HOA replaces fence that appears in good condition

Q: Does the board have the right to spend $73,000 for an “emergency repair” on a chain-link fence for tennis courts. This is eight years ahead of schedule, according to the homeowners association’s reverse study.

Recent work on the four tennis courts’ surfaces was performed to maintain a warranty. After new wind screens were ordered, the board decided to paint the posts for the 10-foot-high fence and light poles, which was needed. The fence was in very good condition and to all the tennis players’ objection, the board approved an expenditure of $73,000 dollars to replace it.

I play tennis three or four times a week and I can tell you the chain-link fence was in good shape. I am from Texas and I’ve strung this type of fence before. The board did not ask the properties or finance committees to vet the expenditure and no bids were taken. Precisely 1.85 percent of the annual budget was spent from the reserve account. The cost of the painting has not been disclosed to residents. The board took this action as an emergency. All tennis players were appalled at the rampant waste.

I have been reading Nevada Revised Statutes 116 and can’t find standards of practice on expenditures like this. The homeowners association is flush with cash and it looks like the checkbook is open.

A: There is nothing in the “rule book” that would prevent an association from accelerating a reserve item. The reserve study is an estimate of the life expectancy of the common elements. There are legitimate times when a reserve item does not need to be replaced per the reserve study timeline.

In your case, a decision was made by the board to accelerate the replacement of the tennis court’s fence. The proposed expenditure should have been on the agenda, along with the obtaining of bids. As to the fencing of the tennis court being an emergency expenditure, the board would have to be able to justify that it was an emergency. If you are concerned about the matter in which the tennis court fence was purchased, you may want to contact the Nevada Ombudsman’s Office.

Q: I’m wondering if you might have a legal reference for the requirement of an HOA or a homeowner to trim intruding branches over property walls of the tree they own.

We have common area trees that we have been trimming every few years as needed. We have never considered cutting branches at the property line. Our position has been that as the offended property owner, you may have them cut off at your property line at your expense and from your side of the property. Yes, we recommend you ask the tree owner to have it done and to share the cost. If not, it is your problem to cure, unless you know something we don’t.

A: I cannot specifically provide any State Supreme Court decisions or any specific NRS 116 laws. You may need to review your association’s covenants. Under the maintenance sections pertaining to both the homeowners obligations and the association’s obligations, both the homeowner and the association have an obligation to properly maintain their homes.

Homeowners must realize that their tree branches growing over their shared fence with their neighbors can be causing multiple damages — from leaves falling into swimming pools to actual damages to their shared walls.

The catch-22 is when the neighbor begins to trim the tree belonging to the other homeowner. If the work is not done properly, you know that the offending neighbor will try to seek damages from the neighbor who trimmed the tree if that tree became damaged in any way.

The association has the same responsibility to maintain its trees so that they do not impact homeowners’ properties. We all have an obligation to be a “good neighbor” and to make sure we are properly trimming our trees when needed.

Barbara Holland, certified property manager, broker and supervisory certified association manager. Questions may be sent to the Association Q&A, 2560 S Montessouri St, Suite 206 Las Vegas, NV 89117. Email is support@hlrealty.com.