable and unequivocal documentation, that the violation no longer existed as of the time the meeting was scheduled to occur. Homeowners will need such documentation if the board disputes the cure and proceeds with discipline anyway.
  • Bad HOA boards manufacture cure disputes to justify fines they have no legal right to impose. The most common tactic that we’re seeing thus far from bad HOAs is to argue the insufficiency or incompleteness of the cure, or that the purported cure addressed the wrong aspect of the violation. For example, we had a recent case of a homeowner whose HOA cited him for an unapproved paint color. The homeowner repainted the surface with a compliant color before the hearing. His board, however, argued that is preparation work was substandard and that he used the wrong shade of the approved color. None of those objections had anything to do with the specific violation cited in the original notice. But because Civil Code 5855 does not define “cure,” bad HOA’s, like our client’s, use such ambiguities to manufacture a dispute where none legitimately exists. Homeowners who anticipate this tactic should document every step of the cure process with dated photographs, retain any contractor receipts or communications, and send written notice to the board confirming the cure before the meeting. Fortunately, our client did a good job with that, and we were able to shut his board down before things went too far.
• The financial commitment option is a narrow statutory alternative that applies only when cure is genuinely impossible within the notice period. Civil Code 5855(c)(2) provides that the board shall not impose discipline if, rather than curing the violation, the member provides a financial commitment to cure it. But this option does not exist in parallel with the cure requirement as an equally available alternative. It applies only when curing the violation would take longer than the time between the notice and the meeting. Because the notice period under Civil Code 5855(a) is at least 10 days, the financial commitment option is available only when the cure genuinely cannot be completed within that 10-day window. A homeowner cited for a landscaping violation who could hire a gardener and fix the problem over a weekend cannot invoke the financial commitment option instead of simply curing. A homeowner cited for unpermitted construction that requires a permit, contractor scheduling, and weeks of work can. The distinction matters because bad HOA boards sometimes argue that a financial commitment submitted in a situation where cure was actually possible does not satisfy Civil Code 5855, and on that point, the statute supports them.
  • A valid financial commitment must address a cure that genuinely cannot be completed within the 10-day notice period, and it must be specific enough to demonstrate a real intention to act. The statute does not define what a valid financial commitment looks like, and that silence cuts both ways. A vague statement of intent, a verbal promise, or a contractor quote with no deposit, no timeline, and no specifics about the scope of work gives the board legitimate grounds to question whether a true commitment exists. While the statute does not specify what documentation is required, a homeowner who wants the financial commitment option to work in their favor should provide something concrete, such as a signed contractor agreement, a paid deposit receipt, a permit application confirmation, or a detailed written proposal with a projected completion date. The more specific and verifiable the commitment, the harder it is for a bad board to argue that it falls short of the statutory standard. But in the end, because AB 130 is still so new, it will take some time before a case featuring this issue wends its way through our court system.
  • The statute’s silence on what qualifies as a valid financial commitment has already produced abuse on both sides, and homeowners need to understand both directions of that problem. I’ve written about this previously. Bad homeowners exploit the financial commitment option by submitting vague, unverifiable, or outright fabricated proof of commitment, knowing that the board must cancel the hearing and that the statute provides no mechanism for the board to challenge defective submissions before doing so. That gives bad members a reliable delay tactic with no real consequence. On the other side, we’ve already seen bad HOAs reject legitimate financial commitments by claiming they were insufficient. Those bad boards then proceeded with discipline, relying on the fact that the homeowner wouldn’t know how to push back. Both patterns produce the same result—homeowners who play by the rules get caught in a dispute they should never have had to fight, while the bad actors on each side exploit the ambiguity to their advantage.
• Even a valid cure or financial commitment does not fully protect a homeowner if the HOA board invokes the health and safety exception under Civil Code 5850. Civil Code 5850(d) allows a board to impose a fine exceeding $100 per violation when the violation may result in an adverse health or safety impact on the common area or another member’s property, but only after the board makes a written finding specifying that adverse impact at an open board meeting. Bad HOA boards have already begun invoking this exception in situations that have nothing to do with genuine health or safety, recasting ordinary noise complaints, landscaping conditions, and short-term rental disputes as safety violations to escape the $100 fine cap, and in some cases, to argue that the cure or financial commitment provisions do not extinguish their enforcement authority when health and safety is at stake. The statute provides no definition of what constitutes an adverse health or safety impact, and no court has yet drawn that line. Until case law develops, homeowners should demand that the board produce its written findings and challenge any invocation of the health and safety exception that stretches the exception beyond its plain meaning. A noise complaint is not a health and safety violation. A landscaping preference is not a health and safety violation. A short-term rental policy dispute is not a health and safety violation. And a board that cannot produce a specific, articulable, written finding of actual adverse health or safety impact has not satisfied the statutory requirement.
• When an HOA board imposes discipline after a valid cure, Civil Code 5855 gives the homeowner real procedural tools to push back. Under Civil Code 5855(g), a disciplinary action is not effective against a member unless the board fulfills the requirements of the section. That means a fine imposed after a valid cure is void, not merely voidable. The homeowner does not have to pay it, does not have to appeal it, and does not have to treat the fine as if it’s legitimate. The homeowner’s first step is to respond in writing to the board, identify the specific date and method of cure, attach the documentation proving the cure occurred before the meeting, cite Civil Code 5855(c)(1) and 5855(g), and demand that the fine be rescinded in writing. If the board refuses, the homeowner should demand internal dispute resolution under Civil Code 5910. If that fails, the homeowner should call us at MBK Chapman. Because the cure provision is unambiguous on its face, a homeowner with solid documentation of a pre-hearing cure holds strong legal ground, and a board that refuses to back down faces real exposure for imposing a fine that Civil Code 5855(g) renders ineffective, including having to pay the homeowner’s attorneys’ fees.
• If your HOA fined you after you fixed the violation, call the HOA attorneys at MBK Chapman. A fine imposed after a valid cure is not a judgment call. It is a statutory violation, and MBK Chapman’s expert homeowner-side HOA lawyers have both the expertise and the track record to force bad HOA boards to reverse unlawful discipline. Whether the dispute involves a manufactured cure dispute, a bad faith invocation of the health and safety exception, or a board that simply ignored a legitimate financial commitment, MBK Chapman can evaluate the record, identify the violation, and pursue the remedies the Davis-Stirling Act provides.

