California · reformas rechazadas
Qué se rechazó, y por qué.
Proyectos que habrían cambiado la Ley Davis-Stirling, pasaron ambas cámaras y fueron vetados — con la razón declarada por el Gobernador, reproducida íntegra.
Todo el sector cubre lo que se aprobó. Lo que no se aprobó casi nunca se escribe, y a menudo es el registro más útil: un mensaje de veto es un documento público firmado en el que el Gobernador dice qué disposición era el problema y qué habría salido mal. Una junta que sopesa si cambiar sus propias reglas aprende más de esto se intentó y se rechazó, por esta razón que de otro resumen de un proyecto que sí se convirtió en ley.
Los artículos nombrados abajo no cambiaron. Donde este sitio los reproduce, van enlazados; donde no, el número se da tal cual en vez de apuntar a una página que no existe.
AB 2439 Vetado 1 de octubre de 2026
Habría reformado § 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 Vetado 24 de septiembre de 2026
Habría reformado § 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
Los mensajes de veto son actos oficiales del Gobernador y no tienen derechos de autor. Leídos de VETO_MESSAGE_TBL en la publicación masiva del Legislative Counsel, con la última versión de cada proyecto leída del mismo archivo para confirmar qué artículos habría reformado. Revisado el 2026-10-11.