Without a lawyer, asylum seekers struggle with confusing legal processes. [KNPR]
The Supreme Court turned down President Trump’s appeal in Dreamers case. [NYTimes]
The stadium agreement is likely to be approved “in form” this week. [Las Vegas Sun]
The North Las Vegas city manager saga takes a new twist with the FBI. [RJ]
Here’s an update on the Lamplight Village HOA–the meeting last night was officially cancelled, but some people still met with attorneys. Anyone know who presented? [Fox5Vegas]
Have you had good experiences hiring out of UNLV? We haven't. We aren't considering any UNLV candidates this year. Going to stick with BYU/Utah and some others.
There are a lot of law jobs where having deep, personal ties to the local community, being able to network and generate rain, looking sharp and attractive in business attire, and sounding smooth and confident when speaking to a group or working a room at a mixer are the most important skills. Some time ago, there was a profile piece on Mayer Brown in The New Republic that said that when mid level associates "discover that brainpower is only incidental to their professional advancement—that the real key is an aptitude for schmoozing—it can be a rude awakening." I think about that line often.
11:06 makes some good points. However, if the implication is that the abilities listed are more prevalent in UNLV grads than in grads of other schools, I'd disagree. For whatever reason, a high percentage of UNLV grads strike me as awkward and unprepared for the realities of both practicing law and engaging in the business of practicing law.
There is no school I would say that about. If you have to choose between applicants knowing nothing about them other than what law school they went to, then yeah, the school is important. It's the only piece of information you have, and you have to play the odds. But that's not all the information you have in the real world. You know class rank, writing skill, references, past life experience, etc.
I think many people do overestimate the role intelligence plays in success as a lawyer, but there is a floor you need to be above. This is especially true in more sophisticated practice areas. I can think of a few schools where every alum I have gone up against has been plainly incompetent, and I think attendance at those schools is pretty good prima facie evidence the student is below that floor. I do not think I would vote to hire even the valedictorian from these schools.
Agreed. Pretty dumb to steer clear of an entire school. Plus, I think we've all come across a handful of book smart LSAT wizards who get accepted to top schools who either have the social skills of a cactus or can't be bothered to do the nitty gritty work needed of an real associate.
I've hired from UNLV and other schools. With respect to UNLV, I hired my best ever (bright, extremely strong work ethic, loyal) as well as some of my mistakes. I've had the same results with other schools as well.
Bottom line lesson for me was to probe their ability to listen and analyze an issue, as well as a heavier emphasis on my gut level reaction to the person. I call that my chemistry test.
Do I believe that this person would give 110% to the job (coming in early, working late, working on a weekend, etc.) without asking what is in it for them. How would you feel being around this individual 7-11 hours a day (11 hours are unusual but not impossible). How overgrown is their ego (are they open-minded to consider alternatives and/or learn new things). How creative is the person (thinking outside the box is a good thing).
The worst coworker I ever had graduated at top of their class from a top 15 law school. Was extremely book smart and great at taking tests yet a functional idiot in real life.
Bottom line… spend the time to focus on the candidate not the school.
Our firm (large, regional firm with 8-12 offices) has hired one Boyd grad and one non-Boyd grad a year for the last 7-10 years. Two years ago, we hired two Boyd grads. Our experience has been very positive. However, I will say that being at a large firm allows you to be very selective and restrict your pool to the top candidates only (if you want). In our experience, the top 10 at Boyd are just as smart as the anyone we've hired from BYU, Cornell, UCLA, Arizona, Boalt, Texas, etc.
"Do I believe that this person would give 110% to the job (coming in early, working late, working on a weekend, etc.) without asking what is in it for them."
@9:20, You miss the point. The compensation for the position was negotiated at the front end at the time of hiring and an honest discussion of expectations should already have occurred. Both the employer and the employee understood the other party's expectations and the compensation package should already reflect those expectations.
Unfortunately, my experience has been that it is far more common for the employee to attempt to dial back their contribution to the relationship while at the same time expect their compensation to increase for every minor extra they perceived value they are adding.
A good employer understands and values the contributions of their employees and tries to make the work experience something that the employee enjoys rather than dreads. That being said, the employer does have a reasonable expectation that the employee (professional, not hourly) won't attempt to nickle and dime them for every minor extra that the work requires.
Over the long term, most employees will do better by establishing their value to the business, causing the employer to want to keep them happy and around than by getting a couple of extra nickles and alienating the employer in the process.
In my experience, employers are the ones to abuse the salary relationship. For the first few months, they expect their associates to work a certain amount, but then their business volume increases, and they just expect the associates to shoulder the extra burden. I was in a firm where they reorganized and cut support staff by 50% per associate, and then expected the associates to handle MORE work. There was no pay increase, just more and more and more demanded. By the end, my workload had doubled, but I wasn't paid a cent more.
Maybe you don't do that, and the original expectations are honored throughout the employment relationship. If so, good on you, and I hope you find people whose expectations match yours.
Guest
anonymous
February 27, 2018 7:03 pm
We’ve had good and bad. I wouldn’t generalize. The good part is you can hire them, cheaply, as part-time clerks during school and get a good idea before you make a big commitment.
Guest
Anonymous
February 27, 2018 7:57 pm
I am seeking referrals for bad faith attorneys. Property casualty.
Thanks.
I'll go out on a limb and guess plaintiff. Insured's generally don't get sued for bad faith and would merely tender the claim to their carrier who would select and assign counsel. An insured might want Cumis counsel, but since that wasn't the scope of the question, I'm excluding that category.
Obviously, the nature of the claim and the damages play a large part in how to go with this. The first decision (assuming the case is large enough and chances of recovery significant) would determining whether you want a local attorney to handle it exclusively or to bring in a large out of state player with local counsel to assist and sponsor Pro Hac Vice.
I haven't followed to area in several years so there many be players that I don't know, have left these cases, have skills that have diminished, etc. but in the past I have referred to:
Glenn Meier
Steve Parsons
Dennis Prince
I know a few big gun out of state guys I could give, but some get nose out of joint for doing that I'll keep them off the board unless you request them.
Doing damage control how? What were they doing? There is no damage control in either the Fox5 or Channel 13 stories: they are full blast threatening foreclosure. I have seen zero damage control.
That is not damage control. Sounds like the Community Management Company may have had a breakdown in communication in getting the information into the newsletters. With that said, letters from Claggett saying "You better tell your homeowners that I am going to foreclose on their homes" is hardly noble. Honestly they look scummier than ever.
How is it scummy to say your douchebag carrier didn't have your best interests at heart and now I have to threaten foreclosure to get them to actually come to the table? I don't understand how you insurance defense guys think you have cornered the market on righteous indignation. Do your job, be ethical and acknowledge the conflict between carrier and insured, and acknowledge that you screwed one to appease the other.
Not an ID guy but thanks for the vote of confidence. The very fact that Al and Shawn have to do "damage control" tells you why it is scummy to threaten people that you intend to take their homes in litigation, pretrial or post-trial.
However I am glad that it is now conclusively established that those people who said last week that posters were FOS that Claggett and Lasso were threatening people over their homes are now having to walk back their disbelief. Yeah they are that low.
Wonder how Dan Polsenberg can defend affiliating himself with such lovely human beings.
really 3:27? Do you know Sean? not likely considering you can't spell his name, good attorney and a good guy. I have not seen anything "scummy" Dan P is also a fine attorney but he will be the first to tell you his affiliation is the party that pays. Not who won or lost.
My voice to text does not know or care how Claggett spells his/your name. Not a good guy. Actually Dan P. usually has some ethics. I have to believe that he did not know and would never have signed off on letters threatening homeowners that he intended to take their homes.
Claggett got a judgment. He has every right, and obligation to his client, to execute on that judgment against any and all assets or property that may be subject to execution. How is it "scummy" to collect a judgment for your client? If someone wants to be mad about that, then be mad at the insurance company for not settling the case and thereby protecting the interests of the HOA and by extension the homeowners. My question would be whether a recorded homestead declaration would stave this off.
I have to agree with 4:50. And I'm a long-time insurance defense attorney. The carrier screwed up. The plaintiff's attorney owes an obligation to his client and only to his client. If putting the homeowners on notice of what's in store advances the plaintiff's case, then counsel was well within his rights.
The insurance company made a mess and now has to clean it up. Boo effing hoo for the insurance company. Thank goodness it has the money to clean up the mess it made.
At this point it seems that all Claggett and Lasso have is a verdict, not a judgment yet. There is still all the post-trial gamesmanship to go before it moves to the judgment stage and up to the appeal.
Personally, I'm a bit lost on the punitive damages award. I didn't hear any of the evidence so obviously not in a position to provide an informed opinion but still having difficulties seeing the fraud, malice or oppression needed to support an award of punitive damages. Also 10M in compensatory damages without any special damages established (past or future) seems a bit rich.
