## Facts

- Gertrude M. Lamden owned a condominium unit in a coastal common-interest development governed by recorded covenants granting the association’s board broad authority over common-area management and maintenance.
- The building experienced recurring termite infestations; the association repeatedly used localized “spot” treatments and repaired damaged areas as discovered.
- In 1991, Lamden and the association obtained inspection reports recommending full-building fumigation (“tenting”).
- The board considered fumigation, including obtaining bids, but rejected it after weighing cost, resident relocation, health concerns, expected damage from fumigation, lost income, upcoming renovations, and uncertainty about effectiveness.
- The association continued spot treatment and repairs over subsequent years as infestations appeared.
- Lamden contended the association’s refusal to fumigate breached the governing declaration and the association’s statutory duty to maintain and repair common areas, and she sued for damages and injunctive and declaratory relief.

## Issues

1. What standard governs judicial review of a community association board’s discretionary choice among methods of ordinary common-area maintenance and repair.
2. Whether a court may substitute its judgment for an HOA board’s decision to spot-treat rather than fumigate when the board acted after investigation and for articulated community reasons.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and reinstated judgment for the association.
- The Court adopted a rule of judicial deference for ordinary maintenance decisions by community association boards.
- Where a duly constituted board, after reasonable investigation, acts in good faith for the community’s best interests and within its statutory and contractual authority, courts should defer to the board’s discretionary choice among maintenance methods.
- Applying that standard, the board’s decision to continue spot treatment rather than fumigate was protected because it was made within authority, in good faith, after investigation, and for rational community-centered reasons.

## Legal Principles

- Courts defer to an HOA board’s discretionary ordinary maintenance decision when the board:
  - is duly constituted;
  - conducts reasonable investigation;
  - acts in good faith and for the best interests of the association and its members; and
  - acts within the scope of authority under applicable statutes and governing covenants and restrictions.

- Judicial review in this setting is not an invitation for courts to act as “super-boards” re-evaluating technical and economic tradeoffs among maintenance options.
- Deference is not available when a board acts outside its authority, fails to investigate, acts in bad faith or self-interest, or violates explicit legal or contractual commands.

## Conclusion

The court held that challenges to an association board’s ordinary common-area maintenance choices are subject to a judicial deference rule: if the board reasonably investigates, acts in good faith for the community, and stays within its authority, a court should not replace the board’s decision with its own view of what maintenance method is best.


Lamden v. La Jolla Shores Clubdominium Homeowners Ass'n, 21 Cal. 4th 249 (Cal. 1999)