Opinion ID: 2639631
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Amendment of the CC & Rs

Text: CC & R section 9.04 governs the procedures for amending the CC & Rs. Section 9.04(a) permits a material amendment upon receiving the consent of 67 percent of the Members entitled to vote and of the Declarant, so long as the Declarant owns any land subject to this Declaration. [4] CC & R section 1.12 defines declarant as BCRV and its successors and assigns. If a proposed amendment changes the uses to which a particular Lot is restricted, then section 9.04(d) provides that the affected lot owner and the majority of lot owners must consent. Section 2.06 of the Association's bylaws sets forth the procedure for taking action without a meeting. It provides that a meeting is not required if the percentage of members required to take the specific action give their written consent to proceed without a meeting. [5] Beginning in 2004, members of the Association sought amendment of the CC & Rs to eliminate section 5.04. The Association mailed ballots to every lot owner of record, which stated that votes had to be received by the deadline or any extension thereof. The initial ballot set the voting deadline at January 15, 2004, which was apparently a typographical error because that date had already passed. The Association informed members of the error and corrected the date to be January 15, 2005. Subsequently, the Association passed two 30-day extensions. Ultimately, 187 votes, or just over 67 percent of the 277 possible votes, were cast in favor of amending the CC & Rs to remove section 5.04. Andrews immediately filed suit seeking a preliminary injunction in the district court seeking to stop the Association from eliminating section 5.04 from the CC & Rs. Andrews claimed that the amendment was invalid, arguing that in order to materially amend the CC & Rs, its consent as a land-owning declarant was required. Further, Andrews argued that the written ballot procedure used by the Association to pass the amendment violated section 2.06 of the Association's bylaws. Andrews also asserted that NRS Chapter 116 did not apply to the case. In response, the Association argued that NRS Chapter 116 applied. Accordingly, the Association argued that Andrews was not a declarant because, regardless of whether the CC & Rs categorized Andrews as such, the CC & Rs definition was null since Andrews was not a declarant under the term's definition as set forth in NRS 116.035. Therefore, because Andrews was not a declarant, the Association claimed that the amendment was proper because the Association was not required to obtain Andrews' consent. In the alternative, the Association argued that, even if Andrews was a declarant, NRS 116.3105 authorized it to terminate any contract executed by the declarant before the lot owners assumed control of the Association. Finally, the Association argued that the vote to amend the CC & Rs was proper pursuant to NRS 82.326 and because it complied with section 2.06 of the Association's bylaws. The district court disagreed with the Association, finding that it had violated CC & R section 9.04(a) and that Andrews was entitled to injunctive relief. The district court entered an injunction enjoining the Association from eliminating CC & R section 5.04 and thereby prohibiting independent rentals by the lot owners. The Association appealed the matter to this court. The Association argued that not only was the amendment proper for the reasons it had presented to the district court, but it was also proper because the clause in CC & R section 9.04(a) that required the consent of a land-owning declarant to pass a material amendment violated NRS 116.2107(4).