Maybe I missed this. How can a judgment against the HOA be recorded against the property of the individuals homeowners? If the HOA needs to levy special assessments to pay off the judgment and impose a lien on the homeowners who don't pay, why not just dissolve the HOA? Can't impose assessments when there is no HOA.
Because a recorded judgment against an HOA is a lien against all of the real property of the association and all of the units in the common-interest community at the time the judgment was entered. NRS 116.3117.
8:39– The punitives would never stand. (1) there was no oppression. Gross negligence maybe. Oppression? No chance. But that would have required Hardy to understand English let alone the law. (2) There is a statute that specifically bars punitive damages in cases like these.
This case was and is a cluster**** from the word Go. And unlike those who criticize Claggett, he lives in and breathes chaos. He ran over Hardy like a possum in the road and got everything he asked for (including so extremely questionable rulings). While the homeowners may have ire with Claggett or Kevin Brown, they really should pack Hardy's courtroom to see the absolute disaster that Hardy made this case. It is an embarrassment.
There is a statute that potentially bars recovery which has not been addressed. NRS 41.510 bars recovery for recreational use against a landowner or occupier. A playground is recreation. By contrast, this does not bar recovery against a ride operator where you pay an entrance fee. ) The statute was designed to protect landowners against those who make recreational use of their property. Otherwise there would be no private parks or playgrounds. Government entities have sovereign liability and no duty to inspect. I hope the HOA raises these issues.
10:03 PM–What statute? Is an HOA non profit entity? So therefore punitive damages does not apply? Wasn't there a post that an HOA is not subject to punitive damages by a separate statute?
Do your own research. After numerous posts over the past week stating that there is no such statute, not surprising that people do not want to spend the time looking things up for you.
Plaintiff's obtain a judgment against the HOA association. During the period of post judgment motion practice, prior to the entry of judgment, the community unit owners dissolve the common interest community along with the HOA corporation. Additionally, the homeowners, if not still upside down in their homes or within their homestead exemptions, and to the extent possible, withdraw any equity they may have in the homes (equity lines, cash out refi's, etc.) such that they have little or no equity remaining in the homes and are willing to walk away from the homes (honoring their financial obligations to the lenders).
NRS 116.3117 provides:
1. In a condominium or planned community:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b), a judgment for money against the association, if a copy of the docket or an abstract or copy of the judgment is recorded, is not a lien on the common elements, but is a lien in favor of the judgment lienholder against all of the other real property of the association and all of the units in the common-interest community at the time the judgment was entered. No other property of a unit s owner is subject to the claims of creditors of the association.
In this situation:
1) as the judgment was recorded at a time when there was no units of the association, is Plaintiff limited to the assets of the former corporation (e.g. insurance policies, common interest real property, etc)?
2) If the homeowners have essentially little to no non-exempt equity in the home and are willing to walk away from the home, isn't plaintiff still effectively limited to insurance proceeds and possibly common area real property since the statute provides that the homeowner's other property is not subject to claims of the creditor's of the association?
5:56 PM-The statute cited which allows punitive damages still places a limit on punitive damages and also adds a higher standard of proof.
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)
No it doesn't. Read the statute again. Subsection 4 says that you can get punitive damages for a willful and material failure to comply with any provision of this chapter if the failure is established by clear and convincing evidence, EXCEPT as limited by subsection 5. Subsection 5 says "Punitive damages may not be awarded against:(a) The association." So you can get punitive damages against other homeowners for violating Chapter 116. But you can never get punitive damages against an Association.
9:31 AM-Getting punitive damages. But getting them for what? Premises liability?? Or for violations of NRS 116 for governing violations? It appears you are looking at who can be assessed punitive damages (board members) rather than the scope of punitive damages.
Have you had good experiences hiring out of UNLV? We haven't. We aren't considering any UNLV candidates this year. Going to stick with BYU/Utah and some others.
There are a lot of law jobs where having deep, personal ties to the local community, being able to network and generate rain, looking sharp and attractive in business attire, and sounding smooth and confident when speaking to a group or working a room at a mixer are the most important skills. Some time ago, there was a profile piece on Mayer Brown in The New Republic that said that when mid level associates "discover that brainpower is only incidental to their professional advancement—that the real key is an aptitude for schmoozing—it can be a rude awakening." I think about that line often.
11:06 makes some good points. However, if the implication is that the abilities listed are more prevalent in UNLV grads than in grads of other schools, I'd disagree. For whatever reason, a high percentage of UNLV grads strike me as awkward and unprepared for the realities of both practicing law and engaging in the business of practicing law.
