A California appeals court has reversed a lower court’s decision in a case involving a homeowners association (HOA) and a former board member who was recalled. The court found that the HOA violated state law by not giving the former director, Rachel Arroyo, equal access to election materials during the recall process. The ruling clarifies the definition of “association media” under the Davis-Stirling Act and emphasizes the importance of fair elections within HOAs.
The Dispute and the Key Issues
The case centered on Arroyo’s recall from the board of directors of the Pacific Ridge Neighborhood Homeowners Association. After her recall, Arroyo sued the HOA and Jennifer Figgers, the elections inspector, alleging violations of the Davis-Stirling Act, the Corporations Code, and negligence.
Arroyo’s main arguments revolved around:
* Equal Access to “Association Media”: She claimed the HOA violated Civil Code section 5105, which requires HOAs to provide equal access to “association media” to candidates and members advocating a point of view during an election. She argued that the HOA should have included her statement with the recall ballot materials.
* Negligence: She alleged Figgers was negligent in conducting the election unfairly.
* Validity of the Recall Vote: She contended the recall vote failed because the HOA didn’t get the required supermajority of votes under the Corporations Code.
The HOA and Figgers responded by arguing that Arroyo was barred from claiming a violation of section 5105 because the issue had been decided against her in an earlier lawsuit. They also argued that Arroyo was lawfully recalled and that the election had sufficient votes.
The Court’s Decision: Association Media and Equal Access
The appeals court focused on the interpretation of “association media” under section 5105. The court determined, after a thorough analysis, that the HOA’s recall notice and the candidate statement, which were sent out together with the ballot materials, constituted “association media.” This means the HOA was obligated to provide Arroyo with equal access to present her case against the recall.
The court cited the plain meaning of “media” as a channel or means of communication, and noted that the HOA’s notice clearly served to communicate the election details to the HOA members. Because the HOA allowed another member to share a statement in favor of the recall, Arroyo was entitled to the same opportunity to provide a statement against the recall.
The court emphasized that section 5105 aims to ensure that differing viewpoints are heard, especially those opposing the HOA board. The court referenced the case of *Wittenburg v. Beachwalk Homeowners Association*, which highlighted the importance of equal access to HOA media to prevent those in power from controlling the narrative.
The appeals court rejected the HOA’s argument that the candidate statement was not association media. The court found that because the recall notice and the candidate statement were distributed together, the HOA should have provided Arroyo with equal access to present her case against the recall.
Because the HOA failed to comply with section 5105, the appeals court reversed the lower court’s decision. However, the court did not automatically void the election. Instead, it instructed the trial court to determine whether the HOA’s noncompliance affected the election results.
Other Claims: Negligence and Validity of the Recall
The appeals court’s decision on the equal access issue made Arroyo’s other claims moot. However, the court provided guidance on the validity of the recall election.
The court clarified that the relevant section of the Corporations Code for this case, because the HOA is a non-profit mutual benefit corporation, is section 7222, not 5222, though the statutes are identical. The court agreed with the lower court’s finding that, under the HOA’s bylaws, the recall election was governed by Corporations Code section 7222, subdivision (a)(2), which requires approval by a majority of the votes cast at a duly held meeting at which a quorum is present.
What Happens Next
The case has been sent back to the trial court. The trial court must now consider whether the HOA’s failure to provide Arroyo with equal access to election materials affected the election results. The trial court will make this determination based on the evidence presented by the HOA.