During the 2024 Annual Community Meeting, then-property manager Tony Zogopoulos of Network Community Management informed members that a recall effort would cost the Association about $7,500 in legal fees—without any prior notice, board vote, or explanation of why an attorney was necessary. This statement was presented as fact, not opinion, and understandably caused confusion and concern among members.

In the days following the meeting, I spoke with several homeowners—many of them older residents—who still believed they might each be personally charged $7,500 if the recall moved forward. Despite my efforts to clarify that no such fee exists under state law, I am not certain that all members were fully reassured.

In my case, it led me to withhold the submission of the recall signatures we had already gathered, as I did not believe it would be appropriate to proceed while members were under the impression that doing so might subject the Association to a previously undisclosed $7,500 in legal fees.

After reviewing the Davis–Stirling Act (California Civil Code §§5100–5145), I confirmed that no such fee is required or permitted as a condition of a member-led recall.

Under state law, the only legitimate expenses associated with a recall are basic election costs such as mailing ballots, printing notices, and, if needed, hiring an independent inspector of elections. These are routine administrative expenses and part of normal Association operations.

A review of recent HOA election practices across California shows that a typical recall for a community of about 100–120 homes costs between $900 and $2,500 total.

These figures are consistent with cost ranges reported by community-management firms, election-service providers, and legal references including davis-stirling.com, HOA Election Inspectors of California, and the Community Associations Institute (CAI).

Actual expenses depend mainly on mailing volume and whether an independent inspector of elections is used.

A $7,500 claim is not credible under the Davis–Stirling Act and would almost certainly be viewed as a chilling tactic under California Civil Code §4515, which prohibits an association from imposing or threatening fees to discourage members from organizing, communicating, or participating in community governance.

Legal fees are not part of the statutory recall process unless the Board voluntarily chooses to involve an attorney — a discretionary choice, not a legal requirement. If such involvement is used to inflate or portray higher costs in order to deter participation, it would raise serious concerns under §4515 as potential intimidation or interference with homeowners’ protected rights.

Accurate information helps everyone make informed choices, and I want our community to feel confident that participation in governance—whether through elections, recalls, or open meetings—is a normal and healthy part of HOA life.

• California Civil Code §5100 et seq. (Elections and Recalls)

• California Civil Code §4515 (Member Rights to Assemble and Communicate)

Both are available at davis-stirling.com.

Our community deserves transparency, and it’s important that everyone has access to correct information before making decisions that affect Edgewood’s future.

Read my discussion from June 2024, Status of the Recall Effort, which provides background on how this issue first arose.

Note: This post reflects personal observations and interpretation of publicly observable HOA conduct, shared for informational purposes only. It is not legal advice.