Homeowners have right to see HOA financial records

Q: I am a homeowner that requested a report on the credit card the homeowners association had for many years. The homeowners were never apprised that there was a credit card being used. We don’t know what it was used for or from what account it was paid from. I requested to have a printout of this account at our next homeowners meeting. I was denied and was told to come to the office for this information. I don’t want to go to the office, I want all homeowners to get this information. By the way we have not received a financial report this year. Please advise. Thank you for being there for us homeowners.

A: Per Nevada Revised Statute 116.31175 (1a), upon written request, you are entitled to receive financial statements from your association. Please send a formal specific request of what financial statements that you would like to receive.

As to the charge card, most likely any operating expenses would just show up on financial statements as if a check were cut. For example, if the credit card was used to purchase some equipment online or was to pay for a repair, the financial reports would show these entries under the appropriate expense category and payments would show under the credit card category.

Both under NRS 116.31175 and NRS 116.3118, the association shall make available records for review at the managing office which in your

case would include the charge card purchases.

Q: I am a member of a HOA. The community manager is the management trust. We recently held board director elections. There were four vacancies. Two were for two-year terms and two were for one-year terms. There were six candidates, four of whom were incumbents.

The four incumbents had the highest number of ballots. I was in fifth place in ballot count and lost by three votes.

I am requesting a recount due to the closeness of election. I am also requesting that the vote be invalidated for at least one incumbent, or all, as the candidate nomination form appears to have misdirected (I believe purposely) voters.

The following was clearly stated on the directions for filling out the ballot:

Candidates were limited to approximately five lines of 50 words or less on the forms. The two nonincumbent candidates adhered to these specific directives and submitted

candidate nomination forms per instructions. The four incumbents added an additional sheet that contained up to 500 words. This was in total disregard for specific instructions that the management trust had written on directions. These incumbents were re-elected and it appears they were given or had foreknowledge to disregard what directions were given on the candidates nomination form.

Upon my review following the election I believe the cover sheet was in violation of Nevada statutes and had an impact on election results.

Additionally, on the conflict of interest section an incumbent left totally blank that section. This disclosure is required by Nevada statute and yet the incumbent’s nomination form was not invalidated or corrected prior to mailing. This, I believe, is in violation of Nevada statute. Due to this egregious error the election results were changed.

I am requesting your response as it certainly feels that the two nonincumbents have been unfairly and unjustly disadvantaged in trying to serve our community.

I would hope that some sort of remedy would result from what I

consider an invalid election. If not, I would hope that homeowners in HOA communities are made aware of ways to prevent these injustices from happening.

A: You believe votes in a recent election should be invalidated. According to you, the candidates were limited to approximately five lines of 50 words or less on the form. Two of the nonincumbent candidates adhered to these specific directors, while the incumbents who were re-elected submitted an additional sheet that contained up to 500 words.

In smaller print on the very last line of the candidacy disclosure statement the candidates received, it stated: “Any additional information provided by the candidate for the executive board is voluntary and is not a requirement under NRS 116.31034.”

Under NRS 116.31034 subsection 17, a candidate is allowed to submit to the board a single typed page with additional information to be included in the ballot mailing.

I would agree with you that the association could have been more explicit as to explaining the “additional information” that a candidate could provide, but I would state that

a candidate running for the board also could have contacted the association for clarification.

As to leaving blank the sections pertaining to conflicts of interest, unfortunately, the current state laws do not allow an association for disqualifying that candidate. I have long been an advocate that this section of the law, NRS 116.31034, subsection 9a-b, needs to be changed. If the homeowner does not answer the sections pertaining to conflict of interest or does not disclose that they are in good standing with the association, the homeowner should not be allowed to be on the ballot.

Even if the association is aware the candidate is not disclosing their conflict of interest or is misleading the homeowners that they are a member in good standing, the association is still not allowed to state that in the election materials.

You can submit a formal complaint with the Nevada Real Estate Division, but I do not believe you have a strong case.