Civil Code 5855 gives homeowners a powerful and unconditional protection when they cure a violation before a disciplinary hearing. That protection is real, it is enforceable, and bad HOA boards that ignore it face a losing legal position when a homeowner knows how to document the cure and push back. The financial commitment option adds a narrower but meaningful alternative for situations where cure is not possible within the notice period. Together, these provisions represent the best parts of an otherwise deeply flawed statute. Understanding exactly how they work, and exactly where bad boards will try to exploit the gaps, is the difference between walking out of a disciplinary hearing with nothing owed and walking out with a fine that should never have been imposed.

FAQs

About Michael Kushner

Michael Kushner is a California attorney with over 30 years of experience representing homeowners in disputes with their HOAs. He is widely regarded as California’s leading homeowner-side HOA attorney, and has built one of the state’s most prominent law practices dedicated to holding HOAs accountable under the Davis-Stirling Act and California law.

In addition to his law firm’s work, Michael is a recognized lecturer, author, and the host of the hit HOA HELL podcast, where he provides homeowners living in HOA-governed communities with clear, practical strategies for dealing with bad HOAs. He’s also the author of the best-selling book, HOA HELL | California Homeowners’ Definitive Guide to Beating Bad HOAs, which has become a go-to resource for both homeowners seeking real-world solutions to their HOA disputes, as well as those good HOA board members who are interested in doing a good job.

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