Can You Sue Your HOA Board for Breach of Fiduciary Duty?

By Matthew W. Reiser | Last reviewed October 28, 2026

Yes, in both California and Florida an owner can sue a homeowners' or condominium association, and sometimes its directors, for breach of fiduciary duty. But the law in both states gives boards real room to make judgment calls and limits when volunteer directors are personally on the hook. Knowing those limits before you file is the difference between a claim that gets traction and one that gets dismissed.

California: the association owes a fiduciary duty to its members

California courts have long recognized that community associations "owe a fiduciary duty to their members." Cohen v. Kite Hill Community Assn., 142 Cal.App.3d 642, 651 (1983). In practice, these claims usually involve how a board enforces the governing documents, spends association money, maintains common areas or treats individual owners.

Judicial deference to board decisions

The California Supreme Court has adopted a rule of judicial deference for ordinary maintenance and repair decisions. Where a 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." Lamden v. La Jolla Shores Clubdominium Homeowners Assn., 21 Cal.4th 249, 253 (1999); see id. at 265.

That rule shapes how a strong claim is built. Owners rarely win by arguing that the board picked the wrong contractor or the wrong repair method. They do better showing that the board did not investigate, acted in bad faith or for a personal reason, ignored a mandatory duty in the governing documents or the Davis-Stirling Act, or acted outside its authority.

Suing individual directors

A director can be personally liable in tort, but not merely for being on the board when something went wrong. "To maintain a tort claim against a director in his or her personal capacity, a plaintiff must first show that the director specifically authorized, directed or participated in the allegedly tortious conduct," or knew or should have known of a hazardous condition under the director's control and negligently failed to act. Frances T. v. Village Green Owners Assn., 42 Cal.3d 490, 508 (1986).

The Legislature added another layer. For residential and mixed-use developments, a volunteer officer or director who acted within the scope of association duties, in good faith, and not willfully, wantonly or with gross negligence is not personally liable beyond the association's required insurance coverage, if the association carried general liability and director and officer coverage in the statutory minimum amounts. Cal. Civ. Code § 5800(a). The protection applies only to volunteers who are tenants or who own no more than two separate interests in the development, and it does not limit the association's own liability. Id. § 5800(d), (e).

Before you file in California

For many Davis-Stirling cases, an owner must first offer alternative dispute resolution. An association or member "may not file an enforcement action in the superior court unless the parties have endeavored to submit their dispute to alternative dispute resolution." Cal. Civ. Code § 5930(a). That requirement applies to actions seeking only declaratory, injunctive or writ relief, or that relief together with damages within the small claims limits. Id. § 5930(b). If the case is an action to enforce the governing documents, "the prevailing party shall be awarded reasonable attorney's fees and costs." Id. § 5975(c). That fee provision cuts both ways, and it should be weighed before suit.

Florida: fiduciary duty by statute

Florida puts the duty in its statutes. For condominiums, "[t]he officers and directors of the association have a fiduciary relationship to the unit owners." Fla. Stat. § 718.111(1)(a). For homeowners' associations, officers and directors "are subject to s. 617.0830 and have a fiduciary relationship to the members who are served by the association." Fla. Stat. § 720.303(1).

When Florida condo directors are personally liable

Condominium officers and directors must act "in good faith, with the care an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would exercise under similar circumstances, and in a manner he or she reasonably believes to be in the interests of the association." Fla. Stat. § 718.111(1)(d). Personal liability for money damages is narrower. It applies where the breach is a violation of criminal law, a transaction from which the director "derived an improper personal benefit," or "recklessness or an act or omission that was in bad faith, with malicious purpose, or in a manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety, or property." Id. Self-dealing and bad faith claims fit that framework. Simple disagreements about business judgment usually do not.

Where the case is heard

Florida condominium law sends many owner-association disputes to nonbinding arbitration first, but its definition of a covered "dispute" expressly excludes "alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by one or more directors." Fla. Stat. § 718.1255(1). A fiduciary duty claim against condo directors can therefore go to court.

For homeowners' associations, Florida requires presuit mediation for certain disputes, including disputes over use of or changes to parcels or common areas, other covenant enforcement, amendments to the governing documents, board and committee meetings, membership meetings other than election meetings, and access to official records. Fla. Stat. § 720.311(2)(a). If a fiduciary duty claim overlaps with any of those categories, plan for presuit mediation.

Building the claim

In either state, start with the records. Board minutes, budgets, bank statements, contracts and correspondence usually show whether the board investigated, who benefited and whether it followed its own documents. Florida owners can read about their inspection rights in our article on Florida condominium records. Then match the facts to the legal standard: a California claim should be framed around the limits of Lamden deference, and a Florida claim against directors personally should be framed around the conduct that § 718.111(1)(d) makes actionable.

Talking with Reiser Law

Reiser Law, P.C. represents owners and associations in HOA and condominium disputes. Learn more about our California HOA dispute practice, our Florida HOA and condominium practice and our fiduciary duty litigation, or send us a message.

This article is general information, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. The law changes, and its application depends on the facts of each case. Attorney advertising.