Introduction: Nevada law empowers the Real Estate Division (“the Division”) to investigate alleged violations of the Uniform Common-Interest Ownership Act (UCIOA), codified at NRS 116. Yet the confidentiality provisions of NRS 116.757—drafted broadly to encourage candid cooperation—have created an almost impermeable “secrecy wall.”
Today, every affidavit, email, and scrap of evidence gathered during an investigation is shielded from public view—even from the individuals who filed or faced the complaint—unless and until the Division decides to issue a formal enforcement action. When
Division staff conclude there is “no good cause” or otherwise administratively closes the
complaint not bringing it before the Commission, all information related to the affidavit remains sealed—even from the oversight of the Commission hobbling informed adjudication.
With well over 90 percent of investigations closed without formal complaints, the result is near-permanent secrecy: no right of the complainant or respondent to see what the Division saw, no redacted summaries, no independent review.
1. Legislative Intent: Cooperation Over Confrontation
When the Legislature enacted NRS 116.757, its goal was clear: investigations succeed only if witnesses, board members, managers, and third parties feel safe providing information. Confidentiality was meant to:
Shield witnesses from retaliation by powerful HOA boards or vendors.
Encourage candid disclosures about board misconduct, accounting irregularities, or conflicts of interest.
Protect reputations—especially when complaints later prove unfounded.
By classifying “records compiled as a result of an investigation” as confidential, the Legislature sought to strike a balance between effective enforcement and individual privacy.
2. From Limited Confidentiality to Total Secrecy
Owners routinely report that Division investigators
(a) never requested basic records,
(b) accepted board assertions at face value and then closed the matter for “lack of evidence”, or
(c) simply close affidavits with no justification.
With the file locked away, the Commission cannot verify whether diligence was exercised and address owner or other stakeholder concerns (NRS 116.665(g)).
Over time, the Division’s application of NRS 116.757 has pushed confidentiality well beyond its intended scope:
Absolute, Permanent Secrecy. Every document gathered—interviews, emails, financial statements—is sealed upon conclusion of an investigation, with no statutory exception or time limit.
No Access for Complainants or Respondents. Even those who filed or were subject to the complaint have no entitlement to review or even a redacted synopsis of the findings.
Lack of Oversight. Neither the CIC Commission nor any independent body may review closed files to ensure consistency, detect systemic problems, or evaluate enforcement patterns.
This “secrecy wall” erodes public confidence. Homeowners are left to wonder: Was my complaint taken seriously? Did the Division reach the right conclusion?
Nevada’s Supreme Court has long rejected such blanket secrecy. In Reno Newspapers v. Gibbons, 127 Nev. 873, 881–82 (2011), and DR Partners v. Clark County Bd. of Comm’rs, 116 Nev. 616, 626–28 (2000), the Court held that:
(i) government records are presumptively public;
(ii) any restriction must be narrowly construed; and
(iii) the agency bears the burden of proving confidentiality.
These principles apply unless the Legislature enacts a clear and narrow exemption. When an exemption is drafted so broadly that it swallows the rule of openness, the statute’s accountability purpose collapses. A confidentiality clause that hides everything, forever ceases to protect cooperation—it becomes a shield against oversight, a hallmark of administrative capture.
Arguably, the Legislature drafted NRS 116.757 broadly to encourage investigative candor—not to institutionalize secrecy or erode confidence in the regulatory process. Yet the Division’s practice now hides every affidavit, interview, and scrap of evidence “compiled as a result of an investigation,” even from the complainant and respondent, unless staff elect to prosecute. In the overwhelming majority of cases where no formal complaint is filed, the entire record remains permanently sealed, with no mechanism for Commission or public review and no duty to provide even a redacted summary.
3. Commission’s Failure to Engage
Despite its statutory duty under NRS 116.615(2) “to do all things necessary and convenient to carry out” Chapter 116, the CIC Commission has not sought to pierce this secrecy wall. Repeated calls—including NVHOAReform’s June 12, 2025 letter—urged the Commission to coordinate with the Attorney General for a formal opinion clarifying whether NRS 116.757 precludes any Commission-level review of closed investigations. To my knowledge the Commission has neither requested such an opinion nor empaneled an oversight subcommittee to audit the Division’s declinations—leaving homeowners without confidence that investigatory gatekeeping is even subject to any check .
4. Director’s Memo and Its Chilling Implications
On February 11, 2025, the Director of the Department of Business and Industry issued a memorandum interpreting NRS 116.757 as an “explicit prohibition on any and all information compiled from investigations,” thereby discouraging Commission involvement at screening or post-screening stages. The Memo asserts that:
Section III. Confidentiality “prevails” even over the Commission’s information-gathering duties.
Section V. All investigative materials are “not a public record” unless a formal complaint is filed.
This reading not only ignores parallel confidentiality provisions in NRS 116A.270 (which expressly allow inter-agency disclosure “as necessary in the course of administering” that statute), but also effectively instructs Commissioners to remain “within their adjudicative lane,” chilling any attempt at systemic oversight.
The disparate treatment therefore appears arbitrary relative to the identical policy objective of both statutes: protecting consumers and sustaining public confidence in the governance of common-interest communities.
The Memo and its timing appear to be an attempt to discourage the Commission’s involvement to shield NRED’s investigatory practices from any review.
5. NVHOAReform’s Request for a Formal Interpretation
To break this secrecy wall, NVHOAReform has formally asked the Commission to:
Seek an Attorney General Opinion under NRS 116.620(3)(a) (and if necessary NRS 228.150) on whether “any person” in NRS 116.757(1) includes the CIC Commission (or a committee it appoints) when conducting an oversight review.
Clarify whether the Commission may access investigative files closed without formal complaints and, if so, under what conditions (including possible redacted summaries or time-limited confidentiality).
Resolve the conflict between confidentiality and the Commission’s express authority in NRS 116.615(2) “to do all things necessary and convenient” to carry out Chapter 116 .
6. Paths to Restore Transparency
To honor the Legislature’s original intent while rebuilding trust, Nevada should consider narrow statutory and procedural reforms:
Right to Summary Report. Grant complainants and respondents a concise, redacted summary of the investigative outcome, preserving witness identities and sensitive details.
Sunset Confidentiality. Limit confidentiality to a defined period (e.g., three years), after which non-sensitive records enter a public archive.
Commission Review Panel. Empower a bipartisan CIC Commission subcommittee to review closed investigative files periodically for consistency and best-practices guidance.
Annual Transparency Report. Require NRED to publish aggregate statistics on investigations opened, closed, and escalated to formal complaints—while maintaining individual privacy.
Harmonize with NRS 116A.270. Import the limited-disclosure carve-out from manager-licensing investigations to ensure HOA investigations receive similar inter-agency scrutiny.
7. Conclusion: Balancing Accountability
NRS 116.757’s broad confidentiality provisions were enacted with laudable goals: protect cooperation, safeguard reputations, and focus on enforcement rather than public spectacle. Yet, when confidentiality becomes a permanent secrecy wall—reinforced by the Director’s Memo and unchallenged by the Commission—it erodes public confidence and invites allegations of capture. By pursuing a formal AG opinion, empaneling oversight bodies, and adopting targeted reforms, Nevada can reclaim the right balance: investigations that both respect privacy AND earn the public confidence essential to fair, effective HOA governance.
________________________
revised 10/31/25
