“This case is a major win for HOAs, management companies, and common sense.”


This case is a major win for HOAs, management companies, and common sense. Here are some of the reasons why:


1. It reinforces the principle that HOAs and their management companies do not have a general duty to intervene in neighbor-to-neighbor disputes. We anticipate this case will be cited by HOAs and their counsel when residents demand intervention beyond simple enforcement of the HOA’s governing documents (e.g., “make my neighbor stop harassing me”).


2. It confi rms HOAs are not law enforcement. Too often we see homeowner attorneys attempt to backdoor police duties into negligence claims against HOAs. This case emphasizes how those duties do not belong to HOAs or their managers; they belong to law enforcement and the courts.


3. It confi rms the value of aligning with industry standards and professional guidance. Expert


testimony offered


in support of the HOA and its management company was credited by the Court of Appeal


in its decision. That


testimony asserted that neither the HOA nor the management company were obligated to act as mediators or to resolve a neighbor-to-neighbor dispute, and that they had met their standard of care by investigating complaints and responding to communications.


4. It prevents “discrimination-by-negligence” claims. Woolard and Hall also attempted to frame HOA enforcement letters about their children playing in driveways as “housing discrimination.” The Court of Appeal rejected this tactic for a variety of reasons, including the absence


of evidence indicating discriminatory animus on the part of the HOA. This case helps HOAs and insurance carriers in countering the trend of homeowners


attempting to


misconstrue routine HOA enforcement efforts as Fair Housing discrimination.


5. It helps mitigate insurance and fi nancial risk. The Court of Appeal acknowledged the policy danger of expanding HOA duties in neighbor disputes because the corresponding liability exposure “would leave ordinary homeowners ‘holding the bag’ through special assessments.” This validates what HOA attorneys and industry professionals have long understood: expanded liability for the HOA harms the entire community.


This case does not mean that HOAs should fl atly ignore complaints that fall outside the scope of the governing documents, as there are instances (e.g., alleged discrimination claims) where an HOA may face exposure for failing to investigate the matter and take reasonable action. However, this case does provide strong authority that HOA enforcement duties do not require it or its management to act as mediators, security personnel, or law enforcement. Boards should continue to enforce governing documents faithfully and consistently, document responses to complaints, follow expert guidance, and refer residents to law enforcement when disputes escalate beyond the HOA’s authority. Additionally, HOAs that are grappling with neighbor disputes may consider consulting with their HOA attorney on what types of operating rules (e.g., a “Neighbor-to-Neighbor Dispute Resolution Policy”) could be adopted to help guide the HOA in responding to neighbor complaints and determining what action (if any) should be taken in the matter.


www.caioc.org 17


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36