<span data-mce-type="bookmark" style="display: inline-block; width: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 0;" class="mce_SELRES_start"></span><span data-mce-type="bookmark" style="display: inline-block; width: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 0;" class="mce_SELRES_start"></span>
AB 130 Is Here: What California HOAs Need to Know About the New Fine Restrictions
The HOA landscape in California changed overnight with the passage of AB 130, a sweeping piece of legislation that places new limits on how community associations can issue fines. The law was tucked into the state’s budget bill, passed without hearings, and became effective immediately on July 1, 2024—leaving many HOAs scrambling to understand what it means for their enforcement powers.
In a special edition of The Uncommon Area, Matthew Holbrook spoke with HOA attorney Steve Tinnelly to break down what this law means in real terms.
The $100 Fine Cap
At its core, AB 130 limits fines to $100 per violation. That alone is a major shift, especially for communities that relied on escalating fines to encourage compliance. Gone are the days of issuing $500 or $1,000 fines to habitual rule-breakers—at least not without meeting very specific conditions.
“The idea is to increase the affordability of homes by insulating homeowners from ungodly fine amounts,” said Tinnelly. “But what it’s really done is gutted the enforcement authority of associations.”
A Complex “Opportunity to Cure”
The law also requires that homeowners be given an opportunity to “cure” a violation before a fine can be imposed. Sounds simple—but the ambiguity creates a compliance minefield. If someone parks illegally but moves their car the day before a hearing, have they cured the violation? What about short-term rentals that temporarily stop?
Even attorneys are interpreting this differently. As Tinnelly explained, “We had 15 attorneys in a room trying to agree on what this law means—and we couldn’t. Now imagine volunteer board members trying to figure this out.”
Health and Safety Exceptions
Not all fines are capped. AB 130 allows boards to issue higher fines if a violation may result in an adverse health or safety impact. But to do so, boards must adopt written findings in an open meeting, specifying which violations fall under this category.
Common examples might include:
Short-term rentals (due to transient guests, unfamiliarity with community rules, etc.)
Loud parties in high-rises that disturb sleep
Hazardous maintenance conditions on private property
“The word ‘may’ is key,” said Tinnelly. “It doesn’t have to result in a safety issue—just the potential is enough, if you document it properly.”
What HOAs Should Do Now
Tinnelly recommends that every HOA in California:
Review and revise fine policies to comply with the $100 cap.
Adopt a resolution listing health and safety violations with associated fine caps.
Ensure due process: 10-day notice before hearings, written decisions within 14 days, and cure periods.
Avoid budgeting for fines. Relying on fines for revenue is both legally and ethically problematic.
If there’s one thing this law makes clear, it’s that HOAs need to shift from informal enforcement to a procedurally airtight approach.
Final Thoughts
AB 130 may have been passed with good intentions, but it has introduced confusion, risk, and cost into HOA governance. The path forward requires proactive planning, clear documentation, and likely more engagement with legal counsel.
“It’s not about collecting money,” said Tinnelly. “It’s about compliance. And if fines don’t get the job done, boards need to escalate—legally.”
Read Transcript
13:18:32:13 – 13:18:40:05
Matthew
So you are the third attorney I have talked to that has used the word nonsensical nonsense related to this bill. Yeah.
13:18:40:07 – 13:19:07:04
Steve
Yeah. It just it just doesn’t make sense. The idea is to, you know, increase the affordability of homes by insulating homeowners from, you know, their nasty homes, being able to find them. These ungodly amounts. And essentially what it’s done is it’s really gutted the enforcement authority that associations have, which I think in a lot of the cases is going to require the associations to utilize legal services more.
13:19:07:06 – 13:19:36:05
Matthew
Welcome to the uncommon area where we’re dedicated to reimagining ways we provide board members and managers with the resources to create uncommon communities where residents love their HOA and truly love where they live. Welcome to the Uncommon area. I am Matthew Holbrook, and this episode in particular is probably a little bit more helpful and relevant than even most of our other episodes.
13:19:36:05 – 13:20:06:10
Matthew
And that’s because we are talking about California Assembly Bill 130. This particular legislation is specific to the state of California. And so this is relevant for our board members and managers in the state of California. But it is a bill that has immediate impact and significant impact on how homeowners associations are able to impose fines related to violations in the communities.
13:20:06:12 – 13:20:30:13
Matthew
And so we want to dive into that and understand what those ramifications are. And joining me to talk about, this topic for this episode is attorney Steve Tinley of the Tinley Law Firm. And, I think you’re going to find that this is a particularly, interesting and relevant episode. So I hope that you watch it. Well, Steve, welcome back.
13:20:30:13 – 13:20:32:15
Matthew
Glad to have you back in the uncommon area.
13:20:32:16 – 13:20:34:15
Steve
Good to be back. Thank you so much.
13:20:34:17 – 13:20:57:14
Matthew
Yeah, things are interesting in California for HOAs right now. We’ve had, some new legislation that has turned, a lot of HOA upside down a little bit. And we’re going to talk about that, California Assembly bill. 130. Yes. And, this episode is going to be all about that. So, why don’t we start off with, just give us a little bit of an overview.
13:20:57:14 – 13:20:59:01
Matthew
13:20:59:02 – 13:21:19:03
Steve
Well, what’s interesting is that this this bill was kind of written into the budget bill at the 11th hour. So there was a separate piece of legislation, actually a Senate bill that was proposed and that dealt with the aspects of this legislation. And the legislature was working to pass the budget package, and they actually slipped the components. That impact goes into that budget.
13:21:19:07 – 13:21:31:03
Steve
Budget package at the 11th hour. No hearings, no public comment. And the governor signed it as an urgency statute. So we didn’t even see this coming. And it was signed and it took effect immediately.
13:21:31:07 – 13:21:37:20
Matthew
So to clarify, when you say it’s attached to the budget package, this is not a budget package related to HOA.
13:21:38:01 – 13:21:39:00
Steve
13:21:39:02 – 13:21:51:02
Matthew
So this is this is a bill that had nothing to do with HOA fees at all to start with. And then it was just kind of slipped in at the last second without any warning and no hearings, and then had an immediate effect.
13:21:51:03 – 13:22:09:11
Steve
Immediate effect. Yeah. I mean, the legislature and they’ve been on this mission for a while now. They’re attacking different fronts, different crises. There’s a housing affordability, housing and homelessness crisis in California. So there was two separate pieces of legislation that were proposed for this. And they do a bunch of things relating to the development of projects and rent controls.
13:22:09:13 – 13:22:25:16
Steve
But also there’s this component of HOAs and limiting their fining authority. And we’ll get in all that and their enforcement authority. That was a separate bill. And then it got wrapped into this at the 11th hour and signed at midnight. And, you know, takes effect immediately. And now we’re just left picking up the pieces, trying to figure this stuff out.