My most awkward coworkers ever were BYU super Mormons. Some BYU kids are smart though so we definitely still hire there.
We recently hired a new Boyd graduate, and he has turned out great. Excellent work ethic.
What was her/his class rank?
Would never consider anyone from Boyd.
There is no school I would say that about. If you have to choose between applicants knowing nothing about them other than what law school they went to, then yeah, the school is important. It's the only piece of information you have, and you have to play the odds. But that's not all the information you have in the real world. You know class rank, writing skill, references, past life experience, etc.
I think many people do overestimate the role intelligence plays in success as a lawyer, but there is a floor you need to be above. This is especially true in more sophisticated practice areas. I can think of a few schools where every alum I have gone up against has been plainly incompetent, and I think attendance at those schools is pretty good prima facie evidence the student is below that floor. I do not think I would vote to hire even the valedictorian from these schools.
Agreed. Pretty dumb to steer clear of an entire school. Plus, I think we've all come across a handful of book smart LSAT wizards who get accepted to top schools who either have the social skills of a cactus or can't be bothered to do the nitty gritty work needed of an real associate.
I've hired from UNLV and other schools. With respect to UNLV, I hired my best ever (bright, extremely strong work ethic, loyal) as well as some of my mistakes. I've had the same results with other schools as well.
Bottom line lesson for me was to probe their ability to listen and analyze an issue, as well as a heavier emphasis on my gut level reaction to the person. I call that my chemistry test.
Do I believe that this person would give 110% to the job (coming in early, working late, working on a weekend, etc.) without asking what is in it for them. How would you feel being around this individual 7-11 hours a day (11 hours are unusual but not impossible). How overgrown is their ego (are they open-minded to consider alternatives and/or learn new things). How creative is the person (thinking outside the box is a good thing).
The worst coworker I ever had graduated at top of their class from a top 15 law school. Was extremely book smart and great at taking tests yet a functional idiot in real life.
Bottom line… spend the time to focus on the candidate not the school.
Our firm (large, regional firm with 8-12 offices) has hired one Boyd grad and one non-Boyd grad a year for the last 7-10 years. Two years ago, we hired two Boyd grads. Our experience has been very positive. However, I will say that being at a large firm allows you to be very selective and restrict your pool to the top candidates only (if you want). In our experience, the top 10 at Boyd are just as smart as the anyone we've hired from BYU, Cornell, UCLA, Arizona, Boalt, Texas, etc.
"Do I believe that this person would give 110% to the job (coming in early, working late, working on a weekend, etc.) without asking what is in it for them."
JFC
To paraphrase: Do I believe this person will be intensely loyal, without asking me to compensate him/her accordingly for that loyalty?
To quote a great man: "I'm a sellsword. I sell my sword, I don't loan it out to my friends."
@9:20, You miss the point. The compensation for the position was negotiated at the front end at the time of hiring and an honest discussion of expectations should already have occurred. Both the employer and the employee understood the other party's expectations and the compensation package should already reflect those expectations.
Unfortunately, my experience has been that it is far more common for the employee to attempt to dial back their contribution to the relationship while at the same time expect their compensation to increase for every minor extra they perceived value they are adding.
A good employer understands and values the contributions of their employees and tries to make the work experience something that the employee enjoys rather than dreads. That being said, the employer does have a reasonable expectation that the employee (professional, not hourly) won't attempt to nickle and dime them for every minor extra that the work requires.
Over the long term, most employees will do better by establishing their value to the business, causing the employer to want to keep them happy and around than by getting a couple of extra nickles and alienating the employer in the process.
Not 9:20 or any previous poster on this thread.
In my experience, employers are the ones to abuse the salary relationship. For the first few months, they expect their associates to work a certain amount, but then their business volume increases, and they just expect the associates to shoulder the extra burden. I was in a firm where they reorganized and cut support staff by 50% per associate, and then expected the associates to handle MORE work. There was no pay increase, just more and more and more demanded. By the end, my workload had doubled, but I wasn't paid a cent more.
Maybe you don't do that, and the original expectations are honored throughout the employment relationship. If so, good on you, and I hope you find people whose expectations match yours.
We’ve had good and bad. I wouldn’t generalize. The good part is you can hire them, cheaply, as part-time clerks during school and get a good idea before you make a big commitment.
I am seeking referrals for bad faith attorneys. Property casualty.
Thanks.
