Certificate of Resale


**Effective June 9, 2009**

The majority of SB253 is effetive 10.1.09, but per AB 350, section 8 of SB253 is, “effective upon passage and approval”


This is a follow up to Nevada CIC Charges for Resale Packages  from January 30, 2009 which was a follow up to the REO and Resale packages  from November 9, 2007.
On June 26, 2009, I will discuss RENT RESTRICTIONS and CIC changes.
On July 3,  2009 I will discuss CIC liens for non-payment of dues and the foreclosing bank’s responsibility for past payments.
I.          Seller Responsible for Cost of CIC Package.
Effective June 9, 2009 (6.09.09  it has a nice ring) the CIC package shall be provided at, at the expense of the unit’s owner.”
OLD language: What used to read as “a unit’s owner or his authorized agent shall furnish to a purchaser a resale package …,” which caused great confusion and discussion is deleted.
NEW language: The statute now instructs, “a unit’s owner or his authorized agent shall, at the expense of the unit’s owner, furnish to a purchaser a resale package …”

The debate is over – the seller must pay for it.  Now, that likely does not stop the listing agent from asking the Buyer to pay for it up front (like an appraisal) and be reimbursed at time of closing.

If the Seller refuses to provide and the escrow closes, the Buyer still (even in this new law) loses any right to claim damages.  If the Seller and Buyer agree (right or wrong) to simply not have the package delivered, this form will serve to keep your transaction folder complete, click on this title to retrieve it: Re-Sale’ Package Non Receipt Buyers’ Hold Harmless of Broker.

II.         Packages Must Now Contain Amount of Transfer Fees.

A resale package must now contain a, “A statement of any transfer fees, transaction fees or any other fees associated with the resale of a unit.”  NRS 116.4109 (1)(e).  This is helpful.  Many times the transfer fees were learned of after close of escrow.  This not the fee for the package, rather a fee to ‘join’ the association.


Can an association limit the amount of rentals in an association? Yes and No.  The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) also know as a ‘declaration’ within an association can limit many things.  Limiting the amount of rentals is certainly an option.  Any subject matter that is not protected can be limited.  For example, it is not allowed to restrict family status, nor race, creed, color, etc. 


The question, however, is if the restriction was in place at the time of the recording of the CC&Rs.  A recent example that I was asked about was a ‘modification’ to the CC&Rs to limit rental use which was imposed by a Board of Directors. This is not allowed.  A modification of a restriction which limits the “use” of a property must be passed by the “unanimous consent of the owners affected.”  NRS 116.2117.


If your client is dealing with an association that limits the amount of renters, have your client do some research.  The client should contact the association and ask, “Which is the restriction that limits rental use? When was it created? If it was an amendment did it comply with NRS 116.2117 by gaining a unanimous consent of those properties affected? 


Note:  Even if the CC&Rs declare that a percentage of affected owners less than 100% is required to pass such an amendment, there is an argument that the statute trumps and 100% is still required.