Resale Packet

This is a follow up to my July 2, 2o10 and June 8, 2007 reports on Kitec Plumbing.



Contact: William L. Coulthard, Esq. or Michael J. Gayan, Esq.

Telephone: (702) 385-6000

Re: In Re Kitec Fitting Litigation; Clark County District Court Case No.: A493302


At a hearing held on September 14, 2011, the Honorable Timothy C. Williams extended the deadline by three months for thousands of Clark County homeowners to claim free replumbs of the defective brass Kitec plumbing systems. The eligible homeowners now have until March 31, 2012, to claim the free replumbs made possible through settlements reached in the In re Kitec Fitting Litigation class action, including the $90 million settlement with the fitting manufacturer, Ipex, Inc. and Ipex USA, LLC. The homeowners must act now or they will forfeit any right to claim relief from the class action settlements and will have no rights to pursue Kitec-related claims against the manufacturer or the Home Builders or Plumbers responsible for installing the Kitec plumbing systems. Class Counsel, Michael Gayan of Kemp, Jones & Coulthard, LLP, explained that “[I]n extending this deadline, Judge Timothy Williams recognized the importance of class homeowners having a full and fair opportunity to claim their repair under this class action settlement.”

The deadline extension impacts more than 6,000 Clark County homes built by Del Webb, KB Homes, Richmond American, Avante Homes, Signature Homes, Astoria Homes, Pulte, Nigro, D.R. Horton, LBM Development, Wexford Homes, American Premiere, Concordia, Desert Wind, H&H, Pageantry, Platis, RL Homes, SBA Development, and Westmark Homes. A complete list of the developments involved is found on the Court-appointed claims administrator’s informational website,

The class action lawsuit, which involves more than 32,000 Clark County homes, alleges that as soon as Kitec fittings are exposed to water, the brass in the fittings begins to deteriorate and corrode, which inevitably leads to reduced water flow, leaks, and breaks. There have been hundreds of reported leaks with resulting flood damage to homes. Kitec fittings not only cause substantial damage after they leak and burst, but also impair the ability of a home’s plumbing system to effectively provide water to appliances and plumbing fixtures.

Tim Taylor, President and CEO of the Court-appointed claims administrator, Total Class Solutions, LLC, stated that, “[T]hese homeowners have about six months left to claim the free replumbs. After that, Total Class Solutions will have to turn them away without any relief. It would be a real shame for homeowners to miss out on getting the repairs they need. Class Counsel recovered the resources to fix all the homes and it’s our goal to make that happen. Now we just need the homeowners to contact us and ask for the repairs.”

The approved plumbing contractors doing the work for the class are Delta Mechanical, Dynamic Plumbing, Repipe Specialists, Rakeman Plumbing, Hammer Plumbing, and Plumbing Express. If you are contacted by one of these plumbing companies regarding a free replumb, it is because you may be entitled to receive the repair at no cost to you as a result of this class action lawsuit. All of the homeowners are represented by the law firms of Kemp, Jones & Coulthard, LLP and Lynch, Hopper & Salzano, LLP. These firms were appointed as Class Counsel by Judge Williams on October 16, 2006, when the Court certified a class action lawsuit on behalf of all homeowners in Clark County, Nevada, who have brass Kitec plumbing fittings in their homes.

For information on how to claim the Kitec repairs, go to, which has been established by the Court-appointed claims administrator, Total Class Solutions, LLC.  For more information about the class action itself, please go to, which has been established by Class Counsel to inform potential class members about this litigation.


For more information on this topic, please contact William L. Coulthard or Michael J. Gayan at (702) 385-6000.

The CIC is trying to charge you what seems high for the certificate of resale package?[See 1 below]

Here is what you tell them….a CIC can only charge $160 for a re-sale package.[See 2 below]  If they try to include anything in the packet other than the six items listed below, such as the clubhouse schedule, tell them they cannot automatically include unnecessary items, to take out the unnecessary items and that your client is only paying the $160.

The certificate must have:

1.)  The CC&Rs & Bylaws.[See 3 below] 

2.) The monthly dues and any current assessments.[See 4 below] 
3.) The current budget.[See 5 below] 
4.) A statement of any unsatisfied judgments or pending legal actions against the CIC and the status of any actions concerning the CIC.[See 6 below]

5.) A statement of any transfer fees, transaction fees or any other fees associated with the resale of a unit; [See 7 below] and

6.) A statement describing all current and expected fees or charges for each unit.[See 8 below]

Please see my other blogs on CIC:

Nevada Condominium Hotel Disclosure

CIC Unpaid Delinquent Dues And How They Affect REO Listings

Changes to the Nevada CIC Resale Package

Non-Receipt of the Resale Package

Rental Restrictions within an Association

Nevada CIC Charges for Resale Packages

Nevada CIC Addendums

[1] NRS 116.4109  Resales of units.

[2] NAC 116.465 …”an association may not charge more than $160 for preparing the certificate furnished pursuant to NRS 116.4109.”

