Overview
If one of your neighbors pepper sprays your dog and then claims “self-defense,” the question you are likely to ask is whether the neighbor had any legal justification for his or her conduct. Unfortunately, given the number of California homeowners who have dogs, this issue arises somewhat frequently in California HOAs. What is fortunate is that California law does not accept speculation, assumptions, or generalized fear as a substitute for an actual, imminent threat, and if your dog is harmed by a neighbor who acted without legal justification, you can hold that neighbor liable.
Case Study
To illustrate how these disputes arise in the real world, consider the facts of a recent case that came to MBK Chapman.
We represent the owner of a dog who was pepper sprayed by a neighbor while the dog was on its own property and the neighbor was on his own property. The case stemmed from a long-running dispute between our client and her neighbor, where the neighbor had repeatedly complained to the HOA that our client’s lights were too bright (they weren’t), her hedges violated the governing documents (they didn’t), her dogs made too much noise (they didn’t, as they were rarely outside), and at least one of her dogs had previously infiltrated his property (he hadn’t; it was another dog owned by an unknown party). Those complaints went nowhere because the HOA found no violations and no wrongful conduct on the part of our client.
The dispute nevertheless escalated when the complaining neighbor, acting on his own, pepper sprayed the dog while the dog remained on its owner’s property, separated by a wall between the lots. In a letter written to the board immediately after the pepper spraying incident, which we contend the neighbor wrote to establish his version of the narrative, the neighbor claimed that:
►He believed that our client’s dog had recently trespassed on his property in the early hours of the morning. [The neighbor attached a picture of the trespassing dog taken from his video camera, and it’s obvious to any reasonable person looking at the picture that the dog in the picture was NOT our client’s dog.]
►He believed that our client’s dogs were trained attack dogs. [They are not.]
►On the day of the pepper spraying, the neighbor had been working on his foliage planted along the wall adjoining the two properties when one of our client’s dogs began charging the wall and barking aggressively. [The wall in question is made of textured cement blocks and is not see-through. The neighbor provided no explanation of how he knew the dog was “charging” the wall (as opposed to just barking at what were obvious noises coming from the wall).]
►Our client’s dog put his paws on the wall, and that he thought the dog was going to jump over the wall. [It was implicit in the neighbor’s narrative that at some point, he stood up at the wall and began yelling at our client’s dog. His contention that our client’s dogs were routinely left unattended outside was also demonstrably false, as video camera footage demonstrates that they’re never outside alone for more than 5-10 minutes at a time to do their business.]
►So to prevent that from happening, the neighbor took his pepper spray out of his pocket and sprayed our client’s dog in the face. [To be clear, at the time of the incident, our client’s dog had not crossed the wall, had not entered the neighbor’s property, and was not attacking or threatening anyone.]
►The neighbor claimed in his narrative that he acted out of fear that the dog might jump over to enter his property “again.” [Again, an assumption that was unreasonable on its face given the fact that the dog in the neighbor’s picture couldn’t have reasonably been confused with our client’s dog.]
What’s clear from the neighbor’s letter to the HOA is that the neighbor: (i) used force based on erroneous and unreasonable assumptions; (ii) used force despite the existence of a physical barrier, with the dog, at all times, entirely on its own property; (iii) was not too scared to stand up at the wall and yell at our client’s dog (i.e., antagonize it); and (iv) could’ve instead easily retreated inside his own home to reach out to our client if he really thought her dog was about to jump over the wall.
Those facts matter because California law draws a clear line between reasonable self-protection and unlawful retaliation. A neighbor’s subjective fear, standing alone, does not justify harming an animal that is restrained by a fence or wall and not actively attacking. When force is used based on assumptions rather than imminent danger, the conduct falls outside what the law permits, and in fact, may constitute a crime.
This Fact Sheet uses that case as a framework to explain broader principles that apply across California HOA communities. It addresses how neighbor-to-neighbor disputes involving dogs often escalate, why claims of fear often fail when no imminent threat exists, and how HOA governance intersects with these conflicts through nuisance enforcement and disciplinary processes.
Key Points
When a neighbor claims “self-defense” after pepper spraying your dog, the outcome does not turn on what the neighbor subjectively feared or assumed. It turns on what was actually happening at the moment force was used. California law draws a sharp line between real danger and imagined risk, and that line becomes even clearer when a dog remains on its own property, separated by a wall or fence. The following points explain why claims of fear often fail in HOA-related dog disputes and how courts evaluate whether force was legally justified.
