HOW CALIFORNIA HOAS USE HARASSMENT CLAIMS TO SILENCE HOMEOWNERS

OVERVIEW

There’s a disturbing trend coming from California HOA-side law firms. And it doesn’t involve fines, foreclosure, or even formal board hearings. It starts with a letter—almost always from the HOA’s law firm—accusing you of “harassment” or “interference,” and threatening legal action, including restraining orders.

The supposed offense? Filming a landscaper or other HOA-vendor. Asking those vendors questions. Documenting a rule violation. Showing up to a meeting and openly criticizing the board during open forum.

Even though none of that comes close to actually constituting “harassment” under California law, that hasn’t stopped HOA-side attorneys from intentionally misusing that word, and sometimes inventing legal theories from whole cloth, to shut down oversight and chill homeowner dissent.

This article breaks down that trend, explains what California law actually says, and gives you tools to push back when your board (or their lawyers) try to weaponize legal language to silence you.

This article is based on a full-length episode of my HOA HELL podcast, titled “Weaponizing Harassment: How HOAs Use that Word to Silence You,” which you can watch here.

THE PLAYBOOK: HOW HOA LAWYERS USE “HARASSMENT” TO SILENCE HOMEOWNERS

It often starts with something minor—like a homeowner asking a vendor to follow the rules, or documenting a violation with photos or video. These actions are entirely legal. In fact, they’re often protected by the Davis-Stirling Act, California’s Constitution, and in some cases, even federal law. But instead of addressing the issue, some boards escalate. . .by calling in their lawyers.

That word—“harassment”—isn’t being used in a casual sense. These law firms are intentionally invoking legal harassment, often citing Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6 or workplace labor laws as the legal basis for their letters.

The behavior being described—e.g., filming in common areas, questioning landscapers, objecting to board decisions—is not harassment under any legally defensible standard. And when that threat is based on knowingly misapplied legal principles, it’s not just unethical. It’s abusive. Make no mistake. These letters aren’t written to enforce legitimate rules. They’re written to intimidate. They’re written to create fear, to shut you up, and to send a message to the rest of the community that they shouldn’t rock the boat.

That’s why we’re seeing this trend rise. Not because homeowners are doing anything wrong, but because HOA attorneys have figured out that the mere accusation of “harassment” (or threat of a restraining order or expensive lawsuit) can be just as powerful as a fine or a lien, especially when it comes in a letter full of legal jargon, written on firm letterhead, and signed by someone with “Esq.” after their name.

EXAMPLE #1: BEING ACCUSED OF HARASSMENT FOR RECORDING IN THE COMMON AREA

In one recent case, a homeowner filmed vendors parking in a resident-only garage—an act that directly violated the HOA’s CC&Rs. She politely confronted the vendor, explaining that his parking in that particular structure violated the CC&Rs. The vendor refused to move, so the homeowner filmed the vendor and his truck while she was standing in the parking structure. The homeowner then sent the footage to the board, demanding—and rightfully expecting—action. What she got was a cease-and-desist letter from the HOA’s attorney.

The letter accused her of a variety of intentional torts, including harassment, disrupting a harassment-free workplace, nuisance, and assault.

The letter threatened litigation, a restraining order, and tort liability. But here’s what that letter did NOT do:

• It did NOT cite facts evidencing any unlawful behavior.
• It did NOT quote from the harassment statute it cited (because if it had, it would’ve been obvious that what happened didn’t come close to the legal definition of harassment).
• It did NOT explain how a homeowner could possibly be deemed an “employer” within the meaning of California’s labor laws.
• It did NOT acknowledge that HOA vendors are not HOA employees (for the most part), but rather independent contractors.

Let’s be clear. Recording someone in a common area (and not, say, into their private domains) is NEVER harassment. Questioning a vendor about a CC&Rs violation, or even demanding vendor compliance, isn’t harassment. And telling the board to follow its own rules definitely isn’t harassment.

EXAMPLE #2: ACCUSED OF ASSAULT FOR CONFRONTING HOA VENDORS (AND USING PROFANITY)

In another case, a homeowner saw what she later discovered were HOA-hired vendors performing work in her exclusive-use common area (her balcony) despite the fact that: (a) she had been given no prior notice that they would be accessing what basically amounted to her property; (b) had never seen those vendors before; and (c) had no reason to believe that the vendors were on her balcony for a legitimate purpose. She asked what they were doing and why nobody had notified her in advance. She explained that she was scared because she didn’t know them and wanted to confirm with someone that they were who they were saying they were. Instead of demonstrating a modicum of understanding regarding the situation, the three men continued with what they were doing.

This owner was rightfully frustrated. And as a single woman faced with several men on her balcony, she was legitimately concerned. So when the vendors could not (or would not) give the homeowner a good explanation as to why they were there or why she had not been given prior notice, she took photos. She started filming. She also raised her voice, and in her frustration, peppered the conversation with profanity.

