The order

“1. RESPONDENT shall pay the Division a total of SIX THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED FORTY-TWO DOLLARS and 87/100 cents ($6,442.87), consisting of $3,000.00 in administrative fines and $3,442.87 in costs and fees incurred by the Division. The full amount is due within 180 days of the effective date of this Order.

2. RESPONDENT's Supervising CAM Certification is hereby downgraded to a Community Manager Certification, without supervisory authority.

3. RESPONDENT shall, within one (1) year of the effective date of this Order, complete Nevada's sixty (60) hour CAM pre-licensing course.

4. Upon providing written proof of completion of that coursework to the Division's satisfaction, RESPONDENT shall be eligible to re-apply for a Nevada Supervising CAM certificate.”

Note the shape of it. The fine is $3,000; the Division's own costs and fees are $3,442.87 — more than the penalty. That ratio is worth knowing before anyone decides a Commission case is cheap to contest.

Note also what the remedy is. Not a suspension and not a revocation: a downgrade, plus the 60-hour pre-licensing course, plus a route back. The Commission treated the failure as a competence gap and prescribed training for it.

Why the 60 hours is the detail to watch

Sixty hours is Nevada's pre-licensing standard for community managers — 20 hours on federal, state and local law applicable to managing a common-interest community, and 40 cumulative hours across the other prescribed subjects.

The state's pending regulation, LCB File No. R091-25, would make that same 60 hours the requirement for converting a temporary community-manager certificate into a full one, up from 18. The Commission was ordering the 60-hour course as a remedy in April 2026; the Commission adopted the regulation making it an entry standard in September 2026. The two are the same judgement about what competence in this job requires, expressed in the two different instruments available.

The part that matters to boards

The order records what investigators were told by two board members at the affected associations. One said that they had not had to sign invoices or checks recently, as there had been no reserve expