Understanding Nevada’s HOA Recall Process

Homeowners sometimes reach the point where frustration with an HOA board member turns into a more serious question: Can this person be removed from the board before the next election?

In Nevada, the answer is yes. But it is not accomplished by a show of hands at a meeting, by a petition alone, or by a majority of the homeowners who are angry enough to speak up. Nevada law creates a specific removal process, and homeowners considering a recall need to understand the rules before they begin.*

Under Nevada law, what homeowners often call a “recall” is technically a removal election under NRS 116.31036. That statute allows an owner-elected executive board member to be removed with or without cause, notwithstanding anything in the declaration or bylaws to the contrary. The statute does not apply to board members appointed by the declarant.

That “notwithstanding” language matters. Some governing documents, especially older bylaws, may still contain recall language requiring a two-thirds, three-fourths, or other supermajority vote at a membership meeting where a quorum is present. That language is not controlling if it conflicts with NRS 116.31036. The Legislature created a statewide statutory removal procedure, and the statute expressly applies notwithstanding contrary language in the declaration or bylaws. For owner-elected directors, the current statutory threshold is not the older bylaw threshold. Removal succeeds only if the votes in favor of removal equal at least 35 percent of the total voting members and also constitute a majority of all votes cast in the removal election.

Nevada HOA Board Recall Process

The first step is a written petition

A removal election begins with a written petition. The petition must be signed by unit owners representing at least 10 percent of the total voting members of the association, unless the association’s bylaws allow a lower percentage.

That is only the threshold to require the association to conduct the removal election. It is not the threshold needed to remove the board member.

The petition must be delivered to the executive board or the community manager by certified mail, return receipt requested, or by a process server. This delivery requirement matters. A recall group should not rely on informal delivery, email, hallway conversations, or handing a petition to someone who may later claim it was never properly received.

The association also may not adopt rules or take action that prevents or unreasonably interferes with homeowners collecting signatures for a removal petition.

The removal election must be conducted by secret ballot

Once a valid petition is received, the association must conduct the removal election by secret ballot.

The ballots must be mailed, provided, or made available to owners not less than 15 days and not more than 60 days after the petition is received. Owners must then be given at least 15 days after the ballot is mailed, provided, or made available to return the ballot.

There is an important timing point here. The statute does not separately say that the ballot-return deadline must be set within a fixed number of days after ballots are sent. It gives owners a minimum return period of at least 15 days. But the return deadline is still indirectly limited because the meeting to open, count, and announce the ballots must occur not more than 15 days after the ballot-return deadline and not later than 90 days after the petition was received.

In practical terms, the association cannot set a return deadline so far out that the ballot-counting meeting would occur outside the 90-day statutory limit.

The ballots are counted at an association meeting

The ballots are opened and counted, or electronically reviewed and announced, at a meeting of the association. No quorum is required for that meeting.

That is an important distinction. The removal election is not defeated merely because a meeting quorum is not present. The vote turns on the statutory removal threshold, not on the usual quorum rules for a membership meeting.

Nevada law also protects the integrity of the ballot process. The board members, including the board member targeted for removal, may not possess, access, open, count, or participate in the handling of the secret ballots before they are opened and counted or electronically reviewed and announced at the meeting.

The voting threshold is the real hurdle

The hardest part of a recall is usually not getting the petition signed. The harder part is meeting Nevada’s removal threshold.

To remove a board member, the number of votes cast in favor of removal must satisfy both of the following requirements:

First, the yes votes must equal at least 35 percent of the total voting members of the association.

Second, the yes votes must also be a majority of all votes cast in the removal election.

Both requirements must be met.

That means a recall can fail even if most returned ballots support removal. For example, in a 100-unit association with one vote per unit, at least 35 owners must vote yes just to satisfy the 35-percent statutory floor. If only 34 owners vote yes, the recall fails, even if every returned ballot favored removal.

But the 35-percent threshold is not always enough by itself. If 70 owners cast ballots, then 35 yes votes would not be enough because 35 is not a majority of the 70 votes cast. In that case, at least 36 yes votes would be needed.

The practical lesson is simple: a recall campaign must be built around turnout. It is not enough to collect signatures from the most frustrated owners. The recall group must make sure enough owners actually return ballots and vote in favor of removal.

The targeted board member has a right to respond

Nevada law also gives the board member who is the subject of the removal effort a procedural opportunity to respond.

