Can a California HOA Board require homeowner to attend meeting?

An HOA Board of Directors has decide to impose a penalty on a homeowner.
The Board has chosen a date and time to present its decision to the homeowner.
The Board has informed the homeowner that he "must appear" at this meeting "in person," and that the homeowner "may only request one continuance" to extend the hearing date.

Can the Board REQUIRE that the homeowner attend this meeting?

Thank you for your response, Donna.
The homeowner (my friend) will definitely attend the meeting.
I am just wondering if the Board can actually "require" him to attend.

Avan

You mentioned in your first post that the Board had selected a date to impose its decision. First, before any decision they must follow certain guidelines. The Board must appear, while the owner has the option to decline.

Notice of Hearing

Before a board can meet to consider imposing discipline upon a member, it must notify the member in writing, by either personal delivery or first-class mail, at least 10 days prior to the meeting (unless the governing document set a longer notice period). Civil Code §1363(h). The notice must contain the following:

•The date, time, and place of the meeting,
•The nature of the alleged violation for which a member may be disciplined, and
•A statement that the member has a right to attend the hearing, view the evidence of violation, and present a defense, including his/her own witnesses and documentary evidence.

Thank you for your input, Richard.

I posted this question because I thought the owner had the option to decline (though I wasn't sure if that option pertained only to IDR).

The letter did not include a statement that the member has a right to "present a defense, including his/her own witnesses and documentary evidence." According to the Board's letter to the owner, the purpose of the meeting is to "give the Board the opportunity to share their decision with you."

I should mention that this is the second hearing the Board has held regarding this matter. The first hearing was held about a year ago (if I remember correctly) with a different Board. The President of the previous Board told the owner that he (the President) would drop the case. However, the new Board has decided to revisit the case.

I meant to say, A new Board should not....

No, he can't be forced. The "must" is just verbiage that the board uses in order safeguard their right to come to a conclusion, based on procedures. (He was asked to show up and he didn't, therefore . . . ')

Should he go? Abosolutely, send an agent, lawyer or attend himself if he wants to fight this.

It will not look good if he does not attend a mandatory hearing and then chooses to fight the decision.

AvanD1:

Trials in absentia are possible. Not sure if California has done one in a while, but in certain cases, it is legal. While Roman Polanski was present at his trial, his sentence, for example, was done in absentia (he skipped the country between the trial and sentence being given). In general, trial in absentia requires specific legal hurdles to be jumped before they are valid, but there are valid cases of it.

Saresh:
while your rights to due process are not likely diminished by failure to show up before the board, a good board/lawyer will use the lack of attendance as an example of your character and interests when you do exercise those rights. It may not prevent your use of due process rights, but it can be used to paint a poorer picture of you and potentially sway a judge about you. And one should always remember, judges are not bound to the law, they are free to rule any way they want, even contrary to the law*. So, a judge could decide that a failure to show up at a meeting is enough to rule against the defendant.

In some legal cases (outside the HOA venue, i know of several), however, there are penalties/limits to your due process rights that are tied to your actions in set, timely manners. If you fail to do X, then your due process rights (along this path) cease. Failure to do X impacts your future rights to do Y. I don't know HOA law enough to say these apply there (they might), just that they do in other legal situations.

*personal knowledge, I was in a court when a judge stated, on the record "I don't care what the law says, it's my court and I do things my way." And he did, ruled absolutely contrary to the state law.

While the CA law requires the BOD to inform the member of the meeting where their violation will be discussed and also inform them of their "right to attend", it does not require the member to attend. Frankly I prefer AZ's law which states a member must be informed of their right to be heard before the board before a fine can be imposed. This puts the monkey squarely on the member's back. If they do not contact the board a fine may be levied and they have no recourse. Whenever my board is contacted by a member they are informed of the date, time and place of the next board meeting where they may meet with the board in an open session. BTW fines are automatically levied IAW our board adopted policy; the board does not have to approve them beforehand. Discussion only takes place if the member asks to be heard.

Thank you for your post, Glen. The letter does not state anything about contesting the decision, although perhaps that was omitted unintentionally.

Thank you to Suresh, Susan, Mary, and everyone else for your input. You have all made some great points.