Nevada HOA regulator-NRED- once again fails owners.
Nevada’s Commission for Common-Interest Communities and Condominium Hotels (CICCH) held its quarterly meeting June 10, 2025. (Who and what is the Commission found here) The meeting illustrates how broken is the state’s HOA oversight. It should be seen as an embarrassment to every Commissioner, the Nevada Real Estate Division (NRED), and the Attorney General’s Office. But it will likely go unnoticed with business unchanged.
Failure #1
At its abbreviated quarterly meeting, the CICCH Commission convened to hear Case 2024-685 -- a formal complaint filed by the Attorney General’s Office on behalf of NRED. The complaint charged the condominium board with two violations: (1) failing to notify unit-owners of a capital improvement in violation of NRS 116.31031, and (2) failing to comply with the Division’s Compliance Demand Letter (CDL) in breach of its statutory duties. The AG sought a $1,000 administrative fine plus reimbursement of the Division’s investigative costs.
At the eleventh hour, the Deputy AG (DAG) negotiated a settlement under which the complaint was dismissed without any admission of wrongdoing by the Board. The association nevertheless paid roughly $3,080—presumably covering the $1,000 fine plus Division costs.
The DAG recommending and the Commission approving this settlement—without any substantive review—underscores a systemic failure: commissioners appear content merely to rubber-stamp NRED’s positions rather than exercise their independent adjudicatory authority under NRS 116.615. The practical result is predictable and unjust: homeowners’ assessments fund both the fine and the legal fees, while neither process nor accountability is meaningfully served.
Result: the HOA board writes a check using owner funds for the fine and legal fees.
**No deterrence**
With no finding of wrongdoing, not even a requirement to inform owners, future boards learn they can stonewall Division inquiries, then “settle” on the eve of a hearing.
The complainant and owners were excluded from negotiations. Nothing in the order requires post-settlement disclosure.
Perverse incentives.
Counsel defending the board profits --bankrolled by owners.
HOA directors can treat compliance as optional and litigation costs as just another line item to pass through to homeowners.
Failure #2
The complaint provides the CDL demanded the Condo board provide a copy of the next meeting minutes to NRERD confirming owners were informed “that the violation had been brought into compliance.” Apparently, NRED had made a determination a violation had occurred. But the Commission had made no such adjudication and NRED has no authority to assert a “violation”- only investigate and bring alleged violations forward.
Failure #3
I see no legal basis for treating the board’s challenge to NRED’s CDL as a “failure to cooperate” under NRS 116.3103(a) or NAC 116.405(7)—particularly where the order itself is procedurally and substantively flawed. Defending against an allegation cannot, by itself, amount to non-cooperation or a separate violation of the Act. NRED’s authority is limited to investigating alleged breaches; only the Commission may adjudicate them under NRS 116.615.
Nor does NAC 116.405(7) bridge that gap. That regulation merely allows the Commission, when assessing whether an executive-board member has performed the duties imposed by NRS 116.3103, to consider whether the member cooperated with the Division’s investigatory process. Even if one were to accept that NAC 116.405(7) applies here—which is questionable given its ambiguous scope and weak tie to the statutory duties—refusing to admit wrongdoing is not the same as obstructing an investigation. A board retains the right to contest improper allegations without being deemed non-cooperative.
Statutory & Regulatory Missteps
The Board kept owners in the dark about a large capital project and shifted all penalties back onto owners.
DAG equated vigorous defense of an arguably flawed CDL with non-cooperation, then abandoned the claim at settlement.
CDL declared a “violation” before the Commission ever heard evidence, blurring investigatory and judicial functions.
Bottom-line: Owners lose twice: first when their statutory rights are ignored, and again when they foot the bill for the violator’s defense.
Policy Recommendations
Complainant participation rights. The original complainant should be notified and allowed to comment on any proposed settlement before offered and Commission approval.
Clarify “cooperation” in NAC 116.405. Defending against an allegation is not per se non-cooperation; the regulation needs objective criteria (e.g., failure to produce records).
Independent counsel for the Commission. DAG lawyers currently represent both NRED (the prosecutor) and advise the Commission (the judge). Separate counsel would reduce the appearance of conflicts.
Where Owners Go from Here
Demand transparency. Ask your board whether any Division complaints or settlements are pending and how they will be paid.
Submit public-comment letters. Find the Commission’s next meeting is scheduled here; written comments (emailed here) become part of the record and can push for better.
Support legislative oversight. Encourage your state senator or assembly member investigate NRED’s enforcement practices.
Statutes are only as good as the people enforcing them. HOA laws are no exception. This CICCH hearing proved—again—that owners cannot rely on the current system to protect their rights. It’s up to us to demand better.
