|
On June 30, 2025, Gov. Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 130 (AB 130), which, effective immediately, places a cap on most fines imposed by community associations and imposes other limitations on enforcement options. AB 130 amends Civil Code Sections 5850 and 5855, which are part of the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act.
Here are the key changes:
- With one exception, fines may not exceed $100 per violation, or the amount in the fine schedule, whichever is lower.
Associations may not impose a fine of more than $100 per violation unless a health and safety exception applies. The per violation limit would prohibit continuing fines.
- A fine may exceed $100 if the violation may result in an adverse health or safety impact on common area or another association member's property.
A fine exceeding $100 for health and safety reasons must be in the fine schedule. The law also requires that the Board make a written finding in a meeting open to members specifying the adverse health or safety impact. Because this provision appears to be inconsistent with the law allowing members to request that violations be considered in executive session, legal counsel should be consulted prior to imposing fines.
- An association may not charge late fees or interest on fines.
- Written notice of a Board’s decision to impose disciplinary action is now due within 14 days of the hearing.
Under the prior law, the written notice was due within 15 days of the hearing.
- If a violation is cured before the hearing, no fine may be imposed.
- If curing the violation will take longer than the period between the hearing notice and hearing, no fine may be imposed if "the member provides financial commitment to cure the violation."
The law does not define "financial commitment."
- If the Board and owner "are in agreement" after the hearing, the Board must prepare a written resolution to be signed by the Board and the owner. The resolution will be judicially enforceable.
In practice, it would be unusual for an owner and the Board to reach agreement at a hearing. However, a judicially enforceable agreement could be a useful tool in some situations.
-
If the Board and owner are not in agreement following a hearing, the owner may request IDR.
This is not a change from current law.
CAI's California Legislative Action Committee reports that these provisions were added to AB 130 and signed by the Governor within the past few days, without any opportunity for comment by the public or industry stakeholders.
While this new law will make fines a less effective enforcement tool, associations should consider other enforcement methods and amendments to their fine schedules to specifically identify violations that pose threats to health and safety. Boards should also consult with legal counsel as to the specific impact of the new law on their associations.
| 