- Legal justification requires an actual and imminent threat, not speculation. California law distinguishes between reasonable self-protection and unlawful retaliation. A neighbor’s belief that a dog might jump over a wall does not establish an imminent threat, particularly where the dog remains on its own property and has not actually crossed a physical barrier.
- A physical barrier weighs heavily against any claim of self-defense. When a dog remains behind a wall or fence on its owner’s property, the existence of that barrier undermines claims that force was necessary. A barrier that has not been breached defeats arguments that immediate action was required to prevent harm.
- Subjective fear must be grounded in objective facts. A neighbor’s personal fear does not justify force unless supported by objective, observable facts indicating an immediate danger. Unsupported assumptions about a dog’s training, temperament, or prior conduct, particularly when demonstrably false, do not satisfy that standard.
- Provocation and escalation undermine claims of self-defense. A person who approaches a boundary, yells at a dog, or otherwise antagonizes the animal cannot credibly claim fear as justification for using force. Conduct that escalates the encounter cuts against any claim that the force was necessary or reasonable.
- The availability of safe alternatives matters. Where a neighbor could have retreated, disengaged, or contacted the dog’s owner instead of using force, the law weighs those alternatives heavily. The failure to choose a safe, non-violent option undermines claims of legal justification.
- Using force against a dog that remains on its own property may violate Penal Code 597. Penal Code 597 prohibits maliciously or intentionally injuring an animal unless the force used was reasonably necessary to stop an imminent threat. Pepper spraying a dog that has not crossed a barrier, is not attacking, and remains on its own property almost certainly falls outside that justification.
- Neighbor-to-neighbor dog disputes often implicate HOA nuisance and governance issues. In HOA communities, repeated complaints, exaggerated accusations, and retaliatory conduct often intersect with nuisance enforcement. HOA boards must distinguish between legitimate safety concerns and personal vendettas when deciding whether to discipline a neighbor or take enforcement action.
- The right to complain does not immunize subsequent conduct. While homeowners may complain to their HOA without fear of retaliation for making the complaint itself, that right does not excuse conduct that independently violates the law or governing documents.
These principles explain why neighbor-to-neighbor dog disputes so often unravel once the facts are examined closely. When a dog has not crossed a boundary, has not attacked, and poses no imminent threat, claims of self-defense collapse into post-hoc rationalizations. In HOA communities, where personal conflicts frequently masquerade as safety concerns, understanding where the law draws this line is essential to separating legitimate protection from unlawful retaliation.
FAQs
Can a neighbor legally harm a dog just because they fear the dog might jump a wall or fence?
No. California law requires an actual, imminent threat. Fear that a dog might jump over a barrier is not enough to justify force when the dog remains on its own property and has not crossed the boundary.
Does a dog putting its paws on a wall or fence create legal justification for force?
Almost certainly no. A dog placing its paws on a wall, without crossing it or attacking, does not constitute an imminent threat under California law.
Does it matter that the dog was on its owner’s property at the time of the incident?
Yes. The dog’s location is critical. A dog that remains on its owner’s property, separated by a wall or fence, significantly weakens any claim that force was necessary.
What if the neighbor believed the dog was trained as an attack or protection dog?
Belief alone is not enough. The belief has to be reasonable and based on some objectively reasonable evidence. Legal justification requires objective facts supporting an imminent threat. Unsupported assumptions about a dog’s training do not justify force, especially under the facts presented. Even though reasonableness is measured from the time of the incident, the fact that the neighbor’s assumptions were ultimately proven false certainly doesn’t help his case in terms of establishing his credibility.
Could the neighbor in the scenario described in this Fact Sheet have avoided the confrontation without using force?
That’s an important question, and the answer is yes. The neighbor could’ve chosen not to engage with the dog by yelling at it, and the neighbor could have easily gone inside and called our client. Those alternatives weigh strongly against any self-defense claim.
How do HOA rules factor into disputes like this?
HOA governing documents and nuisance provisions often address neighbor conduct, but they do not override California law. A neighbor cannot rely on HOA complaints or enforcement processes to justify unlawful conduct toward a dog.
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
