An 81-Year-Old California Homeowner Could Lose Her Home Over a $26,000 HOA Bill for Roofs, But Residents Say There’s No Leak to Justify It
"Clearly, it was not an emergency; it's a deferred maintenance."
Homeowners at a California condo complex are fighting their HOA after it billed every resident $26,000 for an emergency roof replacement. According to ABC7, the 198-unit Villa Moura complex in San Clemente was told the combined assessment totaled just under $5.15 million. Residents were given one month to pay. Owners say the HOA hasn’t been transparent, arguing the roof expenses were foreseeable and shouldn’t have been treated as an emergency.
About 60 percent of Villa Moura’s residents are seniors, according to a GoFundMe organized by the community, many of whom have no clear way to cover the bill. Homeowner Megan Blanda told the outlet that the HOA suggested residents unable to pay should take out loans, dip into retirement accounts, or pull equity from their homes.
“I feel like that’s just unacceptable,” Blanda said. Residents also claimed the HOA threatened liens on properties that go unpaid.
Beverly Albright, an 81-year-old resident, told the outlet the assessment could force her to sell her home. She said she wouldn’t qualify to refinance as a retired, single homeowner. Another resident, Noah Martin, argued the roofs aren’t in poor enough condition to justify an emergency assessment. “Clearly, it was not an emergency; it’s a deferred maintenance,” he said. “And so, then we as members should have a vote on how we want to take care of the roofs.”
Residents Say This Wasn’t a Real Emergency Under State Law
Residents say full roof replacement is overkill, since the roofs aren’t leaking and only need repairs to their underlayments. Homeowner Adam Dubin said he wants competitive bids properly negotiated, “as the board should be doing with their fiduciary responsibilities to us.” Whether Villa Moura’s board actually followed the law comes down to a specific provision in California’s Davis-Stirling Act.
Under Civil Code Section 5605, an HOA board cannot impose a special assessment exceeding 5 percent of its annual budgeted expenses without a membership vote. That vote requires approval from a majority of a quorum representing more than half the owners, conducted by secret ballot.
A separate provision, Section 5610, lets a board bypass that vote only for a genuine emergency. That’s defined narrowly as a court-ordered expense, an immediate threat to health or safety, or a repair needed to avoid a building or safety code violation. Whether crumbling underlayment without an active leak meets that legal bar is exactly the kind of dispute residents are now raising.
There’s also a separate requirement worth noting. Davis-Stirling’s Civil Code Section 5550 requires HOA boards to conduct a visual inspection of major components like roofs at least once every three years. Boards must also update their reserve planning accordingly, which is part of why residents describe the cost as foreseeable rather than sudden.
The HOA board told the outlet it could not comment due to ongoing legal matters.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
Follow The Mary Sue:
