Alert

Court Clarifies HOA Responsibilities in Tenant vs. Tenant Conflicts

January 9, 2025

Often, in litigation between an owner and their homeowners association (HOA), there is a question regarding the nature and the extent of the duty owed by the HOA to an owner (or even to a tenant of an owner). The answer to such a question can be quite murky at times. However, a recent California Court of Appeal decision has offered some clarity.

Case Background

The two main parties in this dispute were neighbors renting their residences within the HOA. Apparently, no love was lost between them, which manifested itself in ongoing harassment. Some of the alleged harassment included walking near the property gates in order to provoke dogs to bark and then complaining to the city about the “nuisance” of the barking dogs. This caused the HOA agent, its property manager, to send violation notices threatening fines. Apparently, there were constant reports to the HOA/property manager by the victims about these aggressions, which promulgated letters from the HOA/property manager.

The dispute culminated one night in December 2019, starting with an argument escalating to a physical altercation (punching, kicking, beating with a flashlight, and stabbing). This fateful night formed the impetus for the various lawsuits against each other and against the HOA and its property management company (PM). The claims against the HOA and PM were that they did not do enough to stop the harassment or otherwise do anything to stop the antagonism between the protagonists.

The Court’s Analysis

In its ruling, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s granting of the HOA’s and PM’s summary judgment based on a finding that the HOA and PM met the standard of care in discharging their duties. In so finding, the trial court relied on the declaration of a well-regarded HOA/PM expert who opined that neither the HOA nor the PM had a duty to intervene and stop the acts of physical violence between the two neighbors or otherwise act as a peacemaker. In other words, the HOA and the PM had no duty to intervene in a neighbor-to-neighbor dispute.

Essentially, the Court of Appeal agreed noting that the issue of duty with regard to HOAs and PMs, in this case, was narrower because the victims of the abuse were tenants and not owners. Nevertheless, the court held that “there is simply no law to support [the contention] that the [HOA] or the [PM] had some unspecified duty to do something to prevent what turned into an allegedly violent dispute.”

The Court of Appeal went on further to state “[i]mposing a duty on [HOAs] or their managing agents [PMs] to intervene and attempt to resolve disputes between homeowners (or their tenants) would place an untenable burden on those entities.” In so finding, the court noted that HOAs are run by volunteers with enough authority and responsibility, but not police or subpoena powers.

What It Means

HOAs have a duty to properly respond to complaints about violations of governing documents sent to them, but neither HOAs nor PMs have a duty to involve themselves in disputes between homeowners outside the confines of the governing documents.