Upon written request to the community manager, president, or secretary of the association, the association must notice a board meeting within 5 days. The meeting notice must identify removal of that board member as an agenda item for discussion, and the meeting must occur before the meeting where the ballots are opened and counted or electronically reviewed and announced.

This does not stop the removal election. But it does mean the targeted board member may have an opportunity to address the issue before the vote is finalized.

What happens if the recall succeeds?

If the recall succeeds, the removed director’s seat becomes vacant. The next question is who fills that vacancy, and for how long.

The controlling vacancy statute is NRS 116.3103(2)(c). That statute provides that, notwithstanding any contrary provision in the governing documents, the executive board may fill vacancies in its own membership for the unexpired portion of the term or until the next regularly scheduled election of executive board members, whichever is earlier. It further provides that if a board seat was temporarily filled by board appointment and is later filled by election, the person elected to that seat serves only the remainder of the unexpired term, not a new full term.

That statutory rule matters because a recall does not automatically install the recall group’s preferred replacement. Removal creates a vacancy. The vacancy must then be filled according to NRS 116.3103(2)(c) and any governing-document provisions that are consistent with Chapter 116.

Many HOA bylaws also contain a specific successor provision. A bylaw may provide that, in the event of the death, resignation, or removal of a director, the successor director shall be promptly elected by the members and shall serve only the unexpired term of the predecessor. The same bylaw may also provide that, until that member election occurs, the board may temporarily fill the vacancy by majority vote.

That kind of bylaw language is important. It may give owners a strong argument that the board’s appointment is temporary and that a member election should follow. Because vacancy provisions can vary, owners should read the exact bylaw language before assuming the board may simply appoint a replacement through the next regular election.

If the bylaws instead say only that the board may call a mid-cycle election, the analysis is different. “May” usually means the board has discretion. But where the bylaws say the successor shall be elected by the members, owners have a much stronger argument that the board cannot treat a temporary appointment as a substitute for the required member election.

For that reason, owners considering a recall should review the vacancy and successor provisions in their bylaws before beginning the process. The recall statute tells owners how to remove a director. NRS 116.3103(2)(c) and the association’s bylaws determine what happens next. A successful recall removes the director, but the replacement process may still require a separate member election, and any successor should serve only the remainder of the removed director’s unexpired term.

Recalls succeed or fail on turnout.

Practical advice before starting a recall

Most boards are understandably resistant to recalls. A recall challenges a director’s continued authority and may also challenge the board’s broader legitimacy. Owners should therefore expect the association, manager, or counsel to scrutinize the petition, signatures, timing, ballot process, and vacancy procedure closely.

For that reason, owners should not begin casually. They should confirm the total number of voting members, calculate both the petition threshold and the removal threshold, collect more signatures than the minimum required, and deliver the petition by the method required in NRS 116.31036. They should keep copies of everything, including the petition, signature pages, proof of delivery, notices, correspondence, and ballot-counting information.

Owners should also review the bylaws before the recall begins. The recall statute determines how a director is removed, but the bylaws may address what happens after removal. If the bylaws say the successor director shall be promptly elected by the members, owners should be prepared to insist that any board appointment is only temporary until that member election occurs.

Most importantly, owners should plan for turnout. The petition starts the process, but it does not remove the director. Removal requires yes votes equal to at least 35 percent of the total voting members and also a majority of all votes cast. In many associations, recalls fail because too few owners return ballots, not because the incumbent has broad support.

Finally, owners should keep the message focused. A successful recall effort usually requires more than anger. It requires a clear explanation of why removal is necessary, careful compliance with the statute, and enough homeowner participation to meet Nevada’s demanding removal threshold.

The bottom line

Nevada homeowners have a statutory right to remove an owner-elected HOA board member with or without cause. But the process is formal, time-sensitive, and turnout-dependent.

The petition starts the process. The secret ballot decides it. The 35-percent threshold and majority-of-votes-cast requirement determine whether removal succeeds. And the bylaws often determine what happens next.

A recall can be an important accountability tool. But like most HOA rights, it only works when homeowners understand the process and participate in sufficient numbers to make the right meaningful.

_________________________

* This article is for general educational purposes and is not legal advice. Homeowners should review NRS 116.31036, NRS 116.3103, their association’s bylaws, and any election-related rules before beginning a recall effort.