Ramifi cations of AB 130: HOA Fines Capped at $100
Dyanne L. Peters, Esq., Tinnelly Law Group
If you are part of the common interest development industry, you have likely heard of the bill that rocked the HOA world last year: AB 130. As a quick recap, AB 130 was part of a larger housing bill aimed to expedite housing and reduce homeowner costs, but legislators snuck in a provision that affects homeowners associations across California. AB 130 amended the Davis Stirling Common Interest Development Act (codifi ed in Civil Code §§ 4000 et seq.) to cap fi nes that associations can levy against violating members at just $100, as well as other changes to association enforcement procedures. (Civil Code §§ 5850 and 5855.) This came as a shock to the HOA industry (and I think we are all still reeling from the shock!), which had been tracking another bill, SB 681, that similarly introduced a $100 fi ne cap. AB 130 added the cap at the last minute to the affordable housing bill, and it became effective immediately on July 1, 2025.
Associations do not have “police powers,” but they can enforce rules through various mechanisms, with one of the primary
24 May | June 2026
tools being the ability to levy a monetary fi ne against members for non-compliance. When used correctly, fi ning is neither a money-making tool for the association nor intended to punish owners; it is one of the limited and most effective ways for an association to encourage compliance and deter “bad” behavior.
AB 130 severely limits an association’s ability to enforce its governing documents, and results in immediate and signifi cant impacts on associations. Since associations do not have “police powers,” they can only enforce the rules and covenants in a community through legally sanctioned mechanisms, with one of the primary tools being the ability to levy a monetary fi ne against members for non-compliance.
Another issue with AB 130 is with the drafting of the statutes. The statutes are ambiguous, lack defi ned terms, and are unclear in places. This has resulted in numerous potential interpretations of the statutes by HOA attorneys. The poorly drafted statutes risk confusion by associations at best and
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
