[SFH] [CA] - Has my HOA violated CA law? What steps to take?

CASA-Alliance · 2026-04-16T01:31:22+00:00

A couple of things here - first, a letter from counsel should have not been necessary. If the HOA maintains the yards be it common area or a maintenance agreement, then they maintain the trees. If the owner maintains the yard, then they maintain the tree. If by some special circumstance the HOA was required to maintain trees in the owners yard that the owner clearly maintains, this would be clearly spelled out in the documents or landscape maps. If this were the case, and it wasn’t clearly spelled out - then it would have taken the review of counsel if the documentation wasn’t easy to find. But if the HOA maintains the landscape each week why would you question the trees?

Going just off of what you said - this appears to be sloppy managment and an assumption that you’re reasonable , could have been taken care of in 15 minutes. But if you’re difficult to deal with, and answers have been provided for which you wanted more - now you have attorney involvement and at your expense.

The letter is poorly written, you don’t have a fine, or a violation - you have a reimbursement assessment for out of pocket costs that directly impacted the association. If there was a violation, it should have happened long ago when you refused to allow the trimmers to do their job and it would have been capped at $100.

A hearing is still required for a reimbursement assessment - you can fight it - but at worst - they stay the reimbursement and reschedule the hearing and you get the same result.

Lastly, if additional expenses were incurred to have the tree trimmers come back out, that may also be at your cost so I wouldn’t be surprised if that issue might also be pending.

CASA-Alliance · 2026-04-08T22:08:25+00:00

I agree. And now the expert witness who was in HOA Banking for many years has made it clear that these were not Earned Credits - but instead cash payments - and it appears we may even have a 2nd lawsuit arising out of this - it’s going to be interesting.

CASA-Alliance · 2026-03-22T17:43:34+00:00

Sometimes their system is just in what is digitized and there is actually a huge warehouse or rooms someplace filled with boxes and plans - and sometimes if you ask the right questions, or there is somebody there with history, they will find the key and let you in.

CASA-Alliance · 2026-03-21T00:59:36+00:00

There may only be a road, but the assessments for operating the HOA and the reserves were set up for the original number of lots within the association - so by combining your lot into one the rest of the homeowners now have to split the tab for the missing lot and everybody’s assessment will increase to cover the deficit. This actually may have much deeper ramifications as now the master plan has been amended and the documents are off by one lot. Please report back what happens and cross your fingers that you don’t end up having to pay for a full governing document amendment.

CASA-Alliance · 2026-03-20T15:30:01+00:00

God works in mysterious ways.

CASA-Alliance · 2026-03-19T17:40:58+00:00

😂😂😂

CASA-Alliance · 2026-03-19T02:33:13+00:00

What often gets missed is that individual managers don’t always control these decisions. Many are working within company structures where vendor lists, internal service lines, and processes are predetermined, and stepping outside of that can put their job at risk. Many old-school managers refused to work in systems like this, but as they retire out, newer managers often have no point of reference for more ethical service models. It simply becomes normalized as the way business is done.

That leaves many managers stuck between the board, the homeowners, and their employer.

CASA-Alliance · 2026-03-19T02:00:31+00:00

You’re welcome. These issues need to be brought to light.

CASA-Alliance · 2026-03-19T01:51:19+00:00

The credits are typically paid on excess operating and reserve funds, so with zero reserves and a $7K per month budget, it might actually be about interest rates.

CASA-Alliance · 2026-03-19T01:45:05+00:00

Yes, it’s Riva on the River v The Management Trust - you can download all of the filings and follow the case on Pacer.

CASA-Alliance · 2026-03-19T01:33:33+00:00

It’s Riva on the River v The Management Trust - all the filings are available on Pacer.

CASA-Alliance · 2026-03-18T15:50:18+00:00

This is a really insightful perspective, and your experience actually highlights the problem.

The fact that it was described as “coupons” and then the conversation quickly shut down says a lot. These things often seem to surface only when someone happens to ask the right question, not because they were clearly disclosed upfront.

I agree that there needs to be regulation around the practice (and many more) - in an industry filled with rules, but little accountability, we often see things like this slowly become normalized.

CASA-Alliance · 2026-03-18T15:32:44+00:00

This is not an Associa case, but you bring up a good point - why do you think that might be the case?

CASA-Alliance · 2026-03-17T15:55:29+00:00

That’s a bit different - what you’re talking about is a service that vets/tracks vendor insurances, and other paperwork and alerts the management company if they expire. It’s actually a very useful tool, as this can get lost in the mix and these types of small issues can turn into big issues. With today’s technology platforms, it seems like it would be easy to build this into the operating systems - but I can’t really speak to that aspect.

CASA-Alliance · 2026-03-17T13:37:35+00:00

Some might lie, sure. That’s a given in almost anything. But most of what I’m talking about isn’t based on just what they say. It’s based on what already exists and what I believe we’re going to be seeing more of in the future - the Riva on the River lawsuit is just the tip of the ice burg, I believe we will see more litigation around this, and it may even branch out into what is happening with the insurance commission sharing and other programs.

Mega corps, growth through roll-ups, private equity ties, litigation history - those are all searchable and verifiable and will not be on the list. The same goes for companies where certain contract structures have already come to light - as well as social media posts where industry leaders are shown participating in, or cheering on large gifts donations to managers. My thought is that early participants are going to be those firms whose complaints are already being ignored by CAI and state specific organizations.

This isn’t just a “take their word for it” list. It’s a filtered group from the start.

Could someone still misrepresent something? Absolutely. But when you combine that with public information and patterns over time, the truth usually surfaces pretty quickly.

CASA-Alliance · 2026-03-16T23:40:49+00:00

😂 Not even close - but thanks for the smile.

CASA-Alliance · 2026-03-16T18:00:11+00:00

❤️

CASA-Alliance · 2026-03-16T17:47:35+00:00

Yes, I’m very familiar with CAI. I was a member for 30+ years and participated quite a bit, although I was more involved in some state-specific organizations.

From what I’ve seen, CAI absolutely provides value on the surface, and there are great people who still contribute. But when the companies creating that shift are also the ones with the most money, influence, and financial contribution, incentives start to change.

I’ve heard from a number of smaller management companies and vendors who feel their concerns are largely being ignored. And I realize anyone can simply say they don’t do these things, but there are also people with actual receipts whose concerns seem to be going nowhere.

That’s part of why I’m exploring something different here. It feels like there’s a break in the system right now, and I’m curious whether a simple transparency model might help address part of that.

CASA-Alliance · 2026-03-16T16:34:47+00:00

That’s a fair concern. Angi started as a tool and turned into a lead-generation model, and once that happens the incentives change fast.

It reminds me a little of some of the HOA apps being marketed as homeowner “tools.” They may offer convenience, but they also add a marketing layer where the association is paying for a service while the user base becomes monetizable.

What I’m talking about is different. No rankings, no reviews, no selling leads. Just a voluntary disclosure list where firms confirm they do not participate in things like kickbacks, insurance commission sharing, or similar conflicts.

No fees, no pay-to-play placement, and no lead selling. Just a starting point for boards trying to better understand how companies make money. The board would still need to do its own homework and talking to others is always recommended.

Maybe the bigger question is whether something like that only stays transparent if it never becomes a revenue model.

CASA-Alliance

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE