California · refused amendments
What was refused, and why.
Bills that would have changed the Davis-Stirling Act, passed both houses, and were vetoed — with the Governor's stated reason, reproduced in full.
Every publisher in this field covers what passed. What did not pass is rarely written up at all, and it is often the more useful record: a veto message is a signed public document in which the Governor says which provision was the problem and what would have gone wrong. A board weighing whether to change its own rules learns more from this was tried and refused, for this reason than from another summary of a bill that became law.
The sections named below are unchanged. Where this site reproduces one, it is linked; where it does not, the number is given plainly rather than pointing at a page that does not exist.
AB 2439 Vetoed 1 October 2026
Would have amended § 5655 · § 5690
To the Members of the California State Assembly: I am returning Assembly Bill 2439 without my signature. This bill would generally prohibit homeowners associations from restricting a member's use of public streets, establish new notification requirements when the recipient of assessment payments changes, and expand liability for specified violations of assessment-collection procedures. I support protecting homeowners from improper collection practices and ensuring they know where to make their assessment payments. However, this bill would make an association liable for "any costs" a homeowner incurs because the association failed to follow assessment-collection procedures. The bill neither defines nor limits those costs. This broad standard could create uncertainty, invite disputes and litigation, and impose costs on associations and their members disproportionate to the underlying violation. The bill also makes the board liable for a $1,000 civil penalty when an association commits a third specified notice violation within five years. Existing law generally places this type of liability on the association. The bill does not explain how liability against "the board" would operate or how it would apply when board membership changes between violations. This uncertainty could discourage residents from volunteering to serve and make effective association governance more difficult. In addition, the bill requires certificates of mailing and, in certain circumstances, certified mail with a return receipt. These prescriptive requirements could impose substantial administrative costs that would ultimately be passed on to homeowners. For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill. Sincerely, Gavin Newsom
SB 1238 Vetoed 24 September 2026
Would have amended § 4525 · § 5200 · § 5510 · § 5550 · § 5551 · § 5560 · § 5565
To the Members of the California State Senate: I am returning Senate Bill 1238 without my signature. This bill would make several changes to the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, which governs homeowners associations (HOAs), including establishing a duty of care owed by an HOA's managing agent to both the association and its individual members. A managing agent acts on behalf of the association, while the association owes duties to its members. Establishing a duty owed to both the association and its individual members could create conflicting obligations when a member's interests diverge from those of the community as a whole. The resulting uncertainty could invite litigation, the costs of which homeowners would ultimately bear. This provision also leaves unclear how the new statutory duty of care would interact with a managing agent's existing obligations to the association under common law. Several of the bill's remaining provisions overlap with existing requirements governing reserve planning and homeowners' access to association records, limiting their added benefit. California should improve transparency and accountability in homeowners associations without creating legal uncertainty that could invite litigation and increase costs for homeowners. For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill. Sincerely, Gavin Newsom
Veto messages are official acts of the Governor and carry no copyright. Read from VETO_MESSAGE_TBL in the Legislative Counsel's bulk publication, with each bill's last version read from the same archive to confirm the sections it would have amended. Checked 2026-10-11.