Eng v. Opperman, (Cal. Ct. App., Dec. 19, 2025, No. A170737, A171745) 2025 WL 3704973
Homeowners applied to their homeowner’s association to construct an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on their property. The Board of Directors denied the application due to concerns about traffic and fire safety. When the homeowners sued, the Association moved for and the trial court granted summary judgment. The homeowners appealed.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding that the Association and Board acted within their authority and were shielded from liability under the judicial deference rule stated in Lamden v. La Jolla Shores Clubdominium Homeowners Assn. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 249. The Eng court explained that the judicial deference rule, an analog to the business judgment rule, applies to “community association board decisionmaking . . . regardless of an association’s corporate status, when owners in common interest developments seek to litigate ordinary maintenance decisions entrusted to the discretion of their associations’ boards of directors.” “[C]ourts uphold decisions made by the governing board of an owners association so long as they represent good faith efforts to further the purpose of the common interest development, are consistent with the development’s governing documents and comply with public policy.”
