Upstairs neighbor should provide doctor’s note about condition

Q: We live in a condominium on the first floor. The covenants clearly state that the second floor cannot have hardwood floors or tile flooring.

He (our upstairs neighbor) did not get prior approval from the board before installing his new flooring.

We sent a letter to the association explaining our problem with noise level and the fact that it is a violation of the covenants.

Since then, we have learned that two other owners had to replace their hardwood floors back to carpet.

We were told by the owner of the unit above ours that he has a medical condition and that is why he replaced the carpet.

We are standing firm by the covenants.

To complicate the situation, our neighbor has now been elected to the board.

Our question to you, are we wasting our time to pursue this issue in light of his medical condition?

A: Regardless of the medical condition, the owner had an obligation to submit an architectural request.

To state that he needs a variance because of his medical condition, he would have been required to produce a letter from his doctor informing the association that such a variance was necessary because of his condition.

Federal fair housing laws would have required the association to grant a variance.

In some cases, I have seen where the owner was agreeable to installing an area rug to help minimize the noise.

The reader should at least take two steps.

One is to have the board obtain the letter from the doctor; if none is given, then the owner should replace his hardwood back to carpet.

Two, if such a letter is received, find out if this owner is willing to install some area rugs to help reduce the noise.

The bottom line is that the association is required to accommodate those individuals who fall under the various medical categories of the federal fair housing laws. Federal laws would supersede the association's covenants.

Regardless of the fact that this owner is now on the board, the association is required by NRS 116 to equally enforce the governing documents of the association.

The board needs to follow proper due process.

The director in question cannot participate in the discussion of this matter.

If there is a hearing, he should not even be sitting with the directors, but in front of them.

He would be allowed to present his case and the directors could ask questions.

Then the opposing homeowners would present their case and again the directors could ask questions.

After each side has made its presentation and there are no further questions from the directors, both parties would be excused.

The board would then make a decision in executive session, and both parties would be notified of the board's decision by mail.

In electing directors, unless your governing documents are very explicit, an owner who is in violation of the association's governing documents, be it delinquent assessments or a regulation, can still have his or her name placed on the ballot as long as the disclosure is made to the association on his candidate application.

The association is then required to disclose the fact that the homeowner is not a member in good standing in the newsletter that contains the ballots.

If your governing documents spell out that a member cannot be a candidate if he or she is in violation, then the association would not add that member's name to the ballot.

Barbara Holland, certified property manager, broker and supervisory certified association manager, is president and owner of H&L Realty and Management Co. Questions may be sent to Association Q. & A., P.O. Box 7440, Las Vegas, NV 89125. Her fax number is 385-3759. Questions may be shortened and are subject to editing.