California Codes

Cal. Civil Code § 4515 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)It is the intent of the Legislature to ensure that members and residents of common interest developments have the ability to exercise their rights under law to peacefully assemble and freely communicate with one another and with others with respect to common interest development living or for social, political, or educational purposes.

(b)The governing documents, including bylaws and operating rules, shall not prohibit a member or resident of a common interest development from doing any of the following:

(1)Peacefully assembling or meeting with members, residents, and their invitees or guests during reasonable hours and in a reasonable manner for purposes relating to common interest development living, association elections, legislation, election to public office, or the initiative, referendum, or recall processes.

(2)Inviting public officials, candidates for public office, or representatives of homeowner organizations to meet with members, residents, and their invitees or guests and speak on matters of public interest.

(3)Using the common area, including the community or recreation hall or clubhouse, or, with the consent of the member, the area of a separate interest, for an assembly or meeting described in paragraph (1) or (2) when that facility or separate interest is not otherwise in use.

(4)Canvassing and petitioning the members, the association board, and residents for the activities described in paragraphs (1) and (2) at reasonable hours and in a reasonable manner.

(5)Distributing or circulating, without prior permission, information about common interest development living, association elections, legislation, election to public office, or the initiative, referendum, or recall processes, or other issues of concern to members and residents at reasonable hours and in a reasonable manner.

(6)(A)Using social media or other online resources to discuss any of the following, even if the content is critical of the association or its governance:

(i)Development living.

(ii)Association elections.

(iii)Legislation.

(iv)Election to public office.

(v)The initiative, referendum, or recall processes.

(vi)Any other issues of concern to members and residents.

(B)This paragraph does not require an association to provide social media or other online resources to members.

(C)This paragraph does not require an association to allow members to post content on the association’s internet website.

(c)A member or resident of a common interest development shall not be required to pay a fee, make a deposit, obtain liability insurance, or pay the premium or deductible on the association’s insurance policy, in order to use a common area for the activities described in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subdivision (b).

(d)A member or resident of a common interest development who is prevented by the association or its agents from engaging in any of the activities described in this section may bring a civil or small claims court action to enjoin the enforcement of a governing document, including a bylaw and operating rule, that violates this section. The court may assess a civil penalty of not more than five hundred dollars ($500) for each violation.

(e)An association shall not retaliate against a member or a resident for exercising any of the rights contained in this section.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case: Horne v. Horne, 737 P.2d 244 (Utah Ct. App. 1987).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Horne v. Horne, 737 P.2d 244 (Utah Ct. App. 1987). “For example, Cal. Civil Code § 4515 (West 1970), prior to its 1983 amendment, stated that upon the filing of a final judgment nunc pro tunc "the parties to such action shall be deemed to have been restored to the status of single persons as of the date affixed to such judgment.”

In Re the Marriage of Hyon & Kirschner, 91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4700 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991). “(Civ. Code, § 4515; Gionis v. Superior Court (1988) 202 Cal.”

In Re the Est. of Shippy, 678 P.2d 848 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). “1 Cal. Civ. Code § 4515 (West 1983) (formerly § 133) reads as follows: "Whenever either of the parties in a proceeding for dissolution of the marriage is, under the law, entitled to a final judgment, but by mistake, negligence or inadvertence the same has not been signed, filed…”

In Re Est. of Storer, 544 P.2d 95 (Wash. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 2× “1 Respondents contend the decree is not entitled to full faith and credit because, in California, the failure to pay *690 attorneys’ fees does not constitute “mistake, negligence or inadvertence,” necessary to the entry of a nunc pro tunc decree as provided by Cal.”

In Re Marriage of Liss, 10 Cal. App. 4th 1426 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “Wife contends the court's reservation of jurisdiction in the November 1, 1989, judgment must be interpreted as limited to spousal support for Wife, since, as of that date, Husband had not requested spousal support.”

Avis v. Liss, 10 Cal. App. 4th 1426 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “Wife contends the court’s reservation of jurisdiction in the November 1, 1989, judgment must be interpreted as limited to spousal support for Wife, since, as of that date, Husband had not requested spousal support.”

In re Claude Dennis Wilkes v. The Santana Row-Forest Bldg. Condo. Homeowners Ass'n, et al. (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2026). “6); 17 (8) Count VIII – Violation of the Davis-Stirling Act 18 ( Cal. Civ. Code §§ 4515 , 5655, 5976); and 19 (9) Count IX – Defamation (slander per se) and invasion of privacy ( Cal.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.