The ArrowCreek Homeowners Association Board of Directors and the Governing Documents Committee have been working to get the Governing Documents (CC&Rs and Bylaws) amended to comply with current Nevada statutes, deletion of developer, ADRC revisions, and potential changes related to the land acquisition Ballot Proposition.
In a recent Governing Documents Committee meeting, a question regarding the PURPOSE OF ARROWCREEK ASSOCIATION as defined in the Articles and in the CC&R’s was raised by a homeowner.
At the request of the Board, Counsel issued an Opinion that states the draft CC&R’s are in compliance with the Articles and Nevada law.
Based upon NRS 82.121(1) and NRS 116.1206(1)(a) the ArrowCreek Homeowners Association, Inc. does not need to amend the Articles of Incorporation purpose section to mirror the purpose section within the CC&Rs.
Here is The Purpose of the ArrowCreek HOA 10-29-15 Legal Opinion document.
Wonder how much the one-sided opinion cost us homeowners. For all we know the attorney giving the option could be a member of FOA. How would we know any different since it is a well kept secret. We need to stop this madness.
It is interesting to note that the Law Firm issuing the above opinion is the same one that stated the original Lease Agreement entered into between the Somersett Owners Association (SOA) and the Somersett Country Club (SCC) without a homeowner vote or CC&R Modification was permissible. However, after a Complaint was filed with the Nevada Real Estate Division, The Nevada Attorney General’s office (In a draft complaint against the Somersett Board) ruled that homeowner vote and CC&R Modifications were required. The net result was that a new SCC agreement and CC&R Modifications were developed and subsequently passed by homeowner vote. For good or bad remains to be seen. Legal opinions are just that, opinions. Suffice it to also say that most legal opinions by law firms are written to favor their clients, some prevail and some do not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Common elements” means just that, common, i.e. each resident has the same privilege to use them, does it not? Hence, it seems that a purchase of the golf course, whose use is limited to those residents who pay additional fees, is not a “common element” like the streets or residents club, but rather something else. Therefore, the contemplated purchase of the golf course is not authorized as a “common element” purchase.
LikeLiked by 1 person