Quick Answer
California appellate courts published at least nine decisions in 2025 and 2026 that involve homeowners associations, condominium or planned-development associations, the Davis-Stirling Act or CC&Rs. They cover water intrusion and board liability, architectural denials and judicial deference, owner speech, election access, assessment increases, foreclosure bidding, use restrictions and attorney fees. This page lists each decision we could verify, with court, filing date, issue and a one-line holding, and links to our case pages. It was compiled in November 2026 and is not a complete census of every published opinion.
At a Glance
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Scope | Published California Court of Appeal decisions (and Supreme Court decisions, none found) filed or published in 2025 and 2026 involving common interest developments |
| Decisions listed | Nine in the table below, plus one related case noted separately |
| Not in the table | Doskocz v. ALS Lien Services (covered on its own page; filing year not confirmed from the opinion) |
| Method | Each case page is based on the court's own opinion text; citations are given only when verified, otherwise by docket number and filing date |
| Supreme Court | We did not find a California Supreme Court decision on a common interest development issue in 2025 or 2026 |
| Currency | Compiled in November 2026; new opinions and publication orders continue to issue |
Published California HOA Decisions, 2025 and 2026
| Case | Court | Filed | Issue | Holding in one line |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ridley v. Rancho Palma Grande HOA (H052560) | 6th Dist. | Aug. 28, 2025 (published by order in Sept. 2025) | Water intrusion in common area | Association breached its CC&R duties to investigate and repair, and lost the deference, business judgment and exculpation defenses on the trial record. |
| Arroyo v. Pacific Ridge Neighborhood HOA (D084293) | 4th Dist. | Nov. 4, 2025 | Recall election, equal access to association media | Covered on its own page; concerns whether recall ballot materials were "association media" under the association's election rules. |
| Bird Rock Home Mortgage v. Breaking Ground (D084138) | 4th Dist. | Sept. 16, 2025 | Nonjudicial foreclosure of an assessment lien, extended bidding | Covered on its own page; concerns extended bidding after the association foreclosed on an assessment lien. |
| Cocoa AJ Holdings v. Schneider (A167555) | 1st Dist., Div. 3 | Oct. 8, 2025 (published Oct. 31, 2025) | Anti-SLAPP, owner criticism of developer and board | Developer's claims against an owner arose from protected litigation and association-management speech and were stricken. |
| Peterson v. Zhang (B334987) | 2d Dist., Div. 8 | Dec. 8, 2025 | Malicious prosecution arising from an HOA view dispute program | A denied sanctions motion does not trigger the interim adverse judgment rule; mediator's claim survived an anti-SLAPP motion. |
| Eng v. Opperman (A170737, A171745) | 1st Dist., Div. 2 | Dec. 19, 2025 (published Dec. 22, 2025) | Board denial of ADU application | Board acted within the governing documents and was protected by judicial deference and the business judgment rule. |
| Ruffier v. Volcano Hills Road Maintenance Assn. (C101551) | 3d Dist. | Dec. 15, 2025 (published Jan. 6, 2026) | Assessment increase without required member approval | Covered on its own page; the challenged increase was held void under the Davis-Stirling Act. |
| Tulare Medical Center POA v. Valdivia (F089334) | 5th Dist. | Apr. 7, 2026 (partially published) | Enforceability of a recorded use restriction | Restriction held unenforceable on two grounds, public-entity action without a compelling interest and Civil Code section 53, so injunction denial affirmed. |
| WCST Enterprises v. Ling (G065236) | 4th Dist., Div. 3 | Sept. 28, 2026 | Attorney fees under Civil Code section 5975(c) | A "prevailing party" label is not enough; fees require an action whose gravamen is enforcing the governing documents. |
Doskocz v. ALS Lien Services, which we cover on a separate page, is not in the table because we could not confirm from the opinion that it was filed in 2025 or 2026. See our Doskocz page for it.
A Related Decision We Are Tracking
Parsons v. City of Indian Wells (Cal. Ct. App., 4th Dist., Div. 2, No. E082591, filed August 31, 2026, certified for publication) concerns a city's short-term rental rules. According to the opinion's introduction, the city allowed members of a common interest development to opt out of a 29-night minimum stay if their governing board proposed a shorter period. The court reversed the judgment. We read only the opening of that opinion, so we do not summarize its reasoning and have not written a page on it.
Themes Across the Decisions
Deference has limits
Ridley and Eng both turn on the Lamden judicial deference rule and the business judgment rule, with opposite results. In Eng, a documented process and no evidence of bad faith led to a win for the board. In Ridley, an unreasonable investigation and findings of bad faith led to a loss. See our guide to Nahrstedt, Lamden and Dolan-King.
Statutory procedure controls
Ruffier (assessment increase) and Arroyo (recall election) concern Davis-Stirling procedure, and WCST shows the Act's fee-shifting provision has a defined scope. See the linked pages for each court's reasoning.
Owner speech is protected
Cocoa AJ and Peterson both involve anti-SLAPP motions in association disputes, with different outcomes: the owner's motion succeeded in Cocoa AJ and failed in Peterson.
Recorded restrictions are presumed valid, but not immune
Tulare Medical Center applies the Nahrstedt presumption and then finds the restriction unenforceable on public policy and statutory grounds.
Related California Law
- California Davis-Stirling Act guide.
- California HOA laws 2026.
- California HOA law changes 2021 to 2025.
- California HOA legislation 2025 and 2026.
Board Checklist
- Keep written records of every investigation and repair decision on common-area damage.
- Follow Davis-Stirling procedures for assessments, elections and discipline even when bylaws say otherwise.
- Have counsel review older CC&R use restrictions for conflicts with current law.
- Think before suing owners over speech or governance criticism.
- Identify the exact governing-document provision at issue before relying on fee-shifting.
- Check citations and publication status of any case before relying on it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I cite unpublished California appellate opinions?
Generally no. California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115 limits citation of unpublished opinions. Several opinions in this list were issued unpublished and later ordered published, so check publication orders.
Were there California Supreme Court HOA decisions in 2025 or 2026?
We did not find one on a common interest development issue. If you know of one, confirm it from the court's own opinion before relying on it.
Which decision matters most for water damage claims?
Ridley v. Rancho Palma Grande is the one in this list about an association's duty to investigate and repair common-area water intrusion.
Which decision is about ADUs?
Eng v. Opperman concerns a board's denial of an ADU application. It is not a ruling on state ADU statutes, so ask counsel about current ADU law.
Where are the reporter citations?
We give citations only when we verified them from the opinion itself. Otherwise we use the docket number and filing date.
Is this list complete?
No. It reflects decisions we could verify as of November 2026. Courts publish new opinions and publication orders regularly.
Where This Comes From
We read the full text of the opinions for Ridley, Eng, Peterson, Cocoa AJ, WCST and most of Tulare Medical Center, as posted by the California courts website and a public case-law mirror. For Arroyo, Bird Rock and Ruffier, the table states only the docket number, date and a short description that we confirmed from court listings, and the linked case pages carry the detail. We did not use secondary summaries as authority.
How APM Helps
Association Property Managers manages HOA and condominium communities in the San Francisco Bay Area from our Dublin office. See our California service area, browse every California state-law guide, or request a free proposal. Laws and documents differ by community, and we review your CC&Rs and bylaws when we build your proposal.
Legal disclaimer: This article is general information, not legal advice. Laws change and associations differ. Confirm the current statute text and how it applies to your governing documents with a licensed California attorney before acting.
Ready to work with Association Property Managers?
Get a free, itemized proposal for your community — delivered within 3 business days.
Request a Free Proposal
