HOW CALIFORNIA HOAS ABUSE EMERGENCY ASSESSMENTS

OVERVIEW

Homeowners across California are seeing a surge in so-called “emergency assessments,” special charges levied by HOA boards, often without a member vote, and often totaling thousands of dollars per household. In theory, these assessments are only allowed under strict legal conditions. In practice, boards often abuse the emergency exception to bypass budget limits and push through major repairs that should’ve been funded years ago.

I addressed that issue in a recent episode of my HOA HELL podcast, titled “Emergency or Excuse? How HOAs Use ‘Safety’ to Justify Illegal Emergency Assessments.” In that episode, I walked viewers through the legal framework that governs emergency assessments under the Davis-Stirling Act—and explained how some boards are twisting that framework to justify charges that are neither lawful nor justified.

This article explains what California law actually allows when it comes to emergency assessments, what the legal thresholds are, and how homeowners can push back when the board gets it wrong. You’ll learn how to identify misuse, what documentation to request, and how to assert your rights without putting yourself at legal risk.

WHAT THE LAW ACTUALLY ALLOWS

Under Civil Code section 5605(b), an HOA cannot impose a regular or special assessment that exceeds 5% of the association’s annual budgeted gross expenses unless it first obtains approval from a majority of a quorum of the members. That requirement is mandatory, not optional. And it applies even if the board thinks the expense is urgent or unpopular.

Civil Code section 5610, however, does offer a major exception to the limitation imposed by section 5605(b). Under the 5610 exception, an HOA can increase general assessments, or impose a special assessment that exceeds the 5% cap without a membership vote, if the board determines that it is necessary to address an “emergency situation.”

And what qualifies as an “emergency situation”? The statute list three such situations:

1. A court has ordered the assessment to address an “extraordinary expense.”
2. The assessment is necessary to “operate, repair, or maintain” something that constitutes an immediate threat to people’s health or safety.
3. The assessment is necessary to “repair or maintain” something and the issue in question could not have been reasonably foreseen at the time the board set that year’s budget.

There’s one more requirement that boards frequently ignore: the board must make a written finding, recorded in the minutes, explaining why the expense was necessary and why it could not have been reasonably foreseen in preparing the budget. Failure to maintain, or other negligence by the board, does not qualify under this exception. It does, however, evidence systemic mismanagement, and thus quite possibly, a breach of fiduciary duty.

In short, unless something broke that wasn’t anticipated, or unless there’s a court or statutory deadline to comply with, the board can’t just unilaterally call something an “emergency” and send you the bill.

HOW HOAs ABUSE THE “SAFETY” LOOPHOLE

Here’s the problem. California law doesn’t define the word “emergency,” and it doesn’t require the threat to be life-threatening. Boards know this. So when they want to bypass the membership vote, they often lean on the word “safety.”

The board’s “script” usually looks something like this:

After a recent inspection, the board has determined that certain structural repairs are necessary to address a safety issue. As a result, a special assessment of $5,000 per unit has been levied. Because this expense relates to resident safety, it qualifies as an emergency under Civil Code section 5610, and no vote is required.

Sometimes these HOAs will cite vague consultant notes. Other times, they’ll provided no documentation at all. Instead, these mismanaged HOAs just invoke “safety” as a magic word, and then rely on the fact that most homeowners won’t question it. This pattern is well established because we encounter it routinely in our practice.

The problem is that Civil Code section 5610 does not authorize special (emergency) assessments simply because a board invokes the word “safety.” Rather, to properly qualify, the expense in question has to be: (i) an extraordinary expense; (ii) for the repair, replacement, or restoration of a common area element; (iii) triggered by a sudden event or required by law or court order; and (iv) which was unforeseeable at the time the budget was adopted.

That means if the board failed to properly fund reserves for predictable deterioration—like aging balconies, roof membranes, or stairwell reinforcements—they don’t get to call it an emergency just because they’re now behind.

CASE STUDY: THE $25,000 “EMERGENCY” ASSESSMENT IN MODESTO

In 2023, the Walnut Orchard HOA in Modesto issued a $25,000 special assessment per unit—citing alleged structural emergencies involving balconies and staircases. The board claimed that immediate repairs were necessary to comply with safety codes. But news reports revealed that the board had documentation going back years identifying the same issues, none of which the board seems to have paid any heed.

As it turns out, the HOA only acted after a city inspection resulted in the red-tagging of the balconies of eight of the units in the HOA. But instead of seeking a membership vote or explaining the years of deferral, they declared an emergency and imposed the assessment without approval. Even worse, the “emergency” assessment included money to repair multiple other balconies that had not been red-tagged, and could not have possibly qualified as emergencies.

THE “LUMPING” TACTIC AND WHY IT’S ILLEGAL

Even when a true emergency exists, some HOAs use that limited exception as a blank check—expanding it to cover repairs that don’t qualify and forcing every owner to pay for issues that don’t affect them.

This tactic—commonly referred to as “lumping”—involves taking a limited emergency and using it as cover to fund unrelated or long-deferred maintenance projects that do not meet the legal criteria for emergency assessment. The result is a massive charge levied on every homeowner, regardless of whether their unit was implicated in the emergency or whether the repair was urgent at all. Why do HOAs do this? Often, they do it to conceal prior mismanagement and deflect potential liability.

Let’s revisit the Modesto case. The city red-tagged only eight of the balconies, and yet the HOA imposed a $25,000 per-unit assessment across the entire 160-unit community. It appears as if they failed to distinguish between the affected units and the unaffected ones, and it appears that the HOA neglected to explain how they calculated the cost. Rather, they simply invoked the word “emergency” and used it as a pretext to authorize repairs that they had neglected for years.