13:22:25:16 – 13:22:31:12
Steve
And this has got to be one of the more complicated and seemingly nonsensical bills I’ve ever, I’ve ever seen.
13:22:31:14 – 13:22:36:15
Matthew
So you are the third attorney I have talked to that has used the word nonsensical.
13:22:36:15 – 13:22:37:03
Steve
13:22:37:03 – 13:22:38:08
Matthew
13:22:38:08 – 13:23:07:15
Steve
Yeah, yeah. It just it just doesn’t make sense. The idea is to, you know, increase the affordability of homes by insulating homeowners from, you know, their nasty HOA fees, being able to find them, these ungodly amounts. And essentially what it’s done is it’s really gutted the enforcement authority that associations have, which I think in a lot of the cases is going to require the associations to utilize legal services more, their attorneys more, which, you know, is going to have financial impact on the entire community.
13:23:07:15 – 13:23:18:05
Steve
So, so many times we see the legislature try to make things more affordable, right, for the homeowner. But what it ends up doing is actually compounding the problem by putting a financial strain on every homeowner in the community.
13:23:18:05 – 13:23:24:00
Matthew
Yeah. So I think we’re at the point now just what’s the bill basically about? What does it do?
13:23:24:04 – 13:23:45:05
Steve
Bill basically is about this, here’s the quick and dirty HOA cannot impose monetary penalties. And these are fines for violations of the governing documents. Right. Somebody parked overnight in the common area commences construction without approval, violates poor rules, myriad of fines that we deal with on a day to day basis. You cannot find them in an amount over $100.
13:23:45:07 – 13:24:04:00
Steve
Right. And there are some exceptions. We’ll get into that. And they’re very complicated. Maybe reading it the first time I started crossing. But that’s basically it is really to, to to cut down the authority for associations to impose fines. And for some communities, depending on where they are, $100 isn’t really the deterrent effect that we want it to have.
13:24:04:00 – 13:24:22:03
Steve
Some people would say, okay, well, if I have a late night party in the middle of the night and I get cited by the association, it just basically cost me $100 to throw to throw that party, and it’s worth it. So, yeah, that’s the issue. That’s number one. Number two, homeowners have to be given an opportunity to clear their violation prior to the hearing.
13:24:22:03 – 13:24:48:00
Steve
And if they do, the board can impose any fine whatsoever, additional rights to request IDR and resolution agreements and, you know, a whole other host of procedural aspects that really make, what was a pretty easy enforcement process that made sense regarding notices to the homeowner and stuff. It’s now a lot more complicated. That requires a lot more for community managers and boards to be able to follow just in order to feel like, okay, we did this according to the law.
13:24:48:01 – 13:25:10:02
Matthew
So we’re really boiling this bill down to a couple of components. One, there’s a limit with exceptions, which we’ll get to, but a limit of $100 that an association can fine. A homeowner. And secondly, there has to be this opportunity to cure before you can. Fine. So both of those present some, some challenges for a homeowners association.
13:25:10:04 – 13:25:20:17
Matthew
Before we start, you know, following the path down, what are the implications of that? What happens if an association doesn’t abide by this bill?
13:25:20:19 – 13:25:43:08
Steve
Well, the way that the code and there was language in there before. So they amended sections 5850 and 58, 55, right. And under 58, 55. If you’re going to impose discipline on a homeowner, monetary penalty, a fine, or charge them for damage, they to the common area, you have to comply with all those procedural requirements. If you don’t, whatever you impose against them is not valid and it’s subject to challenge.
13:25:43:08 – 13:26:00:07
Steve
So, you know, we’re seeing more and more of these homeowner attorneys, right? They’re getting more sophisticated. Homeowners are getting more sophisticated. It just provides a lot more grounds for a homeowner to contest the associations enforcement action. And, and, you know, present liability in the event the association doesn’t comply.
13:26:00:09 – 13:26:16:13
Matthew
But theoretically, if an association were to find a homeowner $300 and the homeowner pays the $300, nothing really would happen out of that other than if the homeowner were to challenge it. Then the association would have a hard time enforcing that. That 300.
13:26:16:13 – 13:26:39:09
Steve
Dollars. Exactly. Yeah. You have to reimburse them or. But I mean, usually the fines are in connection with another matter as well. Right? So if you want to take legal action against a homeowner and now they start tripping and saying the procedural components of what the association did initially were wrong, now the case and the arguments become about procedural noncompliance by the association rather than focusing on what it is that the homeowner is not doing.
13:26:39:09 – 13:26:57:19
Steve
And that’s what comes up the works. Right. And that gets a situation where the association has to spend more on attorney’s fees combating these arguments than it would traditionally, because we didn’t have all of these different landmines, that we could potentially step on in reading all these different aspects of the codes and all the different notices and the written resolution agreements that we have to provide.
13:26:57:19 – 13:26:59:06
Steve
13:26:59:07 – 13:27:18:23
Matthew
So I have heard the argument that some have tried to make that the bill is in some way tied to an association’s budget, and so therefore it may not go into effect until the new fiscal year for the association. How do you see that?
13:27:19:01 – 13:27:40:09
Steve
No, not necessary. I mean, it’s in effect right now. So if there is an association today, if a board was conducting a disciplinary hearing today and imposed a fine in excess of $100 that didn’t meet one of the exceptions I will get into that would be invalid. That would be a violation of of statute. I think the arguing you’re pertaining to is when an association if they adopt if an association has a policy where we find our homeowners, right.
13:27:40:10 – 13:27:56:15
Steve
We are adopting a schedule of fines. Right. This is a list of fines that we can impose for violations. That schedule has to be disclosed to the members as part of the annual policy statement. Right at the beginning of the fiscal year. So maybe they’re thinking, hey, it’s got to take effect next year when we send out our next annual policy statement.
13:27:56:15 – 13:28:09:12
Steve
And that’s all well and good, but that doesn’t change the fact that any violation that an association poses from July 1st of this year, moving forward has to comply with the statute irrespective of whatever your annual policy statement said.
13:28:09:12 – 13:28:24:12
Matthew
So that brings us to some of the practical implications. If an association has an existing fine policy with fines that either start or escalate to over $100, that policy is no longer valid, correct?
13:28:24:14 – 13:28:46:07
Steve
Yes. Well, I mean, depending on the way in which it’s drafted and, you know, our attorneys, we ran table this for an entire day in terms of the new fine policies that that we want to adopt and recommend for our clients. So we are providing avenues to get creative for continuing fines and recurring violations. But in general, it’s probably very doubtful that in association right now, their existing fine policy is compliant with the new statute.