But there were no threats. There was no violence. Just a scared homeowner protecting her property rights.

Rather than cooler heads prevailing, and someone on the board’s side making an attempt to see the situation from the homeowner’s point of view (because even at this point, nobody had provided the homeowner with an explanation as to why the men had been on her balcony, why she was not provided notice, and whether they were even legitimate vendors in the first place), the board submitted the issue to the HOA’s attorney. And what did the HOA’s attorney do? Well, he foolishly escalated the situation.

The HOA’s lawyer responded with what any experienced attorney would’ve found to be an utterly buffoonish and outlandish four-page letter accusing the homeowner of harassment, assault, creating a hostile work environment (for the HOA’s “employees”), and interfering with vendor contracts (even though that one conflicted directly with the prior accusation).

This letter didn’t reference a single police report, board resolution, or hearing notice. And it provided no facts whatsoever justifying the HOA’s dismal failure to abide by its own governing documents—i.e., providing written notice in a non-emergency situation of a vendor’s intent to access the exclusive use common area to perform some maintenance. The attorney counted on the homeowner’s ignorance of the law to intimidate the owner into silence. The lawyer hoped that the homeowner would just back down.

And she almost did. Until she called us.

SO HOW DOES CALIFORNIA LAW DEFINE “HARASSMENT”?

California’s harassment statute is Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6, and that’s the statute cited by the foolish HOA-side attorneys in both letters identified in the two examples above. In neither letter, however, did the attorney actually quote from the statute. And there’s a good reason for that. The statute is not difficult to read, and had they accurately quoted from the statute, it would’ve been obvious to anyone that whatever happened, it was NOT “harassment” within the meaning of the statute.

Here’s how Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6 actually defines “harassment”:

“Harassment” is unlawful violence, a credible threat of violence, or a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct must be that which would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the petitioner.

Let me break that down for you. To qualify as “harassment,” a person must:

• Commit unlawful violence (like assault).
• OR make a credible threat of violence.
• OR knowingly engage in a willful course of conduct that:
• Seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses another person.
• AND serves no legitimate purpose.
• AND would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress.
• AND actually causes such “substantial” emotional distress.

Now ask yourself:

• Is filming a landscaper unlawful violence? No.
• Is confronting a vendor with a question a credible threat? No.
• Is documenting a rule violation, or speaking at a meeting, conduct that serves “no legitimate purpose”? No. If your conduct has a legitimate purpose—e.g., like enforcing your rights under the CC&Rs or demanding to know why strangers on your property—it does not meet the legal definition of harassment.
• Is engaging in profanity enough to alarm or annoy another person? Possibly, but the circumstances and context in such a case becomes supremely important. This was a single woman facing three grown men who were on her balcony. In this case, could her profanity be alarming to them? No. Could it be annoying? Sure, but that’s not enough.
• Because this homeowner’s anger was legitimate under the circumstances. And more importantly, there’s no way that these three men could ever, with a straight face, claim to have actually suffered emotional distress as a result of being cussed at under the circumstances.

That’s why neither of the letters we reviewed, despite their legal citations and jargon-filled accusations, came close to meeting the required legal standard. Simply put, they weren’t grounded in fact. They were grounded in intimidation.

A Brief Note on What Constitutes a “Legitimate Purpose”

For the purposes of clarity, courts in California have made it clear that the following actions by homeowners serve a “legitimate purpose” under the law:

• Documenting violations of the governing documents.
• Attending board meetings and speaking during open forum, even if the purpose is to accuse board members of wrong doing.
• Asking questions about, or even directly challenging the legality or propriety of HOA decisions or vendor conduct.
• Filing IDR or record requests under Civil Code section 5200. If you want to read my detailed article on how to use Civil Code section 5200 as a tool to hold your HOA accountable, click here.
• Monitoring/Filming use of common areas or exclusive-use areas.
• Sending multiple emails over a period of days (unless the volume is objectively extreme and the tone is objectively threatening).

In one of the letters we reviewed, the HOA cited “three emails in one week” as proof of harassment. That’s not harassment. That’s communication.

To be clear, therefore, if an HOA attorney attempts to label any of the above-referenced activities as “harassing,” then you know that you’re dealing either with an idiot, or an unethical attorney. Either way, don’t let such threats silence you.

THE WORKPLACE DISTORTION

Some HOA law firms (including the two in the examples described above) have started citing Lyle v. Warner Bros.—a California Supreme Court case involving sexual harassment in the workplace—to support their claims that homeowners are “harassing” contractors and engaging in labor law violations.

This is beyond a stretch. It’s absurd.

To begin with, Lyle involved an employee (not an independent contractor) who was subjected to repeated workplace sexual commentary from co-workers—i.e., fellow employees/managers. That case has nothing to do with a homeowner expressing frustration over unauthorized landscaping.

