2.     When considering SCA disclosures, combined with the SCA contracts, Board agendas, and minutes that SCA withheld from discovery, no material facts are disputed that would prevent the court providing Tobin equitable relief from a foreclosure sale that was unfair and oppressive.

1.     In SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 130 Nev., Adv. Op. 75, 334 P.3d 408 (2014), court held that HOA lien is split into super-priority and sub-priority. The lien is split, and a proper foreclosure of the super-priority piece extinguishes the first deed of trust.

2.     The Nevada Supreme Court in which unequivocally held in Horizons at Seven Hills Homeowners Association v. Ikon Holdings, LLC, that an HOA’s super-priority lien does not include interest, collection costs, or other fees.

3.     On August 11, 2016, in Stone Hollow Avenue Trust v. Bank of America, N.A.¸ the Nevada Supreme Court held that a mortgagee’s tender to the HOA of the super-priority amount of the HOA’s lien extinguishes the super-priority lien, even if the HOA wrongfully rejects the tender.

4.     In Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Saticoy Bay LLC Series 2227 Shadow Canyon“, the NV Supreme Court found on November 22, 2017, “where inadequacy of the price is great, a court may grant relief based on slight evidence of fraud, unfairness, or oppression.” price is wholly irrelevant. To the contrary, Golden recognized that the price/fair-market-value disparity is a relevant consideration because a wide disparity may require less evidence of fraud, unfairness, or oppression to justify setting aside the sale:

[I]t is universally recognized that inadequacy of price is a circumstance of greater or less weight to be considered in connection with other circumstances impeaching the fairness of the transaction as a cause of vacating it, and that, where the inadequacy is palpable and great, very slight additional evidence of unfairness or irregularity is sufficient to authorize the granting of the relief sought.

5.     Golden v. Tomiyasu, 79 Nev. 503, 514, 387 P.2d 989, 995 (1963), upheld a sale with a purchase price that was 29 percent of fair market value, finding no reason to invalidate a "'legally made'" sale absent actual evidence of fraud, unfairness, or oppression.

6.     Shadow Wood, 132 Nev., Adv. Op. 5, 366 P.3d at 1112 on January 28, 2016, the NV Supreme Court set aside a sale for equitable principles, reaffirmed its holding on the nine-month super=priority HOA lien, and held that a lender that obtains title to property is responsible for pays HOA assessments which become due after it takes title.

a.     The property was sold to a non-bona fide purchaser, Thomas Lucas, a Realtor in the listing office, without notice to any party with a known interest, including the owner, the lender, the listing agent, or the bona fide purchaser with a pending offer, or any SCA member

                                               i.     Nationstar’s claims to be the noteholder are provably false, and its mortgaging servicing fraud was a proximate cause of the HOA not being paid out of escrow as Tobin intended

                                             ii.     Plaintiff Jimijack’s claim to taking title on June 9, 2015 is an inadmissible fraudulently-executed and notarized quit claim deed that is contradicted by the HOA’s ownership record that shows Jimijack became the second owner of the property on September 25, 2014, and

5.     SCA Board abdicated control over assessment collections, control over HOA deposits and bank accounts, and enforcement of the governing documents

a.     SCA agents have usurped the authority of the Board to be unjustly enriched by charging unauthorized fees and engaging in predatory collection practices.

6.     SCA sanctioned Tobin without providing the due process required by NRS 116.31031, NRS 116.31085, CC&Rs 7.4, SCA bylaws 3.26, and the Resolution Establishing the Policy and Procedures for Enforcement of the Governing Documents, adopted November 17, 2011.[1]

a.     These laws require specific notices: a notice of alleged violation, an opportunity to correct, a notice of hearing, an opportunity to request an open hearing, a notice of sanction, opportunity to appeal to the Board.

b.     SCA failed to provide any of these notices to Tobin prior to prematurely sending the account to collections, prior to posting the property for sale, prior to selling the property.

7.     Board actions to impose harsh sanctions against Tobin up to and including foreclosure for alleged, but untried, violations in meetings non-compliant with NRS 116.31083 and NRS 116.31085 render the actions taken void.

8.     SCA fraudulent concealment and actions against Tobin designed to evade its obligations violated NRS 116.1113, NRS 116.31175, NRS. 116.31085, NRS 116.31065 and constituted harassment (NRS 116.31084) and retaliation (NRS 16.31083).