Defense or Plaintiff?
Plaintiff
I'll go out on a limb and guess plaintiff. Insured's generally don't get sued for bad faith and would merely tender the claim to their carrier who would select and assign counsel. An insured might want Cumis counsel, but since that wasn't the scope of the question, I'm excluding that category.
Obviously, the nature of the claim and the damages play a large part in how to go with this. The first decision (assuming the case is large enough and chances of recovery significant) would determining whether you want a local attorney to handle it exclusively or to bring in a large out of state player with local counsel to assist and sponsor Pro Hac Vice.
I haven't followed to area in several years so there many be players that I don't know, have left these cases, have skills that have diminished, etc. but in the past I have referred to:
Glenn Meier
Steve Parsons
Dennis Prince
I know a few big gun out of state guys I could give, but some get nose out of joint for doing that I'll keep them off the board unless you request them.
I know that Jerome Bowen has been successful with bad faith cases, I would recommend him
Lasso and Claggett trying to do damage control last night.
12:00 PM–Lass and Claggett trying to do damage control last night. What is this about? Please explain.
Them getting heat about bragging about foreclosure.
Doing damage control how? What were they doing? There is no damage control in either the Fox5 or Channel 13 stories: they are full blast threatening foreclosure. I have seen zero damage control.
On 5, they were stating that they begged to tell the homeowners about the lawsuit, blaming the HOA.
That is not damage control. Sounds like the Community Management Company may have had a breakdown in communication in getting the information into the newsletters. With that said, letters from Claggett saying "You better tell your homeowners that I am going to foreclose on their homes" is hardly noble. Honestly they look scummier than ever.
How is it scummy to say your douchebag carrier didn't have your best interests at heart and now I have to threaten foreclosure to get them to actually come to the table? I don't understand how you insurance defense guys think you have cornered the market on righteous indignation. Do your job, be ethical and acknowledge the conflict between carrier and insured, and acknowledge that you screwed one to appease the other.
Not an ID guy but thanks for the vote of confidence. The very fact that Al and Shawn have to do "damage control" tells you why it is scummy to threaten people that you intend to take their homes in litigation, pretrial or post-trial.
However I am glad that it is now conclusively established that those people who said last week that posters were FOS that Claggett and Lasso were threatening people over their homes are now having to walk back their disbelief. Yeah they are that low.
Wonder how Dan Polsenberg can defend affiliating himself with such lovely human beings.
really 3:27? Do you know Sean? not likely considering you can't spell his name, good attorney and a good guy. I have not seen anything "scummy" Dan P is also a fine attorney but he will be the first to tell you his affiliation is the party that pays. Not who won or lost.
Lieutenant Dan, the best appellate lawyer ever!
My voice to text does not know or care how Claggett spells his/your name. Not a good guy. Actually Dan P. usually has some ethics. I have to believe that he did not know and would never have signed off on letters threatening homeowners that he intended to take their homes.
Did Claggett put in writing that he is foreclosing on people's homes? OMG, what a cluster fuck.
Claggett and Lasso are making ATMS and Cadish look excellent right now.
One Eyed Jack wants the pirates to walk the plank. Walk the plank pirates….He also wants his campaign contributions back.
Claggett got a judgment. He has every right, and obligation to his client, to execute on that judgment against any and all assets or property that may be subject to execution. How is it "scummy" to collect a judgment for your client? If someone wants to be mad about that, then be mad at the insurance company for not settling the case and thereby protecting the interests of the HOA and by extension the homeowners. My question would be whether a recorded homestead declaration would stave this off.
4:33– Yes they told Fox5 that they put it in writing multiple times that they were going to foreclose.
If you are Claggett, do you put pressure on the insurance company by being nice, or by doing exactly what he has been doing? Just asking.
I have to agree with 4:50. And I'm a long-time insurance defense attorney. The carrier screwed up. The plaintiff's attorney owes an obligation to his client and only to his client. If putting the homeowners on notice of what's in store advances the plaintiff's case, then counsel was well within his rights.
The insurance company made a mess and now has to clean it up. Boo effing hoo for the insurance company. Thank goodness it has the money to clean up the mess it made.
At this point it seems that all Claggett and Lasso have is a verdict, not a judgment yet. There is still all the post-trial gamesmanship to go before it moves to the judgment stage and up to the appeal.
Personally, I'm a bit lost on the punitive damages award. I didn't hear any of the evidence so obviously not in a position to provide an informed opinion but still having difficulties seeing the fraud, malice or oppression needed to support an award of punitive damages. Also 10M in compensatory damages without any special damages established (past or future) seems a bit rich.
