Makes sense HOA should follow dog breed laws
Q: I know of Nevada Revised Statute 202.500. In short:
6. A local authority shall not adopt or enforce an ordinance or regulation that deems a dog dangerous or vicious based solely on the breed of the dog.
7. This section does not apply to a dog used by a law enforcement officer in the performance of his or her duty.
8. As used in this section, “local authority” means the governing board of a county, city or other political subdivision having authority to enact laws or ordinances or promulgate regulations relating to dogs.
Would this be useful in fighting a board who wants to enact a new rule restricting breeds, or is “local authority” very specific and does not include homeowners association boards?
Are you aware of any HOAs that have enacted rules after this 2013 law went into effect?
A: You are correct that the law does not specifically require associations to comply with this state law, but it certainly makes sense to try to convince an association board to modify their regulations because of the law.
Please note, that for some associations the prohibition of certain dogs, such as pit bulls, are found in their covenants, conditions and restrictions, which would require a vote of the membership to amend this section of their governing documents.
Q: Is there a statute that limits the amount monthly association dues can be increased in a fiscal year by the HOA board of directors without a vote by the homeowners?
A: NRS 116 does not dictate the assessment amount, nor does it dictate the limit that assessments can be increased by an association without homeowner vote. You would have to review your governing documents, generally the CC&Rs, as to the increase that a board can make without homeowner approval. What the law requires is that there is a budget ratification meeting by the homeowners.
Q: I live in a community with two associations, a master and a sub. There was a violation back on May, 2016, where the sub and the master both sent me courtesy notices and then fined me. The master letters included pictures but the sub did not. By then I was not aware that I had been receiving a letter from each association, separate regarding the same issue. I did cure the violation and notified the master and the violation was closed, however, the sub continued to fine me for four months after the violation was corrected.
My question is, isn’t a photograph one of the requirements before the association can fine the homeowner? I was reading the NRS 116, but it is a littler confusing.
A: NRS 116.31031 (1-c-3) states that an association when sending a written notice to cure an alleged violation that a clear and detailed photograph of the violation must be included with the notice. (Whenever possible as there are different violations such as noise disturbances that would not require a photograph). Technically, the association would not be able to fine the homeowner without a photograph or a hearing.
You need to send the sub-association the documentation that was sent to the master association and any correspondence from the master association acknowledging the violation has been cured with a request that the sub association removes any excessive fines after the date of correction of the violation.
Barbara Holland is a certified property manager, broker and supervisory certified association manager. Questions may be sent to holland744o@gmail.com.
