Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act

Davis Stirling Act

California Civil Code

TITLE 6. COMMON INTEREST DEVELOPMENTS
CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
Article 1. Preliminary Provisions ……………………. 1350-1350.7
Article 2. Definitions ………………………………….. 1351
CHAPTER 2. GOVERNING DOCUMENTS
Article 1. Creation ………………………………… 1352-1353.8
Article 2. Enforcement ………………………………….. 1354
Article 3. Amendment …………………………………. 1355-1357
Article 4. Operating Rules …………………….. 1357.100-1357.150
CHAPTER 3. OWNERSHIP RIGHTS AND INTERESTS ……………….. 1358-1362
CHAPTER 4. GOVERNANCE
Article 1. Association ……………………………. 1363-1363.005
Article 2. Elections and Meetings ……………….. 1363.03-1363.09
Article 3. Managing Agents ………………………… 1363.1-1363.2
Article 4. Public Information ……………………… 1363.5-1363.6
Article 5. Dispute Resolution Procedure …………. 1363.810-1363.850
CHAPTER 5. OPERATIONS
Article 1. Common Areas …………………………………. 1364
Article 2. Fiscal Matters …………………………… 1365-1365.6
Article 3. Insurance ……………………………… 1365.7-1365.9
Article 4. Assessments ……………………………… 1366-1367.6
CHAPTER 6. TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP INTERESTS …………….. 1368-1368.1
CHAPTER 7. CIVIL ACTIONS AND LIENS
Article 1. Miscellaneous Provisions ………………….. 1368.3-1369
Article 2. Alternative Dispute Resolution ……….. 1369.510-1369.590
CHAPTER 8. CONSTRUCTION OF INSTRUMENTS AND ZONING ………… 1370-1374
CHAPTER 9. CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LITIGATION ……………… 1375-1375.1
CHAPTER 10. IMPROVEMENTS ………………………………. 1376-1378


Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act is the common name of the portion of the California Civil Code beginning with section 1350 which governs condominium, cooperative, and planned unit development communities in California. It was enacted in 1985 by the California State Legislature.

Under Davis-Stirling, a developer of a common interest development is able to create a homeowners’ association (a HOA) to govern the development. As part of creating the HOA, the developer records a document known as the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) against the units or parcels within the HOA with the county recorder.

Even though it is not a governmental entity, the HOA operates like one in some respects. As recognized by the Supreme Court of California, the declaration of CC&Rs are the constitution of the HOA and are legally binding upon residents as long as they do not conflict with state or federal law.[1] CC&Rs, once properly recorded, are presumed valid until proven otherwise.[2]

The HOA’s board may also enact rules which are legally binding upon residents as long as they do not conflict with the CC&Rs or state or federal law. Board meetings, like the boards of government agencies, are generally open to HOA members, with some exceptions.

The HOA is also allowed to charge regular fees to homeowners within the development (comparable to taxes). These are used for functions like paying for security guards (including, for gated communities, the operation of a gatehouse) and maintaining common areas like corridors, walkways, parking, landscaping, swimming pools, fitness centers, tennis courts, and so on. The HOA can levy fines or sue homeowners for damages and/or injunctive relief to enforce the HOA’s rules and CC&Rs.

The underlying justification for Davis-Stirling is that after the enactment of California Proposition 13 (1978), it became extremely difficult for both state and local government entities in California to raise taxes. With public services rapidly deteriorating by the mid-1980s, and with crime rates soaring throughout California, developers wanted to be able to ensure quality of life in new gated developments; the obvious problem was that property tax revenue from newly-built-and-sold homes (taxable at market value at time of sale under Proposition 13) might be used to pay for services elsewhere (that is, for the benefit of homes whose time of sale was long ago and whose taxes could not be raised under Proposition 13). Furthermore, developers by the 1980s now had experience with how early suburbs had evolved over the decades (with some residents engaging in activities that decreased neighborhood property values) and wanted to ensure that common interest developments would maintain a common look and lifestyle.

Davis-Stirling solves both problems. The HOA has the power to impose fees that are cycled back into the community for the community’s benefit, and to enforce rules that maintain the “atmosphere” of the community and therefore the property values of all the units or parcels in the development.

Top