Skip to main content
Independent and nonpartisan. SaveYourState is a civic information resource. It is not a government website and is not affiliated with any government agency, party, or campaign.

California · 2025–26 Regular Session · Assembly Bill

AB 2579: Common interest developments: discipline.

In committee Official data

  1. Introduced
  2. In committee
  3. Passed one chamber
  4. Passed both chambers
  5. Enacted

Last official action: ·Record last updated:

Plain-language summary

AB 2579 is a assembly bill introduced in the California Assembly on February 20, 2026. According to its official title, it concerns: Common interest developments: discipline. Primary sponsor: Cottie Petrie-Norris (D). Most recent recorded action (May 21, 2026): Ordered to inactive file at the request of Assembly Member Petrie-Norris.

Generated automatically from the official title, sponsor list, and status record only. It does not characterize the bill’s purpose or effects. How summaries are written

Official summary

Legislative Counsel’s Digest (official, as of the latest version). Written by nonpartisan legislative staff; reproduced verbatim.

Existing law, the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, governs the formation and operation of common interest developments. Existing law requires that a common interest development be managed by an association.

Existing law requires the board of an association, if the association adopts or has adopted a policy imposing any monetary penalty on any association member for a violation of the governing documents, to adopt and distribute to each member a schedule of the monetary penalties that may be assessed for those violations, as provided. Existing law prohibits a monetary penalty for a violation of the governing documents from exceeding the lesser of the amount stated in the schedule that is in effect at the time of the violation or $100 per violation, except if the violation might result in an adverse health or safety impact on the common area or another association member’s property, as specified.

This bill would also except if the violation is contained in a specified list developed and published by the Department of Real Estate. In this regard, the bill would require the department, on or before January 1, 2028, to develop and publish a list of specified violations for which an association may impose a monetary penalty that is greater than $100, as specified. The bill would require the list to be limited to violations that are clearly defined and address significant risks to health, safety, or the integrity of the common interest development.

The bill would require the department, in developing the list, to identify categories of violations that pose heightened risks to health, safety, or the integrity of the common interest development, including violations that create a risk of fire or other life safety hazards, as specified, and before finalizing the list, to conduct a stakeholder engagement process to solicit input from a broad range of interested parties, as specified. The bill would require the department to release a draft list of violations for public comment and to consider comments before finalizing the list of violations, as prescribed. The bill would require the department to publish the final list of violations on the department’s internet website.

Existing law requires the board to notify a member in writing at least 10 days before a meeting to consider or impose discipline or a monetary charge on a member, as specified. Existing law requires the board to give a member the opportunity to cure a violation prior to the meeting, and prohibits the board from imposing discipline if the member cures the violation prior to the meeting or, if curing the violation would take longer than the time between the notice provided and the meeting, the member provides financial commitment to cure the violation.

This bill would specify that a member engaged in habitual, repeated, or continuing violations is not deemed to have cured a violation simply because the violation is not occurring at the time of the hearing.

Sponsors

Sponsors by party (alphabetical): Democratic 1

NameRolePartyChamberDistrict
Cottie Petrie-NorrisPrimary sponsorDemocraticAssembly73

“Support” is shown only as formal sponsorship recorded by the legislature. Roll-call votes are available on the official bill page.

Recent official actions

  1. Ordered to inactive file at the request of Assembly Member Petrie-Norris.
  2. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
  3. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 15. Noes 0.) (May 14).
  4. Joint Rule 62(a), file notice suspended. (Page 5030.)
  5. In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
  6. Re-referred to Com. on APPR. pursuant to Joint Rule 10.5.
  7. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
  8. Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.
  9. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (April 28).
  10. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (April 22). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
  11. Re-referred to Com. on H. & C.D.
  12. Referred to Coms. on H. & C.D. and JUD.

Sources

  1. California Legislative Information — pubinfo database export
  2. Official bill page