2.     SCA 519[3] shows that on April 30, 2013, RRFS insisted that BANA pay $2,904.26, to cure the existing nine-month delinquency, considerably more than the super-priority portion of the HOA lien of $825 required to pay nine months of assessments then delinquent.

7.     There is no record that RRFS informed the SCA Board of Nationstar’s $1,100 offer of three months assessments more than the super-priority amount required.

8.     The Ombudsman’s official record of SCA’s Lien date, Notice of Default, Notice of Sale and Resolution, (Tobin 80)[6] reports that the following specific actions or omissions were in violation of the NRS 116.31162-NRS 116.31164 Notice of Sale process.

10.  The Ombudsman’s Notice of Sale Compliance Screen reports that the following specific actions or omissions were in violation of the NRS 116.31162-NRS 116.31164 Notice of Sale:

11.  RRFS did not distribute the proceeds of the sale in the manner proscribed in NRS 116.31164(3)(c) except for $2,701.04 to pay SCA in full, as entered on August 27, 2014. (Resident Transaction Report page 1336)[7]

13.  SCA 643 [8]discloses the first notice, dated 9/17/12, SCA claims was sent to Gordon Hansen, regarding the alleged violation of delinquent assessments.

14.  According to SCA 415, “Red Rock Financial Services (RRFS) Homeowner Progress Report Progress Notes”, on September 13, 2012, “Account sent to RRFS to start the collection process”

15.  SCA’s initial collection action, SCA CAM’s referral of the account to RRFS to start the collection process occurred on September 13, 2012, 45 days past the past due date.

17.  In 2013, per SCA 520[9], RMI Management, LLC, SCA’s Community Association Manager (CAM), was doing business as (d/b/a ) Red Rock Financial Services and directly receiving all the funds collected as SCA’s debt collector.

1.     NRS 116.3102(m) gives an HOA Board the power to sanction an owner for an alleged violation of the governing documents only if the Board provides the owner who is to be sanctioned the notice and due process delineated in NRS 116.31031.

      (a) Consult with the attorney for the association on matters relating to proposed or pending litigation if the contents of the discussion would otherwise be governed by the privilege set forth in NRS 49.035 to 49.115, inclusive.

      4.  An executive board shall meet in executive session to hold a hearing on an alleged violation of the governing documents unless the person who may be sanctioned for the alleged violation requests in writing that an open hearing be conducted by the executive board. If the person who may be sanctioned for the alleged violation requests in writing that an open hearing be conducted, the person:

      (b) Is entitled to due process, as set forth in the standards adopted by regulation by the Commission, which must include, without limitation, the right to counsel, the right to present witnesses and the right to present information relating to any conflict of interest of any member of the hearing panel; and

5.     SCA never published any Board agenda for open or executive session that listed an item naming Gordon Hansen, the Estate of Gordon Hansen or Nona Tobin, executor of the estate of Gordon Hansen, as an owner who was to be discussed by the Board for possible sanction for the alleged violation of delinquent assessments.

7.     SCA never published any agenda for any Board meeting, whether open or closed executive session, that listed an item notifying all members of the Association that the SCA Board intended to vote at that particular Board meeting to authorize an SCA agent to publish a Notice of Sale to sell 2763 White Sage Drive at 10 A.M., March 7, 2014, at the front entrance of the Nevada Legal News located at 930 South Fourth Street, Las Vegas NV 89101.

8.     SCA never published any agenda for any Board meeting, whether open or closed executive session, that listed an item notifying all members of the Association that the SCA Board intended to vote at that particular Board meeting to authorize an SCA agent to publish a Notice of Sale to sell 2763 White Sage Drive.

9.     2763 White Sage Drive was sold on August 15, 2014 as a sanction for the alleged violation of delinquent assessments without any official action of the Board.

10.  The Board did not provide the notice or due process required by NRS 116.31031 and NRS 116.31085(4) prior to imposing the sanction of foreclosure on the owner of 2763 White Sage Drive.

