There’s a version of this story where my mother is the villain.
In that version, she’s litigious. Difficult. The kind of person who reads too much into things, who can’t let anything go, who has turned a simple neighborhood dispute into an expensive, exhausting ordeal for a group of volunteers who are just trying to maintain property values and keep the pool clean.
That version has been told. Confidently. From the front of the room.
I’m here to tell you the other one.
It started the way these things usually do — quietly, and with paperwork.
She asked for records.
Not unusual ones. Not obscure ones. The kinds of records California law explicitly guarantees homeowners the right to inspect: financials, election materials, the documents that explain how decisions are made on behalf of people who own property in a common interest community. Civil Code §§ 5200–5205 doesn’t bury this. It says it plainly.
At first, the documents came.
And in those documents, things didn’t add up.
Elections that appeared to have started but never concluded. Board seats occupied by people who had not been voted in by the membership in any verifiable way. The machinery of governance kept running — meetings were held, decisions were made, assessments were collected — but the mechanism that was supposed to legitimize all of it, the actual member election, wasn’t functioning.
So she did what the law assumes people will do when they notice something is wrong.
She asked for it to be fixed.
There should have been a date. A plan. A straightforward answer.
There wasn’t.
What existed instead was a pattern that, once she started tracing it, stretched back years. By the best accounting anyone could piece together, the last time directors had actually been elected by the full membership was around 2019. Since then, elections had been attempted — or something that looked like an attempt — but not completed. Quorum wasn’t met. Ballots went out. People voted. And then somewhere between participation and outcome, the process quietly collapsed, and the seats got filled anyway.
On paper, it looked like governance.
Spoiler alert: It wasn’t.
At some point, asking wasn’t producing results.
So she filed a small claims suit.
Not after some dramatic final straw. Before an election had ever been properly allowed to exist. The argument was straightforward: California law requires elections. So hold one.
And here is the detail that matters most, the one that gets lost almost immediately once it leaves the formal record:
The association scheduled an election after the lawsuit was filed.
Not before. After.
The court declined to compel the election — because now there was one scheduled, the narrow legal threshold had shifted. The ruling did not find that what came before was compliant. It didn’t need to address that. It addressed the situation in front of it.
That’s how courts work.
That’s not a vindication. That’s a technicality.
What happened next is the part that made me want to start this blog.
Because in the weeks and months that followed, what the court actually said became almost irrelevant. What mattered was what people were told it said.
At a meeting in September — before the records case had even been resolved — the association’s attorney addressed the room.
She is good at her job. I want to be precise about that, because what she does doesn’t require incompetence. It requires confidence. It requires the ability to stand at the front of a room full of people who don’t have law degrees, who aren’t going to pull up the case afterward, who are going to take home whatever impression authority leaves them with — and deliver a conclusion without delivering the reasoning behind it.
What the room heard was certainty.
That the court had effectively validated the association’s position. That only limited seats needed to be addressed. That everything was being handled correctly, and the only reason this was still an issue was the person raising it.
No hesitation. No qualifications.
Why would there be? Authority carries its own weight.
My mother knew what the ruling actually said. She’d read it.
And so, at some point, she said so.
This is where the attorney’s mask slipped — not dramatically, not in a way that most people in the room would have flagged as wrong. Just enough.
When she pushed back, the HOA attorney smiled and said:
“I also know you didn’t go to law school. I know you’re not admitted in any state to practice law — but that you work for a healthcare corporation doing contracts for them. And that entitles you to know more about the law than me, who’s been practicing.”
She said it like it was a closer. Like naming her job title was a rebuttal.
It wasn’t a legal argument. It was a dismissal. It was a woman with a bar card using her credentials not to explain the law, but to make clear that my mom wasn’t allowed to understand it.
And then my mom mentioned that her attorney had advised her on the ruling.
HOA counsel laughed.
Not a surprised laugh. A knowing one. The kind of laugh that’s meant to be heard by everyone in the room.
“Oh, I’m sure I know who your attorney is,” she said.
The implication was clear: she didn’t have an attorney. She was the attorney — representing herself, pretending otherwise to seem more credible. It landed the way it was likely intended to — to undercut not just her argument but her credibility as a person in that room.
She did consult an attorney.
But that almost isn’t the point.
The point is that a licensed professional, hired by the association that collects dues from her, used a public meeting to mock her — and that the room mostly just watched it happen.
