NRS
116.4117 Effect of violations on rights of action; civil action for
damages for failure or refusal to comply with provisions of chapter or
governing documents; members of executive board not personally liable to
victims of crimes; circumstances under which punitive damages may be awarded;
attorney’s fees.
1. Subject to the requirements set forth
in subsection 2, if a declarant, community manager or any other person subject
to this chapter fails to comply with any of its provisions or any provision of
the declaration or bylaws, any person or class of persons suffering actual
damages from the failure to comply may bring a civil action for damages or
other appropriate relief.
2. Subject to the requirements set forth
in NRS 38.310 and except as otherwise
provided in NRS 116.3111, a civil
action for damages or other appropriate relief for a failure or refusal to
comply with any provision of this chapter or the governing documents of an
association may be brought:
(a) By the association against:
(1) A declarant;
(2) A community manager; or
(3) A unit’s owner.
(b) By a unit’s owner against:
(1) The association;
(2) A declarant; or
(3) Another unit’s owner of the
association.
(c) By a class of units’ owners constituting at
least 10 percent of the total number of voting members of the association
against a community manager.
3. Members of the executive board are not
personally liable to the victims of crimes occurring on the property.
4. Except as otherwise provided in
subsection 5, punitive damages may be awarded for a willful and material
failure to comply with any provision of this chapter if the failure is
established by clear and convincing evidence.
5. Punitive damages may not be awarded
against:
(a) The association;
(b) The members of the executive board for acts
or omissions that occur in their official capacity as members of the executive
board; or
(c) The officers of the association for acts or
omissions that occur in their capacity as officers of the association.
6. The court may award reasonable
attorney’s fees to the prevailing party.
7. The civil remedy provided by this
section is in addition to, and not exclusive of, any other available remedy or
penalty.
8. The provisions of this section do not
prohibit the Commission from taking any disciplinary action against a member of
an executive board pursuant to NRS 116.745
to 116.795, inclusive.
(Added to NRS by 1991,
578; A 1993,
2377; 1997,
3125; 2009,
2812, 2898;
2011,
2458)
Notes of Decisions
Howard Hughes Co., LLC v. Comm'r (2014)
tax · cites it 8×
“10 It is not clear that the preexisting duty rule applies in these cases. The contracts between petitioners and the purchasers are valid *66 contracts with valid consideration independent of the duties with respect to the development.”
Eversole v. Sunrise Villas VIII Homeowners Ass'n (1996)
nev
“The court concluded that the election conducted by the defendants violated the Association’s bylaws and that the Association was entitled to attorney fees under NRS 116.4117. The court ordered Eversole to pay the Association $5,563.”
Artemis Expl. Co. Vs. Ruby Lake Estates Hoa (2020)
nev · cites it 12×
“In determining whether Ruby was entitled to attorney fees and costs, the district court analyzed NRS 116.4117 and reasoned the statute provided it discretion to award attorney fees to the prevailing party.”
Sandy Valley Associates v. Sky Ranch Estates Owners Ass'n (2001)
nev · cites it 3×
“The Association and homeowners asserted that they were entitled to attorney fees as damages pursuant to a statute, NRS 116.4117. In supplemental points and authorities, the Association and homeowners argued alternatively that they were entitled to attorney fees as damages…”
Aliante Master Ass'n v. Prem Deferred Tr. (2018)
nev · cites it 9×
“3116(2), and concluded that Prem and the class were entitled to recoup their overpayments in the form of damages under NRS 116.4117. The district court awarded attorney fees to Prem and entered final judgment.”
Monahan v. Salvo (2014)
nev · cites it 11×
“Monahan's estate also argues that the district court erroneously found that NRS 116.4117 authorized the award of attorney fees to Salvo.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 116.4117(1) — 5 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 116.4117(2) — 7 cases
Artemis Expl. Co. Vs. Ruby Lake Estates Hoa (2020)
nev
“In determining whether Ruby was entitled to attorney fees and costs, the district court analyzed NRS 116.4117 and reasoned the statute provided it discretion to award attorney fees to the prevailing party.”
Monahan v. Salvo (2014)
nev
“Monahan's estate also argues that the district court erroneously found that NRS 116.4117 authorized the award of attorney fees to Salvo.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 116.4117(2)(b)(1) — 1 case
Artemis Expl. Co. Vs. Ruby Lake Estates Hoa (2020)
nev
“In determining whether Ruby was entitled to attorney fees and costs, the district court analyzed NRS 116.4117 and reasoned the statute provided it discretion to award attorney fees to the prevailing party.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 116.4117(4) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 116.4117(5) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 116.4117(6) — 4 cases
Monahan v. Salvo (2014)
nev
“Monahan's estate also argues that the district court erroneously found that NRS 116.4117 authorized the award of attorney fees to Salvo.”
Artemis Expl. Co. Vs. Ruby Lake Estates Hoa (2020)
nev
“In determining whether Ruby was entitled to attorney fees and costs, the district court analyzed NRS 116.4117 and reasoned the statute provided it discretion to award attorney fees to the prevailing party.”
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.