[3]  Described as, “a copy of the declaration, other than any plats, the bylaws, the rules or regulations of the association and the information statement required by NRS 116.41095,” per NRS 116.4109 (a).

[4] Described as “a statement setting forth the amount of the monthly assessment for common expenses and any unpaid assessment of any kind currently due from the selling unit’s owner,” per NRS 116.4109 (b).

[5] Described as, “a copy of the current operating budget of the association and current year-to-date financial statement for the association, which must include a summary of the reserves of the association required by NRS 116.31152 and which must include, without limitation, a summary of the information described in paragraphs (a) to (e), inclusive, of subsection 3 of NRS 116.31152,” per NRS 116.4109 (c).

[6] Described as, “a statement of any unsatisfied judgments or pending legal actions against the association and the status of any pending legal actions relating to the common-interest community of which the unit’s owner has actual knowledge,” per NRS 116.4109 (d).

[7] Described as, “A statement of any transfer fees, transaction fees or any other fees associated with the resale of a unit,” per NRS 116.4109 (e).

[8] Described as, “In addition to any other document, a statement describing all current and expected fees or charges for each unit, including, without limitation, association fees, fines, assessments, late charges or penalties, interest rates on delinquent assessments, additional costs for collecting past due fines and charges for opening or closing any file for each unit,” per NRS 116.4109 (f).

mgm_grand-photoCondominium Hotel Disclosure Statement NRS 116B – “Before You Purchase Property In A Condominium Hotel Did You Know . . .”

The 2007 Nevada Legislature passed the Condominium Hotel Act as a result of AB431 and in 2008 NRS116B was written specifically for Condominium Hotels and patterned after NRS116.  This new chapter governing condominium hotels contains provisions regarding:

(1) the creation, alteration and termination of condominium hotels;

(2) the management of condominium hotels;

(3) the protection of purchasers; and

(4) the administration and enforcement of the chapter.

Similar to the disclosure statement known as Before you Purchase Property in a Common Interest Community Did you Know. . . ”  required with all Common Interest Communities in Nevada, Sellers of Units in Condominium Hotel have their own Information Statement as required by to NRS 116B.735 and NRS 116B.760.  It is located on Ameriforms here —>> Before You Purchase Property In A Condominium Hotel Did You Know . . .

The statement required by NRS 116B.735  and 116B.760  must be in substantially the form listed within NRS 616B.765.


**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.

Please also see my June 10, 2009 Update on CIC Packages.

I received an attractive question from a salesperson. 

Question: “So, the CIC documents (the resale package) is not being delivered to my buyer.  It’s a long story, but my buyer doesn’t want to pay, the seller doesn’t want to pay, etc.  I am worried the buyer will regret this.”

Answer: “You should place in writing, that the buyer should buy it, even if the seller is meant to provide it as these CC&Rs are going to affect them.”

Q- What should the language say?

A – Well, as luck would have it!  I wrote another form which can be located at ameriforms: Re-Sale’ Package Non Receipt Buyers’ Hold Harmless of Broker… here’s what is says:

The Common Interest Community/Home Owners Association Resale Package also known as the “Resale Package” concerning the Property is not being provided by Seller to Buyer as required by NRS 116.  The Buyer instructs that they do not wish to purchase the Resale Package at their own expense, due to the restrictive cost or other reasons.  Buyer is aware of the location, price and how to purchase the Resale Package via the CIC community above described.  Buyer understands that they are not in receipt of the CC&R’s, Bylaws, financials and other documents they are meant to receive via NRS 116.4109  and the Buyer understands that these documents are binding upon the Buyer and affect the Buyer’s real property rights.  Buyer holds harmless the Seller, Seller Broker/Salespersons and Buyer Broker/Salespersons as to any and all losses, damages, inconvenience the Buyer may sustain as a result of the non receipt of the “re-sale” package.  Finally Buyer is made aware that upon a conveyance of real property without the purchaser receiving the “re-sale” package Buyer is NOT entitled to “cancel” the purchase agreement or “damages, rescission or other relief based solely on the ground that the unit’s owner or his authorized agent failed to furnish the resale package, or any portion thereof, as required by this section.”


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.


Please also see my June 10, 2009 Update on CIC Packages.

This is a follow up to my November 9, 2007 Resale Packages for Nevada REO Sales.

How much can a Common Interest Community charge for the resale package described in NRS 116.4109?

An association may not charge more than $160 for preparing the certificate furnished pursuant to NRS 116.4109, and copying costs, not to exceed 25 cents per page, to cover the cost of copying the other documents required within the certificate.  There can be an additional charge not to exceed $125 if a unit’s owner requests that the certificate be furnished sooner than 3 business days after the date of the request.

I was informed today of an Association charging more than $160; if this has happened to you inform them of the September 2006 ADOPTED REGULATION OF THE COMMISSION FOR COMMON-INTEREST COMMUNITIES LCB File No. R205-05

Next Page »