Even if the conditions in those eight units did justify emergency action under Civil Code section 5610, that didn’t give the board legal authority to fund broader capital improvements under the same pretext. An HOA can’t use a legitimate safety issue as a launchpad to fix everything it’s been neglecting.

The legal failure was twofold, and it was serious. First, it appears that the board imposed a community-wide charge without establishing that every unit was affected or at risk (i.e., fell under the “emergency” exception). Second, it failed to comply with the procedural safeguards required by law, such as failing to identify which expenses were extraordinary, which ones were unforeseeable, and which units were legally subject to the emergency assessment.

WHAT THE HOA IN MODESTO SHOULD’VE DONE

Here’s what the board in Modesto should have done:

• Immediately authorized the repairs for the red-tagged units only.
• Made a clear, written finding in the meeting minutes that explained why those expenses were extraordinary and why they couldn’t have been anticipated in the budget. [Which would’ve been difficult, if not impossible, if the failure actually did result from years of systemic failures to maintain and repair.]
• Calculated and imposed an emergency assessment solely on the units affected—or funded it from existing reserves, depending on the structure.
• Initiated a separate process for evaluating whether broader balcony repairs were needed community-wide, and if so, developed a proposed special assessment that complied with the 5% voting threshold required by Civil Code section 5605.

That’s what the law envisions: targeted use of emergency powers, not a blanket financial maneuver.

When boards conflate a valid emergency with a convenient funding opportunity, they’re not protecting the community, they’re undermining it. And that opens the door to legal challenges from homeowners who understand the difference.

HOW TO FIGHT BACK AGAINST ILLEGAL EMERGENCY ASSESSMENTS

Fighting a board’s so-called “emergency” assessment takes more than just disagreement. It requires documentation, timing, and pressure. The law imposes strict limits on emergency assessments—and boards that ignore those limits can be held accountable. But only if you act strategically and demand proof.

Here’s how to fight back:

1. Demand the board’s written finding. Under Civil Code section 5610, the board is legally required to adopt and record (in the minutes of an open board meeting) a written finding that explains why the expense was extraordinary, necessary, and could not have been reasonably foreseen at the time the board adopted the budget.
2. Demand the proof. You are not required to take the board’s word for it. If they’re calling it an emergency, they should be able to prove it. Submit a Civil Code section 5200 records request and demand all relevant documents, including: (a) engineer/inspection reports; (b) photos of alleged damage or conditions; (c) insurance adjuster evaluations or written loss findings; and (d) code violations, safety citations, or formal orders from any governmental agency. For help constructing a proper 5200 demand, read my article here. You can also listen to the related podcast episode here.
3. Examine the budget history. If the board knew about the problem in prior budget cycles but failed to act, the issue wasn’t unforeseeable, and the assessment doesn’t qualify as an emergency. Your 5200 demand should, therefore, also include: (a) the annual budgets from the past two to three years; (b) reserve studies and repair allocation data; and (c) board meeting minutes referencing delayed or deferred maintenance, or any of the properties in question. The emergency exception is based on timing, not regret. If the board saw it coming and did nothing, they lose the legal shield.
4. Do the math yourself. If the assessment exceeds 5% of the association’s annual gross expenses, a membership vote is generally required under Civil Code section 5605. Ask for a copy of the current budget and calculate the 5% threshold.

Let’s be clear: not every board that invokes the emergency exemption is acting in bad faith. But belief is irrelevant. The statute is not based on good intentions, but rather on evidence, timing, and statutory compliance.

If the board delayed maintenance until it became urgent, that’s not unforeseeable.

If they ignored written inspection reports warning of structural risk, that’s not sudden.

If they adopted a budget knowing a repair was needed, and still failed to fund it, that’s not an emergency. That’s mismanagement. And the law does not reward mismanagement with unlimited assessment power.

Once you’ve identified the problem, here’s how to escalate your response:

1. Demand internal dispute resolution (IDR). You have the right to request a formal, non-binding meeting with the board to challenge the assessment before it escalates to late fees, liens, or foreclosure. Boards are required to participate in IDR when requested in writing. The reverse is not true—homeowners are never required to engage in IDR. For a quick explainer, view my short video on IDR here.
2. Organize your neighbors. Boards are far less likely to push forward with questionable charges when multiple homeowners stand united. Collective resistance is both strategic and persuasive. For tips on organizing, watch my short video on how to rally neighbors here.
3. Consult experienced counsel. If you’re not getting anywhere on your own, then call MBK CHAPMAN. We’ll set your HOA straight.

Taking these steps early can preserve your legal rights and position you to contest unlawful assessments before lasting damage is done.

CONCLUDING THOUGHT

When a true emergency arises, the law gives boards the authority to act swiftly, but that authority comes with strict limits. Emergency assessments are, therefore, narrowly defined precisely because they are supposed to be the exception, not the rule.

To be sure, emergency assessments were never meant to serve as a discretionary tool for mismanaged HOAs to cover years of systemic neglect. Boards that abuse the emergency exception are not only violating the Davis-Stirling Act, but also their fiduciary duties to members. And when they “lump” in unrelated repairs or impose massive assessments without transparency, they’re doing more than just overstepping legal bounds—they’re destabilizing the very community they’re supposed to protect.

Homeowners have rights. And when those rights are violated under the guise of urgency, the law provides remedies. If your HOA has used the word “emergency” as a shield to force through illegal charges, it’s time to fight back.