Opinion ID: 2639631
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Andrews is a declarant

Text: The parties contest whether Andrews is a land-owning declarant for purposes of CC & R section 9.04(a). Andrews asserts that it is a declarant because the CC & Rs define it as such. The Association counters that it is irrelevant how the CC & Rs define a declarant because the statutory definition of declarant controls and Andrews does not fit within that definition. While we agree with the Association that the statutory definition of the term declarant controls to the extent that a CC & R definition conflicts with the statutory definition, we conclude that, in this case, the CC & R definition of declarant fits neatly within the definition provided in NRS 116.035. Therefore, there is no reason to look beyond the CC & R definition, and we disagree with the Association's contentions to the contrary. Since the CC & R's definition of declarant is consistent with the statutory definition, we conclude that Andrews is the declarant. NRS 116.003 states that [a]s used in this chapter and in the declaration and bylaws of an association, unless the context otherwise requires, the words and terms defined in NRS 116.005 to 116.095, inclusive, have the meanings ascribed to them in those sections. (Emphasis added.) The language of NRS 116.003 is based on UCIOA section 1-103. A.B. 221, Summary of Legislation, 66th Leg. (Nev.1991). The UCIOA states that section 1-103 allows terms defined in the Act to be defined differently in ... declaration[s] and bylaws. UCIOA § 1-103 cmt. 1 (1994). Regardless of how terms are used in those documents, however, terms have an unvarying meaning in the Act, and any restricted practice which depends on the definition of a term is not affected by a changed term in the documents. Id. The UCIOA then explains, by example, that if a declarant attempted to alter the definition of unit owner to exclude itself in an attempt to avoid assessments for units that he owns, the attempt would fail because the Act defines a declarant as a unit owner. Id. When NRS 116.003 is read in context with the UCIOA, it is clear that when a term is defined in NRS Chapter 116, the statutory definition controls and any definition that conflicts will not be enforced. To read NRS 116.003 otherwise would lead to the absurd result of rendering the definitions provided in NRS 116.005 to 116.095 mere surplusage. See Speer v. State, 116 Nev. 677, 679, 5 P.3d 1063, 1064 (2000). Further, any other reading of the statute would be contrary to the express purpose of NRS Chapter 116, which is to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of this chapter among states enacting it. NRS 116.1109(2). If this court were to enforce any definition provided by a declaration, then the goal of making the laws concerning common-interest communities uniform would never be reached. See Speer, 116 Nev. at 679, 5 P.3d at 1064 (stating that statutes should not be read in a manner that violates the `spirit of the act' (quoting Anthony Lee R., A Minor v. State, 113 Nev. 1406, 1414, 952 P.2d 1, 6 (1997))). Here, CC & R section 1.12 defines a declarant as BCRV and its successors and assigns. NRS 116.035 defines a declarant, in part, as any person or group of persons acting in concert who ... [r]eserves or succeeds to any special declarant's right. NRS 116.089 defines special declarant's rights in part, as rights reserved for the benefit of a declarant to ... [m]aintain sales offices, management offices, signs advertising the common-interest community and models.... When the CC & Rs were written, BCRV entitled itself the declarant and stated in CC & R section 1.13 that its lots would be used for the operation of a sales and rental office and for the purposes of maintaining the resort generally. In other words, BCRV reserved a special declarant right. As BCRV's successor, Andrews obtained this special declarant right to maintain a sales and rental office. Thus, in this case, the CC & R definition of declarant is consistent with the definition provided in NRS 116.035. Therefore, the context does not require us to apply a definition other than that provided in CC & R section 1.12, and we conclude that Andrews is the declarant. Further, because Andrews owns the two lots it purchased from BCRV, it is also a land-owning declarant.