13:28:46:11 – 13:29:18:15
Matthew
So, and a new policy would have to be distributed to the homeowners and have the 30 day review process exactly. So let’s say that an association is right on top of this. And the day after this became effective, they adopted a new fine policy and sent it out for a 30 day review. Best possible case scenario, does that essentially mean that the association is, not able to enforce their cars to the point of imposing a fine for at least 30 days.
13:29:18:17 – 13:29:38:18
Steve
Potentially? I mean, you know, the amount of the $100, they can just decide, okay, for the next month, we’re only going to impose up to $100, but they still have to comply with the procedural aspects of what this law requires to cure, period. For example. And if the homeowners in the hearing and they come to an agreement, the board actually has to pen a written agreement that has to be signed by everyone.
13:29:38:23 – 13:30:06:06
Matthew
So, okay, let’s get to that. But, to start with, an association has an existing fine policy that does not comply with the new bill. Can the association follow their existing policy to the extent that it complies with the new bill, without having to send out a new policy for all of the homeowners to review and to go through that review process?
13:30:06:06 – 13:30:14:10
Matthew
In other words, if they have a if their current policy says a $200 fine, could they just say, okay, we’re only going to fine up to $100, even though the policy doesn’t say that?
13:30:14:12 – 13:30:29:06
Steve
Yeah, I think in large part there is an avenue to do that provided that they follow the procedures. And the homeowner, I guess, could argue and say, well, you’re only supposed to levy fines in accordance with the policy. I don’t know what any homeowner would say. The policy says you can levy up to 200 and you only levied 100 against me.
13:30:29:06 – 13:30:45:12
Steve
I mean, I think that would be, you know, to use that word again, a little nonsensical, but yeah, it’s just we’re in limbo right now. And candidly, I have some clients that are saying, hey, Steve, do we even have to tip our homeowners to this? Like, do we have to get started on this right away? Because we like to deter an effect of our fines?
13:30:45:12 – 13:30:57:05
Steve
They’re working. And for us as lawyers, ethically, we have to say we can’t advise you to not comply with the law. So, you know, it’s the board’s decision ultimately. But yeah, this is definitely something that they want to get the ball rolling on.
13:30:57:07 – 13:31:13:08
Matthew
So just to sum up this portion, there’s a limitation of a $100 maximum fine. And that includes any escalation. Right. We’re not just talking a starting fine. So you get the law doesn’t allow for escalating beyond $100.
13:31:13:08 – 13:31:36:18
Steve
Well, it depends. And that’s a matter of interpretation. Right. Even attorneys in our firm, when we were round tabling this, we came to, hey, what’s the most sensible solution here. So we do have in our policies we do have avenues. And it also depends on the client’s governing documents as well, which is why, you know, for the community managers that are listening, boards that are listening, a lot of times you think, okay, we’ll give you a new fine policy, and it’s just a standard product that can apply to every association.
13:31:36:18 – 13:32:03:16
Steve
And that’s not the case, right? There’s different fining authority, disciplinary authority in different communities by laws and CRS. And we look for that. Right. So to the extent that there is some language to support that, we do have versions of the documents that we’re drafting that allow for after that initial hearing in that initial fine for a continuing violation to allow for each day that that violation remains unresolved, to be treated as a separate violation, for which another hundred dollars, up to $100 could be tacked on.
13:32:03:17 – 13:32:12:12
Matthew
So it could be on a daily basis after that, so that it’s essentially the fine doesn’t escalate past $100, but you could start imposing it more frequently.
13:32:12:12 – 13:32:25:04
Steve
The fine for that violation doesn’t escalate up for $100, but every day you’re doing that, that is a separate and distinct violation. So you committed a violation on Wednesday, on Thursday, on Friday, $100, $100, $100.
13:32:25:06 – 13:32:30:09
Matthew
So do you have to have a new hearing and go through a new process for each one of those $100 fines?
13:32:30:10 – 13:32:44:00
Steve
And it depends on the language in the documents, and some attorneys disagree with it. But, you know, I have some clients, we have some policies where we take the approach that the notice of decision that’s given to the homeowner after the hearing, which, by the way, the law is cut down now, it has to be within 15 days previously.
13:32:44:00 – 13:32:54:05
Steve
Now it’s 14 days. So they shortened it by a day. Another fun fact. As in that notice of hearing. Yes, we’re going to levy continuing fines on this without a further hearing.
13:32:54:05 – 13:33:01:01
Matthew
What I’m hearing you say there is that may not be etched in stone, but there is a legal argument to be made to do that.
13:33:01:01 – 13:33:13:22
Steve
Yeah. Oh, definitely. There are always legal arguments to be made. There’s nothing that expressly prohibits that under the law. But I guarantee you, any firm within our industry, you’re going to have attorneys within that same firm that are arguing both sides of that coin.
13:33:13:22 – 13:33:21:03
Matthew
So let’s talk about some of the, the procedural aspects, specifically relating to the opportunity to cure.
13:33:21:05 – 13:33:22:11
13:33:22:13 – 13:33:37:02
Matthew
So you have an association, who has a resident who is in violation. They send a notice, they invite them to a hearing, they give the proper notice ten days. That’s still the proper timeframe.
13:33:37:06 – 13:33:37:14
Steve
13:33:37:15 – 13:33:51:07
Matthew
So ten days. Notice the and the homeowner then comes to the hearing. And by the time the homeowner comes to the hearing, the homeowner has remedied whatever the the violation was.
13:33:51:10 – 13:33:52:12
13:33:52:13 – 13:33:55:03
Matthew
Does the association have the right to fine at that point.
13:33:55:03 – 13:34:14:07
Steve
According to the the text of the statute? No, they do not. But and this is where, you know, your eyebrows start raising, you start scratching your head. It all depends on the type of violation and different industry attorneys you’ve got, you know, different communications where we’re sending out group emails. How are you guys looking at this? You know, how can you cure something right.
13:34:14:07 – 13:34:25:15
Steve
So if somebody, let’s say, parks overnight in a guest parking space in violation of the parking rules, does that mean they just they can continue to leave the car there and they just have to move it sometime between now and the and the hearing date?
13:34:25:15 – 13:34:29:15
Matthew
Yeah, they move it the day before the hearing and then they go back to doing it the day after that. Yeah.
13:34:29:17 – 13:34:54:00
Steve
We don’t really don’t really know. I mean, you park overnight in the common area. That’s a violation. I don’t think that that is something that is curable unless, you know, somehow you tell the homeowner that night and then they move the vehicle that that evening. So it all depends on it. I think the most I think the easiest hypothetical situation to imagine is, let’s say a homeowner is getting cited for violation because they are not performing, you know, adequate maintenance on their property.
13:34:54:01 – 13:35:11:21
Steve
Right? Hey, this whatever’s going on in the landscape is terrible. It’s a fire risk. Whatever the circumstance is, we’re calling you to a hearing at which we may consider imposing discipline. And between that time in the hearing, the homeowner goes in there and cleans everything up. In that situation, I could see that, okay, that’s a pretty easy scenario to understand.
13:35:11:23 – 13:35:30:11
Steve
They cured the violation prior to the hearing. No fine can be levied. And, you know, just from a practical standpoint, especially with homeowners that are first time violators, and this is kind of a just a governance issue. One of the things that our firm is always a proponent of for these boards, homeowner, it’s a first time violation. A lot of times they don’t understand the governing documents.
13:35:30:11 – 13:35:48:07
Steve
They don’t understand what’s going on. They might have this type of maintenance violation. You need to paint your garage door, whatever the circumstances. They come to the hearing. And I tell, you know, my boards consider imposing the fine, but giving the homeowner 30 days to fix it. And if they do it within that time frame, you’ll waive the fine.
13:35:48:07 – 13:36:06:02
Steve
You build a little good faith right in the, you know, with with the homeowner. So I in spirit I like the the theory of an opportunity to cure. But the way this bill is drafted and kind of that pre hearing opportunity to cure and there’s so much ambiguity in it, I think it’s just going to be very, very difficult for anybody to make heads or tails of it.
13:36:06:02 – 13:36:23:01
Steve
I mean we were joking because you know as attorneys if we’re, you know, 1516 attorneys in a room, if we can’t agree on how to administer what they call it with the code now requires the expectation now is for volunteer board members, community managers, to be able to do it. It’s it’s it’s going to be challenging.
13:36:23:07 – 13:36:47:00
Matthew
All right. So to summarize where we are so far in this conversation, the new law limits fines to $100 for ongoing, violations. An argument could be made to make a decision at a hearing to continue to levy some amount of fine of $100 or less for each following day of that violation. And that might be open to argument, but there.
13:36:47:00 – 13:36:48:10
Steve
Is definitely there’s, there’s a.
13:36:48:14 – 13:37:10:17
Matthew
There’s a discussion to be had there, the ten day notice to invite somebody to a hearing is still the same time frame. Results of hearings need to be sent out now, 14 days after the hearing instead of 15 days. And homeowners have to be given the opportunity to cure. And if they cure before the hearing, then you can’t find them.
13:37:10:19 – 13:37:38:06
Matthew
And on the straightforward where there is an ongoing violation that just gets resolved, like a maintenance issue or a painting of a garage door, those are pretty clean cut. But there are some areas of, types of violations that might be a little bit more complicated. And if I’m hearing what you’re saying, this is going to play out in time, and there’s probably going to be case law that will help to define that car parked in a guest parking space overnight.
13:37:38:08 – 13:37:43:00
Matthew
And then they move it before the hearing and then they go back. Those types of things are going to get worked out in time.
13:37:43:00 – 13:38:03:16
Steve
Yeah. I mean, and hopefully there is case law and especially because, I mean, the more restrictive the legislature has gone, there’s been this interesting dichotomy. And I think we spoke about it the last time where courts have actually been on the other side, more deferential, the boards. So we would welcome, you know, published case law on this. The challenges, the nature of these disputes, these fine disputes are so nominal, such small dollars.
13:38:03:18 – 13:38:15:21
Steve
I don’t think it’s likely that people are going to take this to court, let alone on appeal, right, to argue it over fines. So the likelihood that we’ll actually get some judicial, you know, insight is, is, you know, relatively minimal.
13:38:15:23 – 13:38:42:23
Matthew
Yeah. The situation that I hear coming up most often is short term rentals. So Airbnb so somebody is renting out their home in violation of the association rules or documents and they’re renting it out, you know, through Airbnb or whatever it might be. And they get called to a hearing that rental period comes to an end.
13:38:43:00 – 13:38:56:06
Matthew
The homeowner shows up and says, I’m not doing it anymore. And there’s no advertising for that online anywhere. The board is going to have a difficult time in that situation imposing a fine.
13:38:56:07 – 13:39:13:01
Steve
Yeah, potentially. Again, it depends on the language of how the documents are structured. I mean, you need to have some deterrence, right, to homeowners doing this. If, you know, a homeowner says I can get 5 or 600 bucks a night for my unit, and at most, you know, I can rent this out, the most they can do is paying me for $100 at the end.
13:39:13:06 – 13:39:47:02
Steve
I’m. I’m sitting pretty. Yeah. You know this. You know, the short term rentals brings up another interesting aspect of the bill, and this is one of the more complicated ones. So at that, late in the, in the bill’s formation, I think through Clarke’s lobbying efforts, we were able to actually get an exception to that $100 that allows the board to levy fines in excess of that amount when the violation may, as, quote, may have an adverse health or safety impact on the common area or neighboring members properties.
13:39:47:07 – 13:39:58:18
Matthew
So we’re going to get to that. So we might as well do that. Now I don’t know in my mind as I’m just thinking about this, it seems like that would be a difficult argument to make, to be made regarding short term rentals.
13:39:58:19 – 13:39:59:21
13:39:59:23 – 13:40:22:08
Steve
Well, I mean we’ve, we’ve looked at it and we analyzed that, we analyzed a whole host of them. And why this is important is because for the board to levy a fine in excess of $100 under these adverse health and safety violations, the code now requires, as part of this bill, the board to adopt written findings specifying those things in order then to be able to levy that fine and those written findings have to be adopted in a board meeting.
13:40:22:08 – 13:40:42:02
Steve
So I’ll I’ll simplify it. But we we looked at okay, what could be adverse health and safety violations. And people can argue oh well that really is that likely to occur. Is that a is that a likely scenario in which a short term rental prevents those safety concerns? And yes, I mean, we can argue security concerns. These people are coming.
13:40:42:02 – 13:41:12:11
Steve
They’re they’re for transient purposes. It’s a security risk, utilizing the common area. They’re not familiar with the association’s rules. There’s a variety of things that you could argue, well, how likely is that to happen? And then we go to the text of the bill. And the bill now says that may result in these types of things, which to us is a very, you know, broad and, and, and, you know, cautionary interpretation rather than something that requires like a definite impact, right, a tangible impact, right?
13:41:12:12 – 13:41:31:01
Steve
Something that is easily definable, proven impact that it actually, yes, this resulted in a health or safety violation. The code doesn’t say that. It says it may result in these things. And certainly a somebody who’s violating the short term rental restriction, that use of that property may definitely may result in adverse safety concerns. So that.
