πŸ’¬ Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.

Create Free Account β†’

⚑ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

DaveP7 (Nevada)
Posts: 3
Posted:
Thank you in advance for reading and responses. I searched for 2 hours and could not find any discussions like this scenario?

History:
- Nevada community of 300+ executive stucco/tile single family homes avg. 3000-4600sq.
- Strictly enforced CCR's like no street parking, no weeds, maintaining front developer provided landscaping and ascetics, backyards to be landscaped with in 12 months, recreational vehicles to be stored in enclosed additional structure(RV garages matching main structure), blah, blah, blah, you get the drift...

2017 ARC Section 13 state (also CCR Section30):, "... owners are responsible to properly and attractively landscape all portions of his front, side and rear yards visible from the streets adjacent to his Lot."

Further, CCR 1(f) (fences) states: "Portions of a Lot full surrounded by a full enclosed structure whose design and materials are first approved by the Committee shall be considered "not visible to others" as used." (BOD authorized HOA funds to receive counsel interpretation for 1(f). Counsel clarified to BOD in private, but in next HOA open meeting the BOD declined to tell the HO counsels interpretation. BOD stated counsel was private to BOD, to not share with HO...) QUESTION 1: Is that acceptable for BOD to receive attorney client privilege with HOA funds?

So, HO rear Lots could be visible to Shaq and even Danny Devito from adjacent streets, thus some HO could then be in violation for weeds, unapproved rock color or whatever, where flatter HO Lots fly under the radar.
QUESTION 2: Are flat Lots exempt and sloped backyards open to this scrutiny?
TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,062
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By DaveP7 on 05/24/2017 7:52 PM

QUESTION 1: Is that acceptable for BOD to receive attorney client privilege with HOA funds?

In my opinion, Yes.

Keep in mind that the attorney represents the Association, a separate entity.
The homeowners are members of the Association.
The Board, elected by the members, run the Association.

Similar to individuals who own stock within a company not being entitled to view any legal advice given to that company, members of an Association are also not entitled to view legal advice provided to the Association unless the Board decides to disclose it.

However, in reviewing the applicable statutes, one could argue against this opinion (but would require a ruling of a court to decide):

NRS 116.31175

Quote:
Posted By DaveP7 on 05/24/2017 7:52 PM

QUESTION 2: Are flat Lots exempt and sloped backyards open to this scrutiny?

Yes and No.

I would suspect, based on the information you provided, that the attorney's opinion was that if the rear yard is enclosed with a fence, it is considered not visible. It's likely that the Board didn't like that opinion and chose not to disclose it.

Opinions are, of course, simply opinions. They may be used or ignored.
Until someone requests a ruling from a court on what the document means, each Board is free to interpret said document as they desire.

You may simply want to gather support and get yourself (or perhaps a group of individuals who think the same way) elected to the board. This would allow you access to the legal opinions and be part of the decision process in determining if you want to make such opinions public knowledge to your membership.
MarkM31 (Washington)
Posts: 494
Posted:
No, all back yards need to be either well kept or fenced. Chose one.
DaveP7 (Nevada)
Posts: 3
Posted:
Thanks TimB4

MarkM31, all back yards have 6' perimeter fences. Some HO have weeds, hidden trailers, etc. But HO with flatter lots are not "visible" from adjacent streets. Is it fair that HO with sloping lots haver greater scrutiny and for example require additional ARC approval for backyard rock colors, etc. while others do not? "Visible" seems subjective in this case?
TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,062
Posted:
Dave,

Life isn't fair.

What you described is how your Board has chosen to act.

Therefore, in reality, your options are:

1) Live with it(which can include grumbling or not).
2) Gather support and vote individuals (perhaps you) onto the Board that will act differently
3) Challenge the boards actions through the courts (but talk with an attorney first)
4) Move

Finding others on the internet who agree with you or disagree with you isn't going to change your options.
MarkM31 (Washington)
Posts: 494
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By TimB4 on 05/24/2017 10:20 PM
Dave,

Life isn't fair.


That
DaveP7 (Nevada)
Posts: 3
Posted:
TimB4, MarkM31,

Thank you for your input. I'm not one with a sloping lot. But since I've joined the ARC, I better understand issues I'm faced with others: "visible," from adjacent streets, opinions/interpretations, counsel, courts. Again, thanks.
GwenG (Florida)
Posts: 669
Posted:
Yes and NO

Of course the board can get Legal Opinions, but any legal opinion worth anything should be in writing. Owners should DEMAND their board to share that opinion with owners.

Issues involving litigation should not be accessible to owners.

Is there anything in the minutes referencing this consultation?

Make a written Official Records request and see if the opinion was provided in writing. If there is no written opinion, ask the a detailed summary of the verbal opinion.

The NO is because I believe the courts would find the Board to be overreaching and discriminatory to lots who, by topography, were particularly vulnerable to being seen and there is no reference to this unique condition in the ARC. The ARC language is only qualified by Full Enclosure. If the lots comply with Full Enclosure, the remaining language as to "properly and attractively landscape" is too vague to enforce compliance.

What would the HOA have them do--build a dome over the property? Maybe petition the county to re-route the roads? Ridiculous!
TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,062
Posted:
You don't need opinions.

Simply follow your governing documents which specify (per your citation):

Portions of a Lot full surrounded by a full enclosed structure whose design and materials are first approved by the Committee shall be considered "not visible to others".

Hence, if the lot is fenced, it's considered not seen.
Use that section of the governing documents as your basis for not finding violations and explain that if the Board (or other committee members) desire the yards receive violations, explain that they will need to amend the governing documents or obtain a legal opinion on that section.
PitA
Posts: 1,416
Posted:
question 1 = YES

question 2 = non sequitor (if fully fenced they are DEEMED to be 'not visible ...')

🎯 You've read this entire discussion

Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:

  • βœ“ Ask follow-up questions
  • βœ“ Share your experience
  • βœ“ Get expert advice
  • βœ“ Access 350,000 discussions
Create Free Account β†’

⚑ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in here