Even worse, the HOA in that case didn’t even employ the vendor. HOA vendors are independent contractors, not employees. Labor law protections for “hostile work environments” don’t apply to independent contractors, and they certainly don’t apply to homeowners, who are not even in privity of contract with the vendors. [Privity of contract simply means that two parties are explicitly bound together by a formal agreement. If there’s no direct contract between the homeowner and the vendor (and there is not; the contracts are between the vendors and the HOA as a corporation), then there’s no privity. In almost every situation, that means that no labor law obligations will flow between them.]

Bottom line: When a lawyer compares a homeowner’s frustration with a landscaper to workplace sexual harassment among employees, it’s not just wrong, it’s legally incoherent.

HOW TO RESPOND TO A “CEASE AND DESIST” LETTER ACCUSING YOU OF HARASSMENT OR VIOLATING LABOR LAWS

If you receive a letter like the ones described above—and you’re not actually guilty of harassment—then you should first remember that such letters are intended to intimidate you. Just as in the examples referenced above, they’re based on legally baseless theories, drafted by attorneys who are either dishonest, ignorant, or both.

You then have some choices regarding how you may wish to proceed, including:

1. Call us at MBK CHAPMAN. If you’d rather retain someone else to handle the issue for you, we’d be happy to evaluate the facts with you and respond on your behalf. If, however, you want to first try to address the issue yourself, then:

1.1. Don’t Panic. Unless you actually engaged in harassing conduct within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6, just know that such letters are designed to intimidate. The legal theories behind them don’t hold up under scrutiny. Stay calm and avoid an emotional responses.

1.2. Respond Strategically. You can, and should, respond in writing. Use the attorney’s own words against them. Quote the parts of the letter that are inaccurate. Then correct them, point by point. This technique (called “interlineation”) allows you to rebut each claim without missing anything. If they’ve misquoted or failed to quote the statute they’re relying on, point that out. If they’re calling your actions “harassment” without explaining how those actions meet the definition under § 527.6, say so. Put the ball in their court to be specific by demanding that they actually apply the law to the facts.

1.3. Demand IDR. Under Civil Code section 5910, you can demand Internal Dispute Resolution. The board is required to participate. If they refuse, they’re in violation of the law.

1.4. Invoke California’s Anti-SLAPP Law. If the board or its attorney is threatening litigation based on your protected speech (e.g., attending meetings, submitting complaints), you may be entitled to protections under California’s anti-SLAPP statute. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 425.16.) Even referencing the anti-SLAPP statute will let the HOA attorney know that you’re aware of your rights. If the statute applies under the circumstances, your mention of it may be enough to force the HOA attorney to back off.

The most important thing is not to fold. These letters are meant to frighten you. But if your actions were lawful, then the HOA has no legal basis to silence you. Respond calmly, assert your rights, and if the situation escalates, call us.

WHY THIS TREND IN HOA THREATS SHOULD CONCERN YOU

This isn’t just about one or two law firms acting badly. It’s part of a broader shift in how HOAs, and the attorneys they hire, try to shut down homeowner oversight. Instead of responding to complaints, addressing violations, or correcting missteps, boards are increasingly outsourcing suppression to their lawyers. And those lawyers are weaponizing legal language like “harassment,” “assault,” and “interference” to intimidate anyone who dares to speak up.

This strategy isn’t about safety. It’s about power. And it’s dangerous.

If HOA lawyers can turn routine homeowner behavior—e.g., filming a rule violation, demanding accountability at an open meeting, asking questions, challenging board activities, etc.—into a basis for fines, hearings, or legal threats, then transparency is dead.

And when everything is labeled “harassment,” nothing is. That means the law has no teeth when it really counts—i.e., when someone actually is being harassed. It also means HOA boards can operate without oversight, knowing that any homeowner who pushes back might receive a scary letter filled with empty threats (that don’t sound so empty to a lay person).

Again, this is a dangerous trend. It’s dangerous because if this tactic becomes normalized, more boards will use it. More attorneys will draft these letters. And more homeowners, most of whom have no legal training, will be silenced. And they’ll be silenced not because they did anything wrong, but because they were outmaneuvered by a process designed to scare them into submission.

That’s why it matters. Because this isn’t a fight about etiquette. It’s a fight about who gets to control the narrative inside your HOA. And if homeowners back down every time someone waves a lawyer letter, that narrative will never change.

CONCLUDING THOUGHT

When HOA law firms start using words like “harassment” and “assault” to describe homeowner oversight, something is seriously wrong. These letters aren’t just scare tactics. They’re part of a broader strategy to silence dissent and protect bad HOAs from being held accountable.

But California law doesn’t give HOAs or their attorneys the power to redefine legal standards just because someone asked a tough question or filmed a landscaper. And when these firms cite harassment statutes or labor laws without any factual or legal basis, they cross a line from advocacy into intimidation.

Don’t fall for it.

The next time your board (or its lawyers) try to weaponize legal language to shut you down, push back. Use the law. Demand answers. Assert your rights. And if necessary, call us at MBK CHAPMAN, and we’ll set your HOA straight.