Maybe I missed this. How can a judgment against the HOA be recorded against the property of the individuals homeowners? If the HOA needs to levy special assessments to pay off the judgment and impose a lien on the homeowners who don't pay, why not just dissolve the HOA? Can't impose assessments when there is no HOA.
Because a recorded judgment against an HOA is a lien against all of the real property of the association and all of the units in the common-interest community at the time the judgment was entered. NRS 116.3117.
8:39– The punitives would never stand. (1) there was no oppression. Gross negligence maybe. Oppression? No chance. But that would have required Hardy to understand English let alone the law. (2) There is a statute that specifically bars punitive damages in cases like these.
This case was and is a cluster**** from the word Go. And unlike those who criticize Claggett, he lives in and breathes chaos. He ran over Hardy like a possum in the road and got everything he asked for (including so extremely questionable rulings). While the homeowners may have ire with Claggett or Kevin Brown, they really should pack Hardy's courtroom to see the absolute disaster that Hardy made this case. It is an embarrassment.
This comment has been removed by the author.
There is a statute that potentially bars recovery which has not been addressed. NRS 41.510 bars recovery for recreational use against a landowner or occupier. A playground is recreation. By contrast, this does not bar recovery against a ride operator where you pay an entrance fee. ) The statute was designed to protect landowners against those who make recreational use of their property. Otherwise there would be no private parks or playgrounds. Government entities have sovereign liability and no duty to inspect. I hope the HOA raises these issues.
There is another statute also which is unique to this type of non-profit entity.
10:03 PM–What statute? Is an HOA non profit entity? So therefore punitive damages does not apply? Wasn't there a post that an HOA is not subject to punitive damages by a separate statute?
Correct. HOAs are not subject to punitive damages.
10:32 AM-Where is the citation authority for HOAs are not subject to punitive damages?
Search in the NRS under "punitive damages" /40 Association
It's only been the law since 1993. In case you're wondering, the cite is NRS 116.4117(5). C'mon, 11:42, don't be a douche.
Do your own research. After numerous posts over the past week stating that there is no such statute, not surprising that people do not want to spend the time looking things up for you.
Bar exam question…
Plaintiff's obtain a judgment against the HOA association. During the period of post judgment motion practice, prior to the entry of judgment, the community unit owners dissolve the common interest community along with the HOA corporation. Additionally, the homeowners, if not still upside down in their homes or within their homestead exemptions, and to the extent possible, withdraw any equity they may have in the homes (equity lines, cash out refi's, etc.) such that they have little or no equity remaining in the homes and are willing to walk away from the homes (honoring their financial obligations to the lenders).
NRS 116.3117 provides:
1. In a condominium or planned community:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b), a judgment for money against the association, if a copy of the docket or an abstract or copy of the judgment is recorded, is not a lien on the common elements, but is a lien in favor of the judgment lienholder against all of the other real property of the association and all of the units in the common-interest community at the time the judgment was entered. No other property of a unit s owner is subject to the claims of creditors of the association.
In this situation:
1) as the judgment was recorded at a time when there was no units of the association, is Plaintiff limited to the assets of the former corporation (e.g. insurance policies, common interest real property, etc)?
2) If the homeowners have essentially little to no non-exempt equity in the home and are willing to walk away from the home, isn't plaintiff still effectively limited to insurance proceeds and possibly common area real property since the statute provides that the homeowner's other property is not subject to claims of the creditor's of the association?
Is that your Answer? Clearly you have not taken a bar exam in while (good for you) because that question too specifically suggests possible answers.
That statute cited allows punitive damages if shown by clear and convincing evidence.
5:56 PM-The statute cited which allows punitive damages still places a limit on punitive damages and also adds a higher standard of proof.
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)
No it doesn't. Read the statute again. Subsection 4 says that you can get punitive damages for a willful and material failure to comply with any provision of this chapter if the failure is established by clear and convincing evidence, EXCEPT as limited by subsection 5. Subsection 5 says "Punitive damages may not be awarded against:(a) The association." So you can get punitive damages against other homeowners for violating Chapter 116. But you can never get punitive damages against an Association.
9:31 AM-Getting punitive damages. But getting them for what? Premises liability?? Or for violations of NRS 116 for governing violations? It appears you are looking at who can be assessed punitive damages (board members) rather than the scope of punitive damages.
NSC slaps down Scotti's unconstitutional order.