13:41:31:01 – 13:41:32:11
Matthew
Word may opens the door for.
13:41:32:11 – 13:41:32:19
Steve
13:41:33:00 – 13:42:13:17
Matthew
To impose fines, at a greater amount, if it meets that health or safety consideration. So just to summarize what you just said there, a board could impose fines greater than $100 when there is the possibility that, such violation could cause a health or safety concern to the association at large, but the board would have to document prior to trying to enforce that, some type of justification, that would say why we think this particular violation is a risk to the association.
13:42:13:17 – 13:42:15:09
Steve
Yeah, that’s that’s exactly right.
13:42:15:09 – 13:42:35:17
Matthew
I would imagine that in time that the attorneys in the industry are going to come up with some standard language for the, the, the frequently cited types of violations that would meet those standards, like what we were just talking about short term rentals or, whatever else that might possibly fit into that category.
13:42:35:17 – 13:42:50:01
Steve
Yeah, we have, we have everything. So how we’re approaching it, you know, we’re blessed to have our team and all these different attorneys looking at these things from different angles. We actually came together with a list. So understanding all these documents need to be produced, like how could we add value to our clients and make this simple?
13:42:50:01 – 13:43:11:14
Steve
So we produced the package of documents, the new five policy, new things. One of the documents is a board resolution that the board adopts in an open meeting, presumably at the same time they adopt this policy, and that resolution serves as the purpose of the board formally recognizing a laundry list of things right. That could be, you know, quote, adverse health and safety violations.
13:43:11:14 – 13:43:42:08
Steve
And we’ve got essentially just three pages of bullet points that, depending on the community, will strip some stuff out. But we thought of absolutely everything possible. And that’s in order to be able to put the board in a position, okay, you’ve adopted this new fine policy. You’ve adopted this resolution containing written findings of what you think are adverse health and safety violations in order for you to moving forward, still have some sense of normalcy, to charge somebody a greater fine for an egregious violation, because usually we can tie it to some sort of underlying health or safety concern.
13:43:42:10 – 13:43:53:04
Matthew
So the adverse health or safety concern for an association, are there any limits on the dollar amounts that could be imposed for a fine for those?
13:43:53:04 – 13:44:02:11
Steve
No, no, there are no limits. The only limit that’s there is language that was in the prior version of the statute that’s retained in the statute that says fines must be reasonable.
13:44:02:13 – 13:44:14:11
Matthew
Taking that a step further, you are essentially saying that most violations for an association could probably be argued to have some type of health or safety concern.
13:44:14:13 – 13:44:15:21
Steve
13:44:15:23 – 13:44:23:01
Matthew
Which then would result in nullifying the effects of this law in large part. Yeah.
13:44:23:01 – 13:44:44:12
Steve
And it’s, you know, you know, looking at Cod, is this a workaround? Well, no. But I mean, it makes sense, especially in a short term rental scenario, $100 is not going to tear somebody from monetizing their property and bringing in a cascade of Airbnb renters into a community, using the common area facilities and all those things. It’s definitely reasonable to charge $1,000 per night fine in order to say, we don’t allow this here, right?
13:44:44:13 – 13:44:54:05
Steve
That it’s reasonable. We need to be able to deter the conduct. And if this homeowner’s conduct, if they’re actually deriving a financial gain over $100, well over $100, there’s no deterrent effect.
13:44:54:11 – 13:45:09:13
Matthew
So when you adopt that resolution that specifies the various health and safety risks that the board is calling out ahead of time, as part of that resolution, do you have to assign a dollar amount to each of the fines associated to those violations?
13:45:09:13 – 13:45:22:07
Steve
Oh, I mean, again, this is something that and that should have been that should have been the disclaimer at the beginning. I mean, any attorneys that, you know, boards, managers, you I guarantee your attorney might have a different take on this or might have a similar take, but there might be some kind of all this stuff can be argued.
13:45:22:07 – 13:45:42:23
Steve
And that’s how, you know, it’s really bad legislation, right? Because everything is subject to interpretation in ways that just are mind boggling. How we’re drafting our policies is we’re basically specifying us, violation. That’s an we call it an adverse health and safety violation. The board may levy up to X amount. Right. So we set a cap on it to give the board the discretion to.
13:45:43:01 – 13:45:54:02
Steve
And we think that that satisfies the law which says the fine shall be in accordance with the fine schedule. And the fine schedule says up to X amount. And as long as we stay within that amount, we’re fine.
13:45:54:04 – 13:46:06:17
Matthew
Now, just to press this a little bit further, are you are you, suggesting that there be an up two amount that’s the same for each one of those violations? Or do you have a different up to amount for each of them?
13:46:06:19 – 13:46:25:06
Steve
I mean, you can go in with that level of specificity. I mean, some, you know, some some boards might prefer that. They might think it’s just I don’t think it’s necessary. We just define a broad category of an adverse health and safety violation up to this amount. And then we specify a menu of violations that can be deemed adverse health and safety violations.
13:46:25:06 – 13:46:26:22
Steve
And that’s kind of how we tie it together.
13:46:27:00 – 13:46:32:12
Matthew
Is there anything else process wise that’s different with these health and safety concerns.
13:46:32:18 – 13:46:52:16
Steve
Yeah. So let’s say the board adopted this resolution. They’ve adopted their written findings. And now there is a violation that comes up and we say Holy smokes we did not catch. We didn’t foresee this type of violation when we did our resolution right. But it is an adverse health and safety. What do we do then? Well, the board has to go through the process with respect to that particular violation.
13:46:52:16 – 13:47:07:14
Steve
So the board would have to at an open board meeting. And we provide our clients with a blank resolution to do this. We found a new adverse health and safety violation that we didn’t think of before. We’re formally documenting it. That’s got to get on the books before they can start fining over $100 for that type of violation.
13:47:07:16 – 13:47:09:23
Steve
13:47:10:01 – 13:47:14:23
Matthew
Yeah, I would imagine that list would would be growing pretty regularly over time as different things come up.
13:47:14:23 – 13:47:25:21
Steve
Yeah, that’s why we have one in our initial one that we’re giving to our clients. It’s three pages long. We try to contemplate absolutely everything, but I’m sure there’s going to be things that pop up that aren’t there and, you know, the boards are going to have to deal with it.
13:47:26:02 – 13:47:32:02
Matthew
Are there any other states in the country that have adopted this type of, of a bill?
13:47:32:04 – 13:47:53:07
Steve
You know, what’s interesting is in talking with the legislative advocates for our industry, not just in California, but but nationally and internationally. And this was a surprise to me. There are jurisdictions where associations can’t find any amount whatsoever. They’re prohibited from finding. Oh, yeah. So, I mean, that’s seems like it’s news to you. I didn’t know that.
