Addressing Pushback On Our Post--Real Work for the CIC Task Force

In a recent NVHOAReform post, “Real Work for the CIC Task Force — On Behalf of Homeowners,” we outlined structural gaps in Nevada’s HOA governance system — particularly the lack of practical avenues for neutral dispute resolution and the growing use of confidential legal interpretations as de facto governing authority.

That post was meant to start a conversation, not end one. If you see this differently — especially if you serve on a board, work in HOA management, or practice in this area — we want to hear from you. Serious reform requires serious dialogue.

Here are the most common objections we hear to our reform.

“This would undermine attorney–client privilege.”

Our response- No. Litigation strategy and adversarial communications must remain confidential. The issue here is different: when legal advice is used as the operative interpretation of governing authority that binds members, there should be some structured way for that interpretation to be reviewed.

This is not about exposing legal strategy. It’s about ensuring that governance interpretations affecting property rights aren’t beyond any neutral examination.

“Fee-shifting protects the association from frivolous lawsuits.”

Our response- Protecting association funds from unnecessary litigation is a legitimate concern. In traditional contract law, fee-shifting provisions are often justified on the theory that both parties enter the agreement voluntarily and with relatively equal bargaining power, and that the risk of paying the other side’s fees helps discourage meritless claims.

The HOA context is different. Governing documents are drafted in advance, typically by developers, and accepted by buyers on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. Homeowners don’t negotiate the terms, and they cannot realistically walk away from the legal framework that comes with the home they purchase. That imbalance matters when assessing how fee-shifting operates in practice.

In public-law settings where individuals challenge those exercising governing authority, fee rules often move in the opposite direction — allowing the weaker party to recover fees if they prevail. That structure recognizes the power disparity between individuals and governing bodies.

The question for HOA policy is not whether associations should be defenseless against frivolous claims. It’s whether prevailing-party fee provisions, as currently structured, are discouraging only baseless lawsuits — or also deterring homeowners with legitimate disputes from seeking clarification or review.

It’s also important to recognize that litigation is costly even without fee-shifting. Court disputes over governing document interpretation are slow, expensive, and adversarial for both homeowners and associations. If a practical administrative avenue existed for resolving these disagreements early, much of that litigation would be unnecessary — saving money and reducing conflict on both sides.

Read more on our position here: Nevada Knows Fee-Shifting Is Dangerous — But Uses It In HOAs

“HOAs are private communities. Government shouldn’t get more involved.”

Our response-That argument is frequently raised, but it oversimplifies the legal reality. HOAs are more than contracts. The “private” argument misses the point.

Common-interest communities were originally justified as a private solution to a public problem — a way to manage shared property and neighborhood services without expanding municipal government. And yes, that justification still appears in statutes, governing documents, and judicial language.

But modern legal thinking increasingly asks whether the law has a coherent place for arrangements that function as governance systems while relying on contract theory and without the democratic safeguards normally associated with governing authority. HOAs occupy an uneasy space between contract and governance. The tension homeowners experience is not accidental — it is structural. And if that is the case, reforms limited to compliance, enforcement, or education will never fully address the problem.

Today’s associations look very different from their original justification. Modern HOAs manage multimillion-dollar budgets, operate ongoing service enterprises, retain permanent professional management, rely on legal counsel as a routine governance actor, and exercise continuous regulatory authority over homes and daily conduct. Those aren’t incidental features. They are the defining characteristics of governance.

“The CIC Commission’s role is enforcement, not policy clarification.”

Our response- Nevada’s statutory framework says otherwise. The Commission for Common-Interest Communities and Condominium Hotels was created not only to adjudicate disputes, but to serve as a regulatory and advisory body positioned to learn from recurring conflicts and refine the system over time.

Lawmakers paired adjudicative authority with rulemaking and advisory functions for a reason. The Commission was meant to provide an accessible alternative to civil litigation and to translate patterns emerging from disputes into clearer guidance for associations, boards, and owners. That structure recognized that governance systems evolve — and that clarity requires more than case-by-case enforcement.

In practice, however, that broader role appears to have lost needed emphasis. The Commission too often operates narrowly, focusing on individual violations and its voice absent addressing recurring ambiguities that drive those disputes in the first place.

The issue isn’t whether the Commission should become a policy-making body in place of the Legislature. It’s whether it is fulfilling the regulatory and advisory functions embedded in Nevada law — helping provide clearer direction that reduces disputes, improves compliance, and lessens reliance on costly civil litigation.

More on this topic can be found here: Nevada CICCH Commission- A Hard Reset Is Needed

“Virtual meetings increase participation and accessibility.”

Our response- Virtual access can be a valuable addition. The concern is with virtual-only governance. Physical meetings allow homeowners to gather, observe, and express collective concern in ways that online formats don’t easily replicate.

The goal is not to eliminate technology. It’s to ensure that convenience does not come at the cost of meaningful public participation.

Read more here: Virtual-Only HOA Meetings Are Wrong — Even If You Can Log In

“This encourages conflict instead of cooperation.”

Our response- Clear rules and neutral review pathways reduce conflict. When people know there is a fair, accessible place to get an answer, disputes are more likely to end early — even when someone doesn’t like the outcome.

Uncertainty and lack of review, by contrast, prolong disputes and increase mistrust.

Closing Paragraph

None of these questions are unreasonable. But neither are the experiences of homeowners who find themselves with no neutral place to turn when disputes arise. The goal of reform isn’t to punish good boards or burden responsible communities. It’s to ensure that when governance fails — or even when it’s just unclear — there is a fair, accessible way to get answers.

That’s not anti-HOA. It’s pro-accountability.