Ruling Makes General Manager
Personally Responsible for Actions Despite Association Attorney Advice
In a hearing before the Common Interest Community Commission today, the defendant was a general manager employed by a homeowners association.
The Commission determined that there were violations of law by the General Manager and likely, the Board of Directors.
The defense argued the association attorney advised them to act accordingly, which they did.
The Commission rejected that argument stating the General Manager was accountable...
...and liable for violations of law no matter what the association attorney advised them.
In our opinion, this ruling makes it evident that any General Manager should be careful about blindly accepting legal advice from an association attorney.
If it is bad advice, those parties can and will be held accountable for such actions.
In the respective case (which we will not disclose), the General Manager was fined $10,000 and costs, adding an additional $9,700...
....to be paid personally.
It was learned that the HOA involved was SELF-MANAGED and included approximately 1,300 homes.
Got a comment? Send it to us at:
This is all well and good.....but WHEN will the State of Nevada get around to the SCA complaints????
As an aside, I wonder how much that General Manager (fined $10,000 + $9,700) earns in his/her position.....undoubtedly our Manager would have received yet another "bonus" to cover the expense.
Your question as to "when" is certainly a good one. That is up to the Ombudsman and Nevada Real Estate Division, but all the complaints must be heard.
As we previously wrote, there is nothing that can be accomplished until the proper authorities come to a decision on the NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS that have been filed.
What cannot be denied is that over 1,200 unit owners voted to rid themselves of individuals they considered obstructions to the well-being of Sun City Anthem under the most adverse and in the opinion of many, the most DECEPTIVE and COSTLY election practices in the history of our association...
...without even an ETHICAL if not LEGAL requirement to inform a community a Removal election even existed.
Those who opposed the recall continue to blame the proponents for the high cost despite their refusal to acknowledge the decision to spend such an outrageous sum was the result of advice from an Association Attorney combined with that of a General Manager, and APPROVED by a Board with a history of SPENDING WASTE.
As the saying goes, "you can fool some of the people some of the time; some of the people all of the time, but not all of the people all of the time".
We shall see the result of those actions as time proceeds, especially if those who escaped removal...and one who may still face it, as a result of a faulty petition count that leaves little doubt as the inaccuracy of the results produced by the CPA firm ... an inaccuracy that is the subject of a formal complaint and cannot be denied following the unquestionable facts presented in the complaint.
It certainly would be interesting if a ruling determined that the General Manager would be responsible for the costs.
If a Board decided to reimburse her, that would first be an illegal act, and likely create further chaos in our community.
It would be an act of such arrogance that there would be little doubt as to allegations of Board impropriety.