Reader accuses board president of violating HOA statutes

Reader accuses board president of violating HOA statutes A resident of a Nevada homeowners’ association alleges that the committee president breached both the association’s bylaws and state law by signing a landscaping contract as the sole signatory, bypassing required procedures and withholding essential documentation. The resident states that the president acted as a “sole signer” on a revised/renewed landscaping declaration exceeding $100,000 per year, which was later ratified. The declaration was executed 41 days before it ever appeared on an open meeting agenda and became effective 24 days prior to the meeting where it was listed as a specified “review/approve” agenda item. According to the resident, this signing directly violated the association’s bylaws, which mandate two committee signatures for any expenditure over $500. Citing the vendor’s poor performance—allegedly creating hazardous conditions and damaging community assets—the resident formally requested to review the declaration before the meeting but did not receive the documents. At the meeting, the resident objected and asked to table the item until the board could assess what was being paid for, especially since no competitive bids had been obtained despite known issues. The board ignored the objections and voted to adopt the revised declaration. When the resident finally received the paperwork a week later, it showed only the president’s single signature and lacked the required “Scope of Landscape Services” attachment and site maps, rendering the document useless. Approximately ten days after the meeting, the board and a vendor representative held a walk‑through to obtain a new proposal for plant replacement. The resident requested to review that proposal as well but has not received it. Meanwhile, a crew remains on‑site removing trees and plant material at an undisclosed cost, with no replacement plan shared with homeowners, allegedly altering the community’s landscape without homeowner input. To investigate further, the resident submitted formal requests through the association’s online homeowner portal for the absorption contract, landscaping expense ledgers and inspection reports. Those requests have since been deleted from the portal and remain unanswered, allegedly failing to satisfy the resident’s rights under NRS 116 to review records and the community’s CC&Rs, which require records to be provided within 14 days of a written petition. In response, Barbara Holland, CPM, CMCA, AMS, an author, educator and expert witness on real‑property issues pertaining to associations and brokerage, cited relevant Nevada statutes. She noted that NRS 116.31083(c) and (d) require meeting minutes to record the substance of each matter proposed, discussed or decided and the grounds of each member’s vote on any matter decided by ballot. Section 13 of the same statute permits an association to act in an emergency—defined as an occurrence or series of occurrences that could not have been reasonably foreseen or that affects residents’ health, safety or welfare—when immediate board action makes compliance with sections 2, 3 or 6, notification requirements, enforcement‑league items or homeowner‑forum provisions impracticable. Holland concluded that prior board support for the landscaping declaration did not satisfy the emergency criteria under NRS 116.31083. Under NRS 116.31085(2), a board may not convene in an enforcement league to open or consider bids for an association task—such as maintenance—or to enter, renew, modify, terminate or take any other action concerning a contract. Based on the resident’s allegations, Holland asserted that the board violated multiple state laws. She said the proposed renewal of the landscaping declaration should have been placed on the board agenda as an action item, distributed to homeowners, discussed and voted upon at a regularly scheduled board meeting. In addition to breaching the association’s bylaws requiring two signatures, Holland said the president violated NRS 116.311153(2), which stipulates that money in an association’s operating account may not be withdrawn without the signatures of at least one board member, or one association officer and a board member, an officer or the community manager. She clarified that subsection 3 does not apply here, as it only permits signature‑less expenditures for automatic payments such as utilities or government bureau payments. Regarding records, Holland referenced NRS 116.31175 and NRS 116.3118, which obligate an association, upon a written request from a member owner, to make available books, records and other papers to view the association’s financial statement and each contract. The board must supply a copy of the records within 21 days of receiving the request. If the association cannot provide the records in electronic format at no charge, it may levy a fee of $25.00 per hour plus charges for copies (NRS 116.31175(1a, 2 and 8). The association may also make records available for review at its office for inspection, examination, photocopying and audit under NRS 116.3118(2a and 2b). The resident’s allegations remain under review, and the association has not issued a public response to the claims.