11.  The Board never offered the executor of the estate of Gordon Hansen a hearing or the opportunity to request a hearing or any of the due process required by NRS 116.31085(4)

4.  An executive board shall meet in executive session to hold a hearing on an alleged violation of the governing documents unless the person who may be sanctioned for the alleged violation requests in writing that an open hearing be conducted by the executive board. If the person who may be sanctioned for the alleged violation requests in writing that an open hearing be conducted, the person:

      (b) Is entitled to due process, as set forth in the standards adopted by regulation by the Commission, which must include, without limitation, the right to counsel, the right to present witnesses and the right to present information relating to any conflict of interest of any member of the hearing panel; and

“Your request for the “minutes where actions leading o foreclosure for delinquent assessment(s) was approved for 2763 White Sage” cannot be fulfilled since those minutes are Executive Session minutes and not privy to the anyone except the Board. The only time Executive Session minutes are released to a homeowner is if a hearing was held and then, only that portion of the meeting minutes is provided.”

13.           No SCA Board minutes have been published, meeting the standards of NRS 116.31083(9) that document a Board action to approve any sanction against the owner of 2763 White Sage Drive for the alleged violation of delinquent assessments.

      (e) The substance of remarks made by any unit’s owner who addresses the executive board at the meeting if the unit’s owner requests that the minutes reflect his or her remarks or, if the unit’s owner has prepared written remarks, a copy of his or her prepared remarks if the unit’s owner submits a copy for inclusion.

6.  Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, any matter discussed by the executive board when it meets in executive session must be generally noted in the minutes of the meeting of the executive board. If the executive board holds a meeting limited exclusively to an executive session pursuant to paragraph (c) or (d) of subsection 3, at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the executive board, the executive board shall acknowledge that the executive board met in accordance with paragraph (c) or (d) of subsection 3, as applicable, and include such an acknowledgment in the minutes of the meeting at which the acknowledgment was made. The executive board shall maintain minutes of any decision made pursuant to subsection 4 concerning an alleged violation and, upon request, provide a copy of the decision to the person who was subject to being sanctioned at the hearing or to the person’s designated representative.

15.  The property was sold on August 15, 2014, but there was no official, compliant Board action to authorize the sale in any Board minutes before that date.

16.  There are no Board minutes that show the Board ever informed Tobin or anyone else in the membership that this property had been on August 15, 2014 or ever.

17.  There is no record that SCA foreclosed on this property in the Resident Transaction Report which purports to be the complete record of financial transactions related this property.

21.           Item R05 – 120513 was UPON motion duly made by Dan Forgeron and James Mayfield, the Board unanimously voted to refer the bids to the Reserve Study group for analysis and recommendation presented at the January 23, 2014 regular Board meeting.”

22.           Attachment 1 to the December 5, 2013 Board minutes, the President’s Report, page 9 of 11 has the only reference to foreclosures but it does not say that 2763 White Sage was approved for foreclosure or anything of the kind.

“At each executive session, your Board considers appropriate action regarding homeowners in our community who fall behind in paying their assessments. Last month, we took action to foreclose on the liens of five properties, and this month, at this afternoon's session we considered other seriously delinquent accounts. It is important to note that the vast majority of our neighbors meet their financial responsibilities to the Association. There are a very few, however, who do not. As I stated in the President's Report in this month's Spirit, we believe that it is not in the best interests of our Association for your Board to sit back and allow certain homeowners to continually neglect their financial responsibilities to our neighbors. I am pleased to report that of the five homes the Board took action on in October, at least one has paid their balance in full. We also determined that another home was foreclosed on by the City of Henderson. The Association did not and will not receive any funds as a result.” – Jean Capillupo, Board President

“At today’s our Board considered two requests for payment plans of delinquent assessments or waivers of fees and/or fines. We approved foreclosure proceedings on five properties and took no action on bad debt.”

Our Board continues to work through member accounts that are in serious arrears. We have taken action to foreclose on some, and continue to contact others in an attempt to bring all accounts current. When a homeowner fails to pay their authorized assessments, an added burden falls on those who do pay as they should. Our board believes it is not in the best interests of our Association to sit back and allow certain homeowners to continually neglect their financial responsibilities. As of this meeting, our Board has acted to foreclose on a total of nineteen homes and, as of this date, five have been sold at auction. On all five of those accounts, the Association was made whole and collected past due assessments, costs of collection, interest, late fees and fines. On the other homes, many owners have entered a payment plan, some have paid the amounts due in full and some have been foreclosed on by other entities such as a mortgage holder or the City of Henderson. As I mentioned above, our Board does not take these actions easily. We initiate several contacts with homeowners throughout to make sure they understand the consequences of nonpayment. The Board conducts hearings, offers payment plans and otherwise acts to encourage and allow homeowners to pay their just debt to the Association. As I mentioned above, our Board does not take these actions easily. We initiate several contacts with homeowners throughout to make sure they understand the consequences of nonpayment. The Board conducts hearings, offers payment plans and otherwise acts to encourage and allow homeowners to pay their just debt to the Association.

25.  The August 21 BOD minutes, less than a week after Tobin’s property had been sold, the only reference to foreclosures in general was in the president’s report attachment which stated

President's Report "At today's executive session, our Board reviewed incident reports that may result in insurance claims, properties on which foreclosure action was taken in the past and others that may come to foreclosure in the near future. We considered write off of debt in the amount of $751.49 from two properties, one that was foreclosed on by the lender and the other amount was the outcome of a payment plan.

President's Report "At today's executive session, our Board reviewed incident reports that may result in insurance claims, properties on which foreclosure action was taken in the past and others that may come to foreclosure in the near future. We considered write off of debt in the amount of $751.49 from two properties, one that was foreclosed on by the lender and the other amount was the outcome of a payment plan.

There were no write off of bad debts at the September 18, 2014 Executive Session. At the executive session, the Board considered or reviewed payment plans on six properties, reviewed accounts on properties that have been foreclosed on and considered foreclosure on others, and reviewed incidents that may result in insurance claims and certain legal issues before the Association.

In the October 21, 2014 President’s Report, “At the Executive session earlier today, our Board reviewed three requests for waivers of late fees and other charges, accounts of properties that may be foreclosed on, and insurance claims and accident reports.”

28.  SCA did not release ANY information about what owners are delinquent, despite the SCA bylaws 3.21 (f)(v) requirement for the manager to report delinquent owners by name at an open Board meeting each quarter when an assessment installment is due.

30.  SCA refused to provide Tobin, a sanctioned owner, with minutes of any meeting at which the Board decided to impose any sanction related to imposing unauthorized collection fines, posting the property for sale, or foreclosure against her related to the alleged violation of delinquent assessments

31.  SCA does not control or keep any record of the proceeds of a foreclosure sale despite the SCA bylaws prohibition against delegating control over those funds to a manager or a debt collector.

32.  The President stated “The Board conducts hearings, offers payment plans and otherwise acts to encourage and allow homeowners to pay their just debt to the Association.”.

33.  If so, the Board’s failure to offer Tobin a hearing or a payment plan, or conduct a hearing at which Tobin could defend herself as required by NRS 116.31085, violated NRS 116.31065 (5) which states:

“The rules adopted by an association: Must be uniformly enforced under the same or similar circumstances against all units’ owners. Any rule that is not so uniformly enforced may not be enforced against any unit’s owner.

34.           It is SCA’s practice to take actions related to foreclosures, the most severe and harshly disproportionate of all possible sanctions, in unnoticed, closed meetings without the accused owner’s knowledge.

35.           The report of the Board’s actions does not appear in the regular Board meeting minutes where all motions must be duly made and seconded, the Board member named who makes the motion and the name of the one who seconds it, and the vote of each director by name must be recorded.

36.           The decision to confiscate an owner’s property is reported in a vague fashion in an oral report by the Board President that is attached in writing to the minutes at a later time.

37.           There is no record of any SCA Board action, or the vote of individual directors, made at a duly called meeting, at which the decision to sanction Tobin with foreclosure for the alleged violation of delinquent assessments.

2.              RRFS credited the payment in its account to fees and other charges rather than as $275 of assessments and $25 authorized late fee that would cure the delinquency of the assessments for the quarter ending September 30, 2012.

3.              SCA643 is the first notice, that SCA claims it sent to Tobin regarding the delinquency was dated September 17, 2012, from RRFS, and not from SCA.

4.              Section 14 Assignment of Account to Designated Collection Agent does not permit SCA to assign an account to collections SCA was not authorized to assign the account to collections less than 30 days after the date of September 17, 2012 Notice of Intent, i.e., October 17, 2012.

5.              SCA643 is the first notice, that SCA claims it sent regarding the delinquency, was dated September 17, 2012.SCA turned the account over to collections on September 13, 2012 (SCA 415), four days before the September 17, 2012 Notice of Intent.

6.              SCA initiated collection action without providing a schedule of fees, a disclosure and payment plan, as required by section 12 Disclosure and Payment Plan

7.              SCA imposed the sanction of foreclosure on August 15, 2014, suspending (revoking) all membership privileges permanently for delinquent assessments without affording the owner a hearing guaranteed by Contrary to Section 24, Suspension of Privilege.

12.           SCA 613 disclosed the Resident Transaction Report, dated 12/5/12, applied $25 installment late fee on 7/31/12, 8/31/12, 9/31/12, and 11/30/12 instead of just on 7/31/12 for the late fee for the quarter of 7/1/12 through 12/31/12.

13.           After $1.21 interest was added, the Resident Transaction Report, dated 12/5/12, showed an account balance of $376.21 on November 30, 2012, which exceed the $275 of assessments and $25 late for the quarter by $75 for three additional late fees charged in excess of the late fee authorized by section 7.

14.           SCA 625 disclosed RRFS ledger, dated November 5, 2012, showed that check 143 for $300 was applied on October 18, 2012 as “Red Rock Partial Payment”.

15.           RRFS applied “a payment of an assessment from a unit’s owner towards any fine, fee or other charge that is due”, on October 18, 2012, Section 15 Acceptance of Payment requirements.

17.           SCA did not apply the “Check for $300 HOA dues” enclosed with Tobin’s October 3, 2012 letter (SCA 633) to “SCAHOA” as Tobin requested, i.e., to pay “Delinquent HOA Dues for 2763 White Sage”.

19.           SCA 625 shows SCA did not comply with NRS 116A.640(8) in that SCA’s agent intentionally applied a payment of an assessment from a unit’s owner towards any fine, fee or other charge that is due.

20.           SCA charged Costs of Collection that were not “reasonable” as required by section 9 in that the recorded lien demanded $625.76 more in fees than were authorized by section 7

21.           SCA recorded a lien on December 12, 2012, that claimed that as of December 5, 2012 $925.76 was due and owing when only $275 assessments were delinquent and a $25 was the only authorized late fee pursuant to section 7.

23.           Neither SCA nor RRFS disclosed any documents that would show quarterly statements were sent to Tobin after January 31, 2012 which is the normal way an owner would know that a payment had not been received or that a creditor was adding fees.

26.           RRFS recorded a lien on December 12, 2012, that claimed that as of December 5, 2012 $925.76 was due and owing, $625.76 in excess of the $300 assessments and late fee authorized by section 7 as due and owing to SCA. (SCA 595)

28.           SCA 278, a blank unsigned “Payment Agreement Request Form” does not constitute proof that the owner the “Disclosure and Payment Plan” delineated in Section 12.

30.           September 17, 2017 was 49 days beyond the “past due” date of July 30, 2012, on which a $25 late fee was authorized by SCA Delinquent Assessment Policy #7.

8.              Nationstar cancelled the escrow on the $340,000 march 4, 2014 purchase offer when escrow opened for MZK’s “winning” bid of $367,500 on May 8, 2014.

13.           Tobin was out of state at her sister’s deathbed and Nationstar had not responded to the August 4, 2014 Blum $358,800 offer when the property was sold without notice to the listing agent, Tobin, Blum, or Nationstar,

18.           I signed on May 8, 2014 MZK RPA [12]to accept the $350,000 winning bid (+ $17,500 buyer’s premium) from the www.auction.com public auction required by Nationstar’s market validation program.

20.           The June 5, 2015 HUD-I[13] prepared by Ticor Tite shows the HA would have been paid the full $3,055.47 demanded by RRFS had the escrow for the Mazzeo $395,000 purchase offer been allowed to close by BANA.

22.           It is not reasonable to think that I had any way of knowing that somehow the HOA was surprise us by suddenly selling the house without a single word.

24.           There is no action item to approve this foreclosure in the SCA Board minutes of she HOA Board approved the 8/15/14 sale by relying solely on allegations from RRFS without permitting any representative of the owner to speak to the Board or hear its deliberations.

26.           But the Board’s approval of the sale did not occur at a properly noticed meeting compliant with NRS 116.31083 and therefore the Board’s actions are voidable.

27.           The only, and last written notice of a date of a sale was March 7, 2014. I only knew that sale date was cancelled from Craig Leidy, listing Realtor and also longtime SCA dues-paying owner.

28.           SCA 491 is the only disclosure of a notice that I signed for. Of the 108 pages of “proofs” of service supposedly for compliant notices, are deceptive.

29.           I don’t know how actions to change the date were approved as there is no record of SCA Board action in closed meetings of the Board and The last RRFS written notice I received was the 2/12/14 Notice of Sale there published a sale date on 3/7/14.

30.           Neither SCA nor RRFS provided any written or verbal notice of any postponements or cancellations to the owner either at the property or at the owner’s address of record.

31.           Per SCA MSJ, “Craig Leidy requested the HOA waive thousands of dollars off the debt. Exhibit 14. “If Tobin actually believed that payments were misapplied and it led to additional charges that discussion would have come up during the waiver of debt. The HOA did communicate that it would waive some amounts but could not grant the waiver to the extent requested.”

34.           The limit on the Board’s authority to waiver to only late fees and interest is an invention of RRFS to cover the fact that SCA Board had been tricked into believing that RRFS collection costs were whatever RRFS demanded and could not be waived.

36.           “Neither the Association nor its manager shall have the authority to waive any amounts incurred for any Collection Costs imposed by any Designated Collection Agent.”

emails about the bank stepping in if the HOA sale was really scheduled.

emails with compliance

This sale was but one example of FSR/RRFS and other HOA debt collectors predatory collection practice

legible proof of service

Notice that if the violation(s) is not cured within fourteen (14) days, or within any longer period that may be established by the Association, the violation(s) shall be deemed a continuing violation(s); and that thereafter, the Association may impose an additional fine for the violation(s) for each (seven) 7-day period or portion thereof that the violation(s) is not cured; and that any additional fine(s) may be imposed without providing the opportunity to cure the violation(s) and without the notice and an opportunity to be heard.

NRS 116.31031 Power of executive board to impose fines and other sanctions for violations of governing documents; limitations; procedural requirements; continuing violations; collection of past due fines; statement of balance owed.

1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, if a unit’s owner or a tenant or an invitee of a unit’s owner or a tenant violates any provision of the governing documents of an association, the executive board may, if the governing documents so provide:

(a) Prohibit, for a reasonable time, the unit’s owner or the tenant or the invitee of the unit’s owner or the tenant from:

(1) Voting on matters related to the common-interest community.

(2) Using the common elements. The provisions of this subparagraph do not prohibit the unit’s owner or the tenant or the invitee of the unit’s owner or the tenant from using any vehicular or pedestrian ingress or egress to go to or from the unit, including any area used for parking.

(b) Impose a fine against the unit’s owner or the tenant or the invitee of the unit’s owner or the tenant for each violation, except that:

(2) A fine may not be imposed against a unit’s owner or a tenant or invitee of a unit’s owner or a tenant for a violation of the governing documents which involves a vehicle and which is committed by a person who is delivering goods to, or performing services for, the unit’s owner or tenant or invitee of the unit’s owner or the tenant.

Ê If the violation poses an imminent threat of causing a substantial adverse effect on the health, safety or welfare of the units’ owners or residents of the common-interest community, the amount of the fine must be commensurate with the severity of the violation and must be determined by the executive board in accordance with the governing documents. If the violation does not pose an imminent threat of causing a substantial adverse effect on the health, safety or welfare of the units’ owners or residents of the common-interest community, the amount of the fine must be commensurate with the severity of the violation and must be determined by the executive board in accordance with the governing documents, but the amount of the fine must not exceed $100 for each violation or a total amount of $1,000, whichever is less. The limitations on the amount of the fine do not apply to any charges or costs that may be collected by the association pursuant to this section if the fine becomes past due.

(c) Send a written notice to cure an alleged violation, without the imposition of a fine, to the unit’s owner and, if different, the person responsible for curing the alleged violation. Any such written notice must:

(1) Include an explanation of the applicable provisions of the governing documents that form the basis of the alleged violation;

(2) Specify in detail the alleged violation and the proposed action to cure the alleged violation;

(3) Provide a clear and detailed photograph of the alleged violation, if the alleged violation relates to the physical condition of the unit or the grounds of the unit or an act or a failure to act of which it is possible to obtain a photograph; and

(4) Provide the unit’s owner or the tenant a reasonable opportunity to cure the alleged violation before the executive board may take additional actions, including, without limitation, other remedies available pursuant to this section.

2. The executive board may not impose a fine pursuant to subsection 1 against a unit’s owner for a violation of any provision of the governing documents of an association committed by an invitee of the unit’s owner or the tenant unless the unit’s owner:

(a) Participated in or authorized the violation;

(b) Had prior notice of the violation; or

(c) Had an opportunity to stop the violation and failed to do so.

3. If the association adopts a policy imposing fines for any violations of the governing documents of the association, the secretary or other officer specified in the bylaws shall prepare and cause to be hand-delivered or sent prepaid by United States mail to the mailing address of each unit or to any other mailing address designated in writing by the unit’s owner, a schedule of the fines that may be imposed for those violations.

4. The executive board may not impose a fine pursuant to subsection 1 unless:

(a) Not less than 30 days before the alleged violation, the unit’s owner and, if different, the person against whom the fine will be imposed had been provided with written notice of the applicable provisions of the governing documents that form the basis of the alleged violation; and

(b) Within a reasonable time after the discovery of the alleged violation, the unit’s owner and, if different, the person against whom the fine will be imposed has been provided with:

(1) Written notice:

(I) Specifying in detail the alleged violation, the proposed action to cure the alleged violation, the amount of the fine, and the date, time and location for a hearing on the alleged violation; and

(II) Providing a clear and detailed photograph of the alleged violation, if the alleged violation relates to the physical condition of the unit or the grounds of the unit or an act or a failure to act of which it is possible to obtain a photograph; and

(2) A reasonable opportunity to cure the alleged violation or to contest the alleged violation at the hearing.

Ê For the purposes of this subsection, a unit’s owner shall not be deemed to have received written notice unless written notice is mailed to the address of the unit and, if different, to a mailing address specified by the unit’s owner.

5. The executive board must schedule the date, time and location for the hearing on the alleged violation so that the unit’s owner and, if different, the person against whom the fine will be imposed is provided with a reasonable opportunity to prepare for the hearing and to be present at the hearing.

6. The executive board must hold a hearing before it may impose the fine, unless the fine is paid before the hearing or unless the unit’s owner and, if different, the person against whom the fine will be imposed:

(a) Executes a written waiver of the right to the hearing; or

(b) Fails to appear at the hearing after being provided with proper notice of the hearing.

7. If a fine is imposed pursuant to subsection 1 and the violation is not cured within 14 days, or within any longer period that may be established by the executive board, the violation shall be deemed a continuing violation. Thereafter, the executive board may impose an additional fine for the violation for each 7-day period or portion thereof that the violation is not cured. Any additional fine may be imposed without providing the opportunity to cure the violation and without the notice and an opportunity to be heard required by paragraph (b) of subsection 4.

8. If the governing documents so provide, the executive board may appoint a committee, with not less than three members, to conduct hearings on alleged violations and to impose fines pursuant to this section. While acting on behalf of the executive board for those limited purposes, the committee and its members are entitled to all privileges and immunities and are subject to all duties and requirements of the executive board and its members.

9. A member of the executive board shall not participate in any hearing or cast any vote relating to a fine imposed pursuant to subsection 1 if the member has not paid all assessments which are due to the association by the member. If a member of the executive board:

(a) Participates in a hearing in violation of this subsection, any action taken at the hearing is void.

(b) Casts a vote in violation of this subsection, the vote is void.

10. The provisions of this section establish the minimum procedural requirements that the executive board must follow before it may impose a fine. The provisions of this section do not preempt any provisions of the governing documents that provide greater procedural protections.

11. Any past due fine must not bear interest, but may include any costs incurred by the association during a civil action to enforce the payment of the past due fine.

12. If requested by a person upon whom a fine was imposed, not later than 60 days after receiving any payment of a fine, an association shall provide to the person upon whom the fine was imposed a statement of the remaining balance owed.

(Added to NRS by 1997, 3112; A 1999, 3001; 2003, 2228, 2268; 2005, 2592; 2009, 2797, 2880, 2913; 2011, 2431; 2013, 267; 2017, 4036)

Recorded rescission of 10/23/14 assignment MSN 407-408?