COLUMN: Pet restriction raises questions

Q. A question has arisen at my condominium complex where I am a member of the board of directors. It is stated in our covenants that an owner may keep one household pet in their unit and that no pets may be kept by a lessee of any unit.

Our attorney advised us that we could not enforce the prohibition of pets by renters because we would be open to discrimination lawsuits. What do you think?

A. This issue has been researched by a local attorney who represented one of our associations. First, renters, as a category of people, are not a protected class under fair housing laws.

Second, renters do not have the same rights as owners in a condominium association. For example, renters who live on property do not have the right to vote or be a director.

In various state supreme court decisions, an important variable in the decisions made was whether the prohibition was recorded within the declaration of covenants. You say that the covenants clearly state this restriction. If the covenants are recorded then all potential buyers of the property have been given notice of this restriction. When a buyer purchases a unit within an association, the buyer gives up some rights.

The practical issue is one of enforcement, not only of the renter pet restriction but also of the restriction of one pet per unit. I suggest that when an owner is selling his unit, the management company should notify escrow of the restriction when completing the disclosure form for the selling owner. This restriction will be passed to the new buyer.

You state that your board has obtained an opinion from its attorney. The board has a choice of abiding by its attorney's opinion, asking the attorney to research the issue and prepare a written opinion, obtaining an opinion from another attorney, or contacting the local HUD office.

Q. We are new to Las Vegas and moved to a community where there is a landscape maintenance fee for a common area between the road and our development. In our copy of the covenants and bylaws, there are certain provisions that did not apply, and even though we are supposed to have two meetings a year, we have not had one.

The developer is now saying that due to a change, we no longer come under NRS 116 and he is changing all of the bylaws. Can he do this? Who is the governing body that oversees this?

A. There are three issues. The first pertains to NRS 116. As of October 1999, a change was made as to what types of common association properties fall under the jurisdiction of this state law. The change stated that NRS 116 would apply to all Nevada associations regardless of when they were created and regardless of the amount of their monthly assessments. The only exceptions were any landscape associations and pre-1992 associations with 12 units or less (NRS 116.1201.2.a.1).

Another issue is the change of the governing documents by the developer. Once a unit is sold, the developer can only make changes to the governing documents with the approval of the homeowners. Depending upon the number of units sold, the developer could very well maintain control of enough of the votes. Most covenants or bylaws give the developer two votes per unit owned, as opposed to one vote per unit owned which applies to the homeowners.

The third issue is that the developer does not have to make a change. Many protections for homeowners in NRS 116 apply to landscape associations. The developer should take time and obtain consultation before making drastic changes to the governing documents, which in the long term could actually hurt the homeowners in your association.

Questions for Barbara Holland may be sent to Association Q. & A., P.O. Box 7440, Las Vegas, NV 89125. Her fax number is 385-3759.

Barbara Holland, Certified Property Manager, is president and co-owner of H&L Realty and Management Co. She is a member of the Institute of Real Estate Management and is the author of two books on the subject. Holland is a past president of the Greater Las Vegas Association of Realtors.

Real Estate home