Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 116 - COMMON-INTEREST OWNERSHIP (UNIFORM ACT)

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 116.1109

Construction against implicit repeal; uniformity of application and construction

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 116.1109  Construction against implicit repeal; uniformity of application and construction.

      1.  This chapter being a general act intended as a unified coverage of its subject matter, no part of it may be construed to be impliedly repealed by subsequent legislation if that construction can reasonably be avoided.

      2.  This chapter must be applied and construed so as to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of this chapter among states enacting it.

      (Added to NRS by 1991, 541)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 2009–2019 · leading case: Boulder Oaks Community Ass'n v. B & J Andrews Enterprises, LLC
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Boulder Oaks Community Ass'n v. B & J Andrews Enterprises, LLC (2009) nev · cites it 2× “” NRS 116.1109(2). While NRS Chapter 116 generally applies to all Nevada common-interest communities, it only applies to communities containing lots reserved exclusively for nonresidential use if the declaration so provides.”
7912 Limbwood Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2013) nvd · cites it 2× “1 (1982); see also Nev.Rev.Stat. § 116.1109(2) (“This chapter must be applied and construed so as to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of this chapter among state enacting it.”
D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial District Court (2009) nev “” NRS 116.1109(2). The parties dispute whether, under NRS Chapter 116, a homeowners’ association has standing to institute an action on behalf of its members for constructional defect claims in individual units.”
SFR Invs. Pool 1 v. U.S. Bank (2014) nev · cites it 4× “See NRS 116.1109 (obligating this court to interpret its version of the -LIMA so as to "make uniform the law .”
CARRINGTON MORTG. HOLDINGS, LLC VS. R VENTURES VIII, LLC (2018) nev · cites it 2× “" NRS 116.1109(2). Vermont's Common Interest Ownership Act, modeled after the UCIOA, contains an identical costs and attorney fees provision.”
ARTEMIS EXPL. CO. VS. RUBY LAKE ESTATES HOA (2019) nev · cites it 2× “" NRS 116.1109(2). The legislative history leading to the 1999 amendments to NRS Chapter 116 shows that the legislative purpose was to include more common-interest communities within the scope of the uniform law in order to protect a greater number of homeowners, because many…”
CARRINGTON MORTG. HOLDINGS, LLC VS. R VENTURES VIII, LLC (2018) nev · cites it 2× “" NRS 116.1109(2). Vermont's Common Interest Ownership Act, modeled after the UCIOA, contains an identical costs and attorney fees provision.”
Carrington Mortg. Holdings, LLC v. R Ventures VIII, LLC (2018) nev “, which authorizes actions to quiet title. Caselaw from other jurisdictions also supports our conclusion.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 116.1109(2) — 8 cases
Boulder Oaks Community Ass'n v. B & J Andrews Enterprises, LLC (2009) nev “” NRS 116.1109(2). While NRS Chapter 116 generally applies to all Nevada common-interest communities, it only applies to communities containing lots reserved exclusively for nonresidential use if the declaration so provides.”
7912 Limbwood Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2013) nvd “1 (1982); see also Nev.Rev.Stat. § 116.1109(2) (“This chapter must be applied and construed so as to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of this chapter among state enacting it.”
D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial District Court (2009) nev “” NRS 116.1109(2). The parties dispute whether, under NRS Chapter 116, a homeowners’ association has standing to institute an action on behalf of its members for constructional defect claims in individual units.”
CARRINGTON MORTG. HOLDINGS, LLC VS. R VENTURES VIII, LLC (2018) nev “" NRS 116.1109(2). Vermont's Common Interest Ownership Act, modeled after the UCIOA, contains an identical costs and attorney fees provision.”
ARTEMIS EXPL. CO. VS. RUBY LAKE ESTATES HOA (2019) nev “" NRS 116.1109(2). The legislative history leading to the 1999 amendments to NRS Chapter 116 shows that the legislative purpose was to include more common-interest communities within the scope of the uniform law in order to protect a greater number of homeowners, because many…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.