Judicial Deference is a legal doctrine under which California courts defer to a board's authority regarding maintenance decisions made on behalf of a homeowners association. This legal doctrine was established in the case of Lamden v. La Jolla Shores Clubdominium HOA (1999) 21 Cal.4^th 249. In that case, the court stated,

“Where a duly constituted community association board, upon reasonable investigation, in good faith and with regard for the best interests of the community association and its members, exercises discretion within the scope of its authority under relevant statutes, covenants and restrictions to select among means for discharging an obligation to maintain and repair a development's common areas, courts should defer to the board's authority and presumed expertise. Thus, we adopt today for California courts a rule of judicial deference to community association board decisionmaking that applies, 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.”

Since the Lamden case was decided, several cases have applied this legal doctrine. While it continues to evolve, a recent unpublished case underscores that the doctrine of judicial deference does not extend to enforcement decisions inconsistent with its governing documents.

In Lipton v. Fairbanks Ranch Association No. D082967, Cal. Ct. App. 4th Jan. 21, 2025, Seymore and Jo Lotsoff (the “Lotsoffs”) owned a home in Fairbanks Ranch, a residential common interest development managed by the Fairbanks Ranch Association (the “Association”). In March 2017, the Lotsoffs discovered that the retaining wall supporting a tennis court on their property needed repair. The repair required trimming the tall bamboo hedge located in front of the retaining wall down to its roots. The repair work occurred in July 2017.

After the repair was completed, neighbors Stuart and Elisabeth Lipton (the “Liptons”) contacted the Lotsoffs to discuss the bamboo. Before it was cut down, the bamboo provided a natural screen for the tennis court. Without the bamboo, the lights from the tennis court disturbed the Liptons when they tried to sleep at night.

Unable to resolve the issue with the Lotsoffs, the Liptons contacted the Association's Environmental Control Committee (the “ECC”) in March of 2018 to complain that the tennis court was not adequately screened in accordance with the Association's architectural guidelines, which provide, in part, “Tennis courts should not impede views and should be screened with natural plant materials. Night lighting of tennis courts will be prohibited in most instances.”

In May 2018, the ECC investigated this complaint, which led to the ECC requesting that the Lotsoffs install a green tennis court screen on the chain-link fence facing the Liptons' property and replace the bamboo. During the summer of 2018, the Lotsoffs planted additional bamboo of a different variety that does not grow as tall as the original species of bamboo.

A year later, in August 2019, a member of the Association's board of directors met with the Liptons to discuss their ongoing complaints. In October 2019, the board considered sending the Lotsoffs a letter requesting they replace the new bamboo with the original species. However, the board concluded that the letter was unnecessary since the planted bamboo would soon adequately screen the tennis court.

In November 2019, the Liptons filed a lawsuit against the Association and the Lotsoffs. During the case, the Liptons argued that the Association had violated its governing documents by allowing the Lotsoffs to remove the bamboo without submitting an application to the ECC for approval and by permitting the tennis courts' lights to affect them adversely. The Association argued that it deserved deference from the court for its decisions. Ultimately, the court held that the board was “entitled to judicial deference where it acts in a manner consistent with its governing authority and exercises its discretion within that authority. However, where a board acts in a manner inconsistent with those governing documents, i.e., where the governing documents do not extend such discretion, the actions are not entitled to judicial deference.” On appeal, the appellate court upheld the trial court's decision.

This case, while an unpublished opinion, serves as a good reminder that the legal doctrine of judicial deference does not apply to all board decisions. If a board receives a complaint about a potential violation, it should investigate it and take enforcement steps as outlined in its governing documents. Associations should not plan to rely on the doctrine of judicial deference regarding enforcement decisions that are inconsistent with their governing documents.