13:47:53:13 – 13:48:11:20
Steve
And, the author of of this bill, the senator they’re going to be working on amendments to it. And she kind of understood at the beginning that $100 might not be practical, but they did want to put in some type of statutory cap. And I don’t think there’s going to be appetite to raise that ceiling much higher, if at all.
13:48:11:22 – 13:48:22:10
Steve
The way I’m kind of hearing things is that this is likely to, to stay. And by the way, you guys, you should be saying thank you because we could be like other states and say you can’t find whatsoever.
13:48:22:15 – 13:48:23:20
Matthew
13:48:23:22 – 13:48:25:05
13:48:25:07 – 13:48:30:12
Matthew
Is there anything else in this bill that we should be thinking about or that managers or board members should know?
13:48:30:14 – 13:48:51:05
Steve
Yeah, I mean, there’s just the procedural aspects of it, again, and this is why it’s so important, because you want to have all this stuff dictated in your fine policy so that you can follow it. Kind of similar to how the legislature keeps expanding our procedural requirements with regard to how we conduct elections. Now, we rely on our set of election rules basically to everything out your your enforcement and find policy needs to be that detailed.
13:48:51:07 – 13:49:13:22
Steve
For example, we obviously have the cure period. If the homeowner and the board are meeting in the hearing and they come to an agreement as to how to resolve the violation, there’s actually an affirmative obligation. The board shall have a written resolution agreement. So they actually have to pen an agreement that’s got to be signed by the homeowner and the board if they’re in agreement.
13:49:13:22 – 13:49:14:16
Matthew
13:49:14:18 – 13:49:30:19
Steve
Yeah, it’s part of the I mean, does it say specifically in the medium of theoretically, that’s when you would and that is and the code now says that agreement is judicially enforceable. It’s binding similar to an agreement reached in IDR. You know, on that point, let’s say we go to the hearing on the homeowner. You’re the board member.
13:49:30:19 – 13:49:50:21
Steve
I say, I think this is nonsense. You say, stop violating. We’re not in agreement. The homeowner now can, request IDR, which is essentially a rehearing. So we already conducted the hearing, and some homeowners say, well, now I want to conduct ADR, or is it wait a second, we just had a hearing that’s IDR. Your your rights to meet with the board have been satisfied.
13:49:50:23 – 13:50:00:17
Steve
No. Now the code is explicit. You go through the hearing. If you’re not in agreement as a homeowner you can basically, you know, hit the button that says, now I want an IDR with less than the entire board.
13:50:00:19 – 13:50:14:17
Matthew
And you do the same thing all over again. So just less than the entire board. Now I want to go back to this written agreement. So a homeowner shows up. They’ve been called to a hearing for not painting their garage.
13:50:14:19 – 13:50:15:22
13:50:16:00 – 13:50:17:23
Matthew
They paint their garage prior to the hearing.
13:50:18:01 – 13:50:18:23
13:50:19:01 – 13:50:27:09
Matthew
And they show up at the hearing, they say it’s all resolved and the board says, yeah, I went by, I saw it is resolved. Do they need an agreement? No.
13:50:27:09 – 13:50:35:03
Steve
Right now I would say in that case because they’re, they’re I mean, they’re not agreeing how to resolve the violation. If anything, they’re agreeing that the violation is resolved. So I don’t think there’s anything that’s.
13:50:35:04 – 13:50:41:19
Matthew
So that’s what I was clarifying is so you don’t need to have a written agreement that agrees that it’s resolved. No. You can just have the minutes reflect that.
13:50:41:19 – 13:51:00:22
Steve
Exactly. But let’s say the homeowner comes to the meeting and they say, hey, we’re going to find you $100 and we’re going to find you $100 every day that you don’t paint that thing until it’s done. Okay, listen, I’m going to paint it. My contractor, I have an appointment. My contractor is coming next week. Can you give me ten days and hold off on any fines?
13:51:00:22 – 13:51:17:19
Steve
In that case, if I was at the table, I would encourage the board. Yes, right. Fines are meant to compel compliance. We’re not here to make money, right? We should not be budgeting based on fine revenue. So in that case, sure, the board comes to an agreement. He’s going to paint it in ten days, right? Otherwise he’s going to be subjected to fines.
13:51:17:20 – 13:51:27:14
Steve
That type of resolution would then need to be documented inside. And in the event the owner doesn’t comply, traditionally enforceable, you actually go right to court and see judicial enforcement of it.
13:51:27:17 – 13:51:43:17
Matthew
So let’s say a homeowner shows up, and they say, I haven’t painted my garage and I may or may not get to it. And the board says, okay, it’s $100 fine and $100 a day until you do paint your garage. Does that need an agreement?
13:51:43:19 – 13:52:00:22
Steve
Well, no, because they’re not they’re not necessarily in agreement. The homeowners probably not in agreement with that. That’s the board would just give that to the homeowner in their notice of decision. Right. That’s got to go out 14 days now after the hearing, not 15. And that would be the process. The homeowner, what the homeowner could do at that point would be, okay, well, now I want ADR, I want another hearing to talk about this again.
13:52:01:01 – 13:52:14:06
Matthew
Okay. So just clarifying that just because a board imposes a fine doesn’t mean they need a separate agreement with the homeowner. No, this is just if there is some negotiated settlement essentially between the the association and the homeowner.
13:52:14:08 – 13:52:30:02
Steve
Okay. Yeah. And I and I don’t have that much issue with that. Would that aspects of the bill. I mean there’s been so many times, you know in recent years where the legislature has adopted something and there’s been a lot of reaction from our industry immediately. Why do we need this? What’s so bad? My head has always gone to, okay, what’s the purpose here?
13:52:30:02 – 13:52:50:22
Steve
What’s the value? Could there be something? Why is the legislature looking at it this way? And in most scenarios I could say yeah, there’s there’s some value to that. Right. The elevated element inspection, the balcony bill. Right. The different election procedures, the limitation on our candidate qualifications. For example, this is the first bill where I’ve been really stretching to find, you know, the silver lining in it.
13:52:50:22 – 13:52:55:14
Steve
And, and I can’t, I can’t yet. So. Yeah. That’s tough.
13:52:55:16 – 13:53:19:11
Matthew
Well, understood. Well, if I was to just try to summarize all of this now, I know I keep doing this, but there’s a lot of information. There’s so much so limitation of $100 to fine for non emergency risks to health or property in the, in the community. So $100 limit on those fines. Again ten days notice to invite to the hearing 14 days answer.
13:53:19:11 – 13:53:46:13
Matthew
After the hearing, homeowner gets the opportunity to cure before the hearing. And if they cure before the hearing, the board can’t. Fine. The board can adopt ahead of time. A list of, violations that do meet the standard of potentially creating an adverse risk to health or safety in the community. And those particular fines can have a limitation up to a certain dollar amount, as determined by the board.
13:53:46:13 – 13:53:50:04
Matthew
That could be more than $100, as long as that’s adopted ahead of time.
13:53:50:07 – 13:53:51:01
Steve
13:53:51:01 – 13:54:13:07
Matthew
And it’s reasonable. And as other types of violations come to the board’s attention that meet that standard, they could adopt that, add those in at future board meetings. A homeowner who comes to a hearing and negotiates some type of a settlement with the board. You need to have a written agreement theoretically in the meeting that both parties signed, from that point going forward.
13:54:13:08 – 13:54:15:11
Matthew
So that that’s essentially the.
13:54:15:11 – 13:54:17:08
Steve
That was fantastic. I mean.
13:54:17:10 – 13:54:18:04
Matthew
13:54:18:09 – 13:54:50:03
Steve
You got that pretty quick. I mean, that’s yeah, for the most part, the only thing that we didn’t cover, is understanding that the law and we actually had this discussion to the way these bills are written, the way the statutes are written, because everybody thinks, okay, you know, we’re going to impose a fine. There’s a very clear distinction, a very important distinction that needs to be made between a fine, which is a monetary penalty for a violation of the governing documents as compared to a monetary charge that you would assess the homeowner for them, causing damage to the common area.
13:54:50:03 – 13:54:52:10
Matthew
So reimbursement, fines, reimbursement.
13:54:52:10 – 13:54:52:22
Steve
13:54:53:03 – 13:54:54:08
Matthew
13:54:54:09 – 13:55:16:05
Steve
They can go over, they can go over $100. And I’m sure different attorneys will, you know, argue over what aspects of what we just talked about applies to the procedure for imposing monetary charges. That’s what the code calls them. We in our office call them reimbursement assessments. Some communities call them build back assessments or special charges. The legislature hasn’t necessarily touched, touch that.
13:55:16:05 – 13:55:27:02
Steve
So we still have that authority that you can you know, a homeowner caused $2,000 worth of damage. You can still, you know, impose a monetary charge, a reimbursement assessment of up to that amount.
13:55:27:04 – 13:55:32:15
Matthew
So last thing I was going to ask about is, nuisance violations.
13:55:32:17 – 13:55:34:08
13:55:34:10 – 13:55:59:10
Matthew
This seems to be already prior to this bill, just kind of a gray area to begin with. Where does an HOA get involved with defining what a nuisance is from one homeowner to the rest of the community? Does this just fall into that same category of, if somebody is determined to be a nuisance, usually you’re not doing that ongoing, you know, every minute of every day.
13:55:59:10 – 13:56:03:02
Matthew
So theoretically it stops when you’re in a hearing.
13:56:03:04 – 13:56:12:07
Steve
Yeah. I mean, so, you know, that’s it’s interesting that you brought that up. So give me an example. So when you say a nuisance violation, what are you contemplating? What type of.
13:56:12:09 – 13:56:17:21
Matthew
Scenario oftentimes that would be a noise issue from neighbor to neighbor.
13:56:17:23 – 13:56:19:00
13:56:19:02 – 13:56:36:05
Steve
Got it. So there’s so many circumstances where and this kind of gets to the heart at you know, what’s the association there to do? I mean, yes, we have a duty to enforce our governing documents. We’re really there to maintain common areas, maintain esthetic controls. Right. We’re not there to make two people that live next door to each other, like each other.
13:56:36:07 – 13:57:01:12
Steve
And in the law of nuisances, especially in the community context, there’s very helpful case law that says just because and I’m boiling it down just because something’s annoying to you or disturbing you doesn’t make it a nuisance. There has to be a material injury to your rights in the case, says people who live in communities must accept some annoyance consequent on their neighbors reasonable use of their property.
13:57:01:13 – 13:57:18:20
Steve
So what does that mean? My neighbor is in the backyard. The kids are loud screaming, playing in the pool. Well, yes, this community is a family community. Large homes. So there’s pools in the backyard. It’s not reasonable. That’s not a nuisance. If the kids were playing in the pool at 2 a.m., I unfortunately, some time I found my kids doing all right.
13:57:18:20 – 13:57:46:19
Steve
That’s not reasonable. That could be a nuisance. But things like dogs barking, you know, drifting smoke from a barbecue or a pellet grill, those aren’t necessarily nuisances. There’s no material injury that’s there. It’s reasonable for people to have dogs in their yard, right, to be barbecuing in their backyard. So in all those scenarios, we like to, you know, counsel our boards and their managers to say, just because somebody says, oh, this is our kids prohibit nuisances, you got to do something about it.
13:57:46:21 – 13:57:58:07
Steve
Usually it doesn’t warrant the association’s involvement. And in most of those scenarios, the association can take its hands off and say, listen, this is a neighbor to neighbor issue, and the association’s not going to become engaged in it.
13:57:58:12 – 13:58:19:08
Matthew
But if you have a situation, let’s take it to an extreme and you have a high rise and somebody is blasting their music in their unit at 3:00 in the morning and nobody on the floor can sleep. I would imagine the association would be in a in good standing legally to be able to say no, you got to turn your music down or there’s going to be consequences.
13:58:19:08 – 13:58:19:21
Steve
13:58:20:01 – 13:58:43:01
Matthew
I would even go so far based on what I’m hearing you say, that that seems to be, an adverse impact of health and safety, not letting people sleep. And you could you could impose a greater than $100 fine. My question is more about this opportunity to secure prior to a hearing, if the music is turned off before they get to the hearing, does that constitute it’s been cured?
13:58:43:03 – 13:59:00:10
Steve
I don’t think so. I don’t think so. I would treat every instance right every day. And that’s where, you know, it’s kind of a common sense scenario. Homeowner gets the hearing notice and let’s say they’re blasting, you know, their music at full volume. All right. Great. So the hearings ten days from now. So I’m going to keep it at this volume for nine days.
13:59:00:12 – 13:59:18:15
Steve
And then I’m just going to turn it off right before the hearing. Hey I’ve I’ve cured. No. And that’s something where if the association was imposing significant amounts of fines for a health and safety violation, I would have no problem whatsoever if the homeowner challenge it sitting in front of a judge or a mediator explaining the scenario, because that’s just a common sense.
13:59:18:19 – 13:59:38:20
Matthew
So what about taking it to a different extreme? You just have a neighbor who tends to have a lot of loud parties that go really, really late. And take it to that extreme where it’s in a high rise where it’s very, you know, contained. And somebody has a, has a loud party every 2 or 3 weeks, each time they have that party you call them to a hearing.