Around this same time, the records got harder to obtain.
Not impossible. Nothing is ever quite impossible in these situations — that would be too clean, too actionable. Just harder.
Requests routed through counsel. Responses that took longer. Scope that narrowed in ways that were difficult to argue with precisely. Costs that appeared where the law contemplates access.
The friction started to feel like the point.
Because the only way to document what was happening was through documents controlled by the people being asked to account for themselves. And when those people can slow the flow, they can also shape — intentionally or not — the story.
So she filed again — a second small claims case, this time specifically for the records. Separate issue. Separate right. Same underlying problem.
That case resolved at the end of October.
But by then, the story about her was already set.
Legal fees were rising. That was the explanation offered at meetings. Not because elections had repeatedly failed to conclude. Not because records had required litigation to push for.
Because she kept pushing.
It’s a subtle move, but it’s effective. You take the consequences of your own non-compliance, and you reattribute them to the person who noticed the non-compliance. The issue stops being what’s happening.
It becomes who won’t stop talking about it.
Her questions stopped landing as questions.
They landed as disruptions. As conflict. At one point — and I want you to sit with this — as bullying.
A homeowner asking whether elections were being conducted lawfully, described as a bully.
Neighbors who had once been cordial went quiet. Not hostile, just — neutral. Carefully, deliberately neutral, in the way people go neutral when they’ve heard a story about someone and aren’t sure what to believe but know that being associated with the wrong side carries a cost.
She felt it. You always feel it.
Outside of meetings, the boundaries didn’t hold.
Board members — and people closely aligned with them — engaged with her on social media. Not in general terms. Directly. By name. Sometimes while identifying themselves by their board positions.
There is a difference between disagreement and targeting. Between a neighbor expressing frustration and a person in a position of authority using that position to publicly diminish someone they’re supposed to be serving.
You can feel the difference when it’s happening to someone you love.
When the next board seat came open, which should have been filled by the election that didn’t happen, she asked me to apply.
What followed didn’t look like the process that had existed before.
The questioning went beyond eligibility — beyond any reasonable inquiry into whether I could serve. It moved into territory that had nothing to do with my qualifications and everything to do with whether I was the kind of person they wanted in the room, by association to my mom. A secondary property I owned was raised (despite members of the board owning outside property). My attitude. The question of whether I could work collaboratively — a word that, in this context, meant: whether I would stop asking questions alongside my mother.
And then, in that same meeting, a vote of attendees was taken to determine the opinion of the room regarding the candidates.
Not on the agenda. Not noticed in advance. Not compliant with California Civil Code § 4920, which exists precisely to prevent governance from happening in the dark, without preparation, without the membership having been properly informed.
They used it anyway.
The seat went to someone else.
I’ve thought a lot about how to explain what this looks like from the outside. From where I’m standing, watching someone I love try to use the system the system claims to have built for her.
Here’s what I keep coming back to:
None of it is dramatic in isolation. That’s what makes it work.
The election doesn’t resolve — but there’s always an explanation. The records are slow — but nothing’s technically been denied. The court ruling is described in ways that don’t reflect how we understood the order — but who’s going to check? The attorney mocks her in public — but it was smooth enough that half the room probably took it as a joke. The board seat application goes sideways — but maybe she just wasn’t the right fit.
Each piece, alone, can be explained away.
Together, they describe something that functions, in practice, like retaliation without ever having to admit that’s what it is.
This blog exists because of what I watched happen to my mother.
But it isn’t just about her story. It’s about the fact that her story isn’t unusual. HOAs in California operate with significant legal authority over people’s homes, their finances, their daily lives — and the accountability mechanisms built into the law only function if someone is actually willing to enforce them. Which usually means a homeowner, alone, against a board with access to the association’s legal fund, in front of neighbors who have already been told which one of them is the problem.
The law provides rights.
What it doesn’t provide is protection from what happens when you try to use them inside a system that wasn’t built to be challenged from within.
This blog is about that gap.
I’m going to document it. Statute by statute, meeting by meeting, case by case — the places where the law says one thing and practice delivers another.
Because the story my mother was told about herself — difficult, litigious, the source of all this trouble — is not the story that happened.
And I think a lot of homeowners are living inside a version of it right now.
They just don’t have the documents yet.
Common Interest 
Leave a comment