HOA Law Injustices

Developers an HOA boards use attorney fee clauses to intimidate and silence homeowners. Learn why prevailing-party provisions must be reformed.

Homeowners fund HOA budgets but have no real say. See how Nevada can fix this with pre-adoption input and stronger oversight.

NRS 116.757’s blanket secrecy walls investigative records, eroding homeowner trust and oversight. Learn how NVHOAReform seeks clarity, transparency, and accountability.

The danger here isn’t just that courts may misread the law- that happens. It’s that they may stop reading it altogether. While courts must interpret statutes, they must also respect them. The NV Supreme Court has gutted ADR protections in HOA disputes. This blog explores how the Court’s ruling reclassifies statutory mandates, weakens legislative authority, and favors procedural gamesmanship—calling for legislative action to restore balance.

Nevada law allows HOA declarations to be amended with court approval even without a supermajority vote. Learn how NRS 116.21175 works—and how minority owners can protect their rights.

Nevada’s HOA system is broken—weak oversight, regulatory secrecy, and unchecked power threaten homeowner rights. Learn why reform must begin with transparency.

Reforming HOA governance without reliable data or an engaged regulator is like flying blind. This post explores how the absence of transparency and oversight undermines accountability, policy legitimacy, and meaningful reform—and why foundational change must come first.

Nevada’s HOA Commission fails again—see how weak oversight, opaque settlements, and conflicted enforcement expose homeowners to repeat harm.

Nevada’s HOA justice system burdens owners through litigation and abdicated oversight. Learn how cost-shifting and regulatory failure fuel legal inequality.

Courts treat CC&Rs that create HOAs as binding contractual obligations—even though homeowners lack real bargaining power and did not negotiate the terms. This post critiques the dominant legal justification of constructive consent and explores reforms. HOA law must evolve.

Nevada HOA Boards can take any action, to include approval of major contracts, without meeting or providing advance notice to owners. But should they? In my opinion this provides an unguarded door to abuse that for too long has been in need of closure.

Nevada COI laws favor declarant-appointed directors. Nevada law imposes a fiduciary duty on all HOA board members but the reality is that appointed directors faces potential challenges that could make him/her conflicted in exercising independent judgment.

First is a series on injustices in Nevada HOA laws. Justifications for permitting HOAs. Three justifications exist for the creation of HOAs that permit one's home be subjected to extensive powers affecting its value and quality of life. In theory, all three of the above exists in Nevada. However, it is my position the first two are not satisfactorily addressed in Nevada HOA law today and the third, a tailored and equitable dispute resolution processes is failing due to a cap

A toxic combination of unengaged homeowners, deep pocket special interests, and a blind eye regulator has led Nevada legislators to prefer a root canal over working on HOA legislative reforms. My reasons, if not fixed, HOAs may no longer be a "good" idea.

The “quasi-governmental” nature of homeowner associations (HOAs) is one of the most important and controversial aspects surrounding HOAs. Legislation is needed

Expanding private enforcement of HOA laws threatens judicial fairness, raises costs, and undermines public oversight in Nevada.

How declarant control of an HOA is determined and effectively be indefinite

A developer can effectively control an HOA indefinitely- even after the end of the "Declarant's Control Period"

Much confusion and misinformation exist around developer control of HOAs and the now infamous legislation, AB 192 (2015).   First, it is...

How a good idea, such as HOAs, can be abused by special interests and deep pockets, when homeowners do not stay vigilant, and when representatives generally fail to protect the rights of constituents.