13:59:38:20 – 13:59:44:23
Matthew
By the time they come to the hearing, there’s been no noise issues for the previous ten days. But a week or two later, they do it again.
13:59:45:03 – 14:00:07:17
Steve
So yeah, I don’t think that that’s a curable violation. Right. And that’s something that you would want your enforcement policy to dictate, you know, what is a curable violation. But big picture beyond this. And I guess if this is a little bit of silver lining, I think a lot of times boards get so deep in the violation enforcement process, levying fines, when really, if you think about it, fines are there to deter violations and compel compliance.
14:00:07:17 – 14:00:29:23
Steve
If you have a homeowner that’s thumbing their nose at you and you’re loving the fines and you’re doing it, the board really isn’t satisfying its fiduciary obligation by saying, okay, we’re going to keep popping them with fines. So in some aspects, I think this bill is might be helpful in getting boards to understand from more of a, you know, bird’s eye view that if you’ve got a serial violator, your job is not to continue to levy fines.
14:00:29:23 – 14:00:45:16
Steve
Your job is to make them stop doing what they’re doing. And that’s when you have to call your attorney. Right? So that’s, you know, unfortunately, that’s the you know, a lot of times that’s the cost of of doing business. But if you’re serious about, okay, we need to enforce these restrictions to make sure these homeowners are not getting burned by this, by this terrible neighbor.
14:00:45:18 – 14:00:56:00
Steve
We got to call our lawyer. We got to put an end to this, you know, and if we need to sue them, we need to sue them to get a court order. Right? We need to do that. But we need to let this homeowner know that we’re serious about this, rather than to just keep calling them to hearings.
14:00:56:05 – 14:01:10:10
Matthew
If you had a homeowner who was blasting music in the middle of the night, affecting a whole neighborhood or a whole floor, whatever it might be on a regular basis, you would not be particularly concerned, as things stand right now, to invite that person to a hearing and to impose a fine.
14:01:10:16 – 14:01:31:05
Steve
No, not at all. Not at all. Yeah, I don’t think that’s a curable violation because the injuries already happened. Right. The adverse health and safety impact right has already happened. You can’t really cure that. That’s again, we went through a ton of different hypotheticals. Somebody come up with a curable violation. Right. And the most we could think of is, you know, property that needs maintenance or some, you know, right.
14:01:31:06 – 14:01:38:03
Steve
Fix on your property that needs to be done. It was tough to find really anything outside of that. Yeah.
14:01:38:05 – 14:01:48:01
Matthew
One last thing on a, I’m just going to this is an add on that’s a little bit off the topic, but you mentioned this. You said boards shouldn’t be budgeting for fines.
14:01:48:02 – 14:01:50:01
Steve
14:01:50:03 – 14:01:58:15
Matthew
Talk to me about just from a, an attorney’s perspective, from a legal perspective. Why that’s not a good idea.
14:01:58:17 – 14:02:21:05
Steve
I mean, you shouldn’t be anticipating that that fine revenue, right, is going to help you pay your bills because, I mean, it’s not guaranteed. And as we see right now, there’s a there’s there’s circumstance where the legislature can step in and limit that authority, plus your ability to collect fines. It’s not as strong as assessments, right? When you’re thinking about how much money you need to run your community.
14:02:21:07 – 14:02:39:07
Steve
Right? The law requires you to shall levy assessments sufficient to perform your obligations, not shell levy and assessments in an amount that’s probably going to be sufficient, provided that you collect X amount of fine revenue because your homeowners don’t comply with the rules. It just does it. It doesn’t make sense. So and that’s why I tell a client like you’re not here.
14:02:39:07 – 14:03:01:06
Steve
Fines are here to deter violations and compel compliance. So if you get a homeowner it’s their first violation. They come into compliance, waive the fine, build some goodwill. This is a community right. And do that. But if you get a homeowner that’s they’re not moved by fines or anything along those lines. The answer is to not keep finding them and try to collect the fine, that the answer is to solve the problem and make them comply.
14:03:01:06 – 14:03:31:13
Matthew
So last point, an association whose primary obligation is to bring about compliance and in doing that, maintaining relative harmony within the community. An association who imposes fines for violations and in the imposition of those fines, gains compliance, you are not seeing necessarily illegal or I’ll put you on the spot, even a moral obligation of the board to go after collecting those fines aggressively.
14:03:31:13 – 14:03:35:17
Matthew
If they’re getting compliance, they can. But they say they don’t have.
14:03:35:17 – 14:03:52:18
Steve
But no, I mean, if you file like a small claims action or something, I mean, we’ve seen countless times where a client is insisted that we go to try to collect that fine that and it’s never received favorably by a judge. Why are you here? What are you doing? Fortunately, I mean, how it was years ago. You know, fines, unsecured debt.
14:03:52:18 – 14:04:08:19
Steve
Right. It’s not like assessments that we secure through liens. So when a property would change hands, right? A homeowner goes to sell their property or even refinance, all they were concerned about is paying off any secured debt. Are there any delinquent assessments that are owed? Right. Well, there are fines on the property. Well that’s unsecured. We don’t care about that.
14:04:08:21 – 14:04:29:22
Steve
But in the modern lending climate, we’re seeing lenders now say we want any debt obligation paid whatsoever. So putting that all together board levy the fine. If the homeowner doesn’t pay the fine, the answer is to not enforce collection of the fine through whatever means. It’s probably going to be unproductive. Leave it on the account. Chances are it’s going to get paid if the property refines or sells.
14:04:30:00 – 14:04:31:02
Steve
14:04:31:04 – 14:04:41:09
Matthew
Well, Steve, thank you so much. This is, an important topic and a big one and, very current. So, really appreciate you being part of this and, providing all the insight and.
14:04:41:09 – 14:04:46:23
Steve
Yeah, absolutely. Thank you for, thank you for having me. You guys always do a great job for this. And, and yeah, there’s always a lot of fun.
14:04:47:01 – 14:05:09:21
Matthew
But we do appreciate Steve and his legal expertise in addressing this, this legislation in California. I hope that you found this episode to be helpful. And if you did, I would encourage you to, like, subscribe to the uncommon area, tell other people about the uncommon area. We’d love to be able to help other board members and managers in the industry.
Other Resources
Check out some of our other helpful episodes:
https://www.actionlife.com/can-hoas-take-away-free-speech-ep-69/
https://www.actionlife.com/sb326-your-hoas-structural-wake-up-call-ep-68/
https://www.actionlife.com/electronic-voting-in-2025-ep-65/
The post Understanding AB 130: New Rules for HOA Fines | Ep.71 appeared first on Action Property Management.
