Anti-SLAPP & HOAs (Novmeber 2025)

Anti-SLAPP protection against abusive lawsuits has again arisen in the HOA context.  Lawsuits have been misused to discourage or hinder participation in debates over issues of public interest.  Suing opponents could discourage participation in the debate or distract opponents from the issue at hand.  The anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) statute was enacted to counter the chilling effect of such abuse of the judicial process and encourage continued participation in matters of public significance.  The statute authorizes the filing of a special motion to strike such lawsuits at the beginning.  In such cases, the person who brought the lawsuit must demonstrate its merit by establishing a probability of success.  The public interest includes private conduct that affects a community in a manner similar to that of a governmental entity, and such protected activity has been found to exist in the context of disputes with a homeowners association.

In a very recent case, Cocoa Aj Holdings, LLC v. Schneider, a developer in control of the association’s Board sued an association member alleging that the member wrongfully employed improper campaign tactics in opposing CC&Rs amendments proposed by the developer.  The allegedly wrongful campaign tactics included false or misleading statements made to other owners insinuating that the developer engaged in wrongful or misleading conduct with regard to the amendments.  The court concluded that the amendments were a matter of public interest to the other owners, whose lives would be affected by the potential changes to the CC&Rs, and, hence, subject to the anti-SLAPP statute.  Because the developer did not demonstrate a probability of success in the lawsuit, the lawsuit was dismissed early on.

The anti-SLAPP statute can work in both directions.  When owners/members sue the association for matters that involve the “public interest,” the association can file an anti-SLAPP motion and have the case dismissed early on if the owner/member does not demonstrate a probability of prevailing in the lawsuit.