Commentary, by Mike Kosor, Founder Nevada HOA Reform Coalition
Office of the Ombudsman
The Office of the Ombudsman for Owners in Common-Interest Communities was created to serve one primary purpose: to assist homeowners in understanding their rights and responsibilities under NRS 116. It was intended to be the state’s safeguard against HOA overreach — the first point of contact for owners seeking clarity before conflicts escalate into litigation.
Yet for many Nevadans, that promise has not been kept. Homeowners across the state consistently express frustration that the Ombudsman’s Office has become unresponsive, inaccessible, or unwilling to engage on substantive questions of law and governance. Instead of serving as a neutral educator and early-intervention resource, it increasingly functions as an administrative gatekeeper — one that shields the Division rather than assists the public.
What the Law Requires — and What Owners Expect
Under NRS 116.625, the Ombudsman must “assist owners in common-interest communities to understand their rights and responsibilities.”
Nothing in that statute conditions assistance on an owner’s level of legal sophistication or on whether counsel has been retained. The mission is educational, not adversarial.
The Legislature’s design was deliberate: to provide an accessible, non-judicial channel of guidance for owners and boards alike — a way to prevent disputes, not avoid them once they arise. When the Ombudsman refuses- as an example- to even discuss the Division’s interpretation of NRS 116.31032 (declarant control) or its rationale for ignoring clear statutory triggers, the Office is not fulfilling its mandate; it is narrowing it beyond recognition.
The Correspondence — A Snapshot of Institutional Deflection
Recent correspondence with the Division underscores this retreat from purpose. In September 2024, I requested a meeting with the Ombudsman regarding the Division’s long-standing refusal to act on a clear statutory issue: the termination of declarant control once 75 percent of units have been conveyed. The matter affects not only me but more than 8,000 owners in my own community — and echoes the ignored concerns of homeowners across Nevada who face similar inaction on issues central to their rights under NRS 116.
Below are the six questions she asked I put in writing:
Question #1- Has the period of declarant's control [of my association] terminated?
Question #2- Should the association's board have conducted an election of the appointed directors IAW NRS 16.31034?
Question #3- What action should an elected director take if the majority appointed directors refuse to comply with NRS 116.31034 or any other provision of NRS?
Question #4- What action should an elected director take if the majority directors refuse to comply with a provision of the governing documents?
Question #5- Assuming the association failed to comply with the above provision of its governing documents, what provision(s) of NRS, if any, grants the board authority to act to remove and/or declare void the position of an elected director?
Question #6- What provision(s) of NRS, if any, grants the board authority to unilaterally exclude an elected director from any deliberation(s) of the board?
At end she refused to meet or answer my questions. When pressed, the Ombudsman's staff replied:
“The Ombudsman Office’s mission … does not extend to offering legal advice … and most of your questions [and presumably those of my community] either implicate, or directly pose, legal questions that exceed the scope of the Ombudsman/NRED’s ability to assist.”
That response — copied to senior Division leadership — was not merely bureaucratic. It was categorical. The Office declared that its statutory obligation to assist owners evaporates whenever a question carries legal consequences. But in a regulatory regime built entirely on law, every question has legal consequence.
If accepted, this logic would reduce the Ombudsman’s function to little more than distributing pamphlets — a façade of assistance that avoids engagement whenever the answer might be uncomfortable.
A Pattern of Institutional Avoidance
This episode is not isolated. It fits a broader pattern across the Division:
• NRED’s refusal to issue interpretive guidance under NRS 116.623 when petitioned for rulemaking;
• The Commission’s inaction in clarifying its oversight role under NRS 116.615(2); and
• The Ombudsman’s reliance on “legal advice” disclaimers to sidestep any substantive question of statutory compliance.
Together, these practices convert statutory accountability into paper accountability — the appearance of a functioning system without the substance of enforcement or transparency.
Why It Matters: The Chilling Effect on Owner Participation
The Ombudsman’s refusal to engage does more than frustrate individual homeowners; it chills participation in HOA governance statewide.
If an owner’s inquiry about election eligibility, declarant control, or board conduct can be dismissed as “legal,” the message is unmistakable: seeking clarity risks being labeled adversarial.
That is the opposite of what the Legislature intended when it created the Ombudsman’s Office in 1997 — a time when homeowners were explicitly promised education before escalation.
By declining to clarify matters that directly affect eligibility for board service and the proper transition from developer to owner control, the Division sends a dangerous signal: those who ask questions may be punished, and those who answer them will be silent.
What Oversight Looks Like
The Ombudsman is not a private attorney and need not litigate disputes. But it must be able to interpret the statutes it administers, explain those interpretations to the public, and hold the Division’s other components accountable to the same standard.
The Ombudsman must be replaced with someone who understands:
Adopt procedural rules requiring written responses to owner inquiries that raise clear statutory issues, with citations to applicable law;
The existence of counsel or pending litigation does not suspend the Ombudsman’s educational duty; and
The Ombudsman is the Division’s public-facing interpreter, not its gatekeeper.
Conclusion: Time For Accountability
The Ombudsman’s duty to “assist owners” is not optional, conditional, or subject to bureaucratic convenience. When that assistance is withheld on the pretext of “legal advice,” the Office betrays its founding purpose — to make Nevada’s HOA system understandable, navigable, and fair. I am certain Nevada can find an Ombudsman capable of uphold this duty.
Homeowners do not need another agency telling them to “seek counsel.” They need an Ombudsman willing to do the job the Legislature created: explain the law, apply it consistently, and stand up when the Division itself falls short.
_____________________
