• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Illegal Provision of our CC&R's??

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

ivanl3

Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NV

Section 8.04 of the CC&R's document for a Condotel states the following:

Each Guest Suite, by acceptance of a deed to a Guest Suite, whether or not it shall be so expressed in such deed, is deemed to covenat and agree to pay to the Hotel Owner the fees set forth herein. If a Guest Suite owners chooses not to enter into a rental agreement with Hotel Operator for Transient Use of such unit, but subsequently permits Transients Use of such Owner's Unit, such Owner shall pay the sum of $750 per month ("Transient Rental Fee") to Hotel Owner to compensate Hotel Owner for the Hotel Services provided by the Hotel Owner to such owner's guests. Hotel services include, without limitation, access to fitness center, front desk services, message services, door and bell cpatain and valet services, dry cleaning and related serivces, and daily newspapers. The Transient Rental Fee shall be paid the first of each month Transient Use is permitted by the Guest Suite Owner, regardless of how long such Transient Use occurs w/in any particular month. The Transient rental fee may be adjusted by Hotel Owner in Hotel Owner's sole discretion upon thirty (30) days notice to Guest Suite Owners.


It has been asserted by a unit owner at this Condotel that this provision in the CC&R's is illegal. He has claimed that an attorney has told him that it is illegal in NV for any condotel unit owner to be penailzed financially for not renting their unit. Similarliy, they can not be penalized for renting on their own or through the rental company of their choce. Do you agree that this provision of the CC&Rs is illegal?
 


HomeGuru

Senior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NV

Section 8.04 of the CC&R's document for a Condotel states the following:

Each Guest Suite, by acceptance of a deed to a Guest Suite, whether or not it shall be so expressed in such deed, is deemed to covenat and agree to pay to the Hotel Owner the fees set forth herein. If a Guest Suite owners chooses not to enter into a rental agreement with Hotel Operator for Transient Use of such unit, but subsequently permits Transients Use of such Owner's Unit, such Owner shall pay the sum of $750 per month ("Transient Rental Fee") to Hotel Owner to compensate Hotel Owner for the Hotel Services provided by the Hotel Owner to such owner's guests. Hotel services include, without limitation, access to fitness center, front desk services, message services, door and bell cpatain and valet services, dry cleaning and related serivces, and daily newspapers. The Transient Rental Fee shall be paid the first of each month Transient Use is permitted by the Guest Suite Owner, regardless of how long such Transient Use occurs w/in any particular month. The Transient rental fee may be adjusted by Hotel Owner in Hotel Owner's sole discretion upon thirty (30) days notice to Guest Suite Owners.


It has been asserted by a unit owner at this Condotel that this provision in the CC&R's is illegal. He has claimed that an attorney has told him that it is illegal in NV for any condotel unit owner to be penailzed financially for not renting their unit. Similarliy, they can not be penalized for renting on their own or through the rental company of their choce. Do you agree that this provision of the CC&Rs is illegal?

**A: no I don't agree.
 

ivanl3

Member
Thanks for the quick response. Is there a particular law you can point me to which supports its legality?
 

ivanl3

Member
You were wrong

Unfortunately (at least for me), you were wrong. Now we have to re-write our CC&R's. Turns out the homeowner (and his lawyer) were right.
 

HomeGuru

Senior Member
Unfortunately (at least for me), you were wrong. Now we have to re-write our CC&R's. Turns out the homeowner (and his lawyer) were right.

**A: very interesting. Please post the civil # of the case, the court having jurisdiction and the name of the homeowner's legal counsel.
 

ivanl3

Member
Clark County Courts. Harrison Kemp and Jones was the firm...not sure which exact lawyer. Don't have the civil case #.
 

ivanl3

Member
**A: you have not proven your case with the facts. I need to review the court adjudication papers. If you can't provide the info then we don't believe you.

Who cares what you believe? The issue is moot now. The court has ruled. I wish it hadn't ruled the way that it did, but it is a done deal now.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
Who cares what you believe? The issue is moot now. The court has ruled. I wish it hadn't ruled the way that it did, but it is a done deal now.

It has? What case was that? (which brings us back to DOE)
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
What is "DOE"?

Doe, a deer, a female deer
Ray, a drop of golden sun
Me, a name I call myself
Far, a long long way to run
Sew, a needle pulling thread
La, a note to follow sew
Tea, I drink with jam and bread
That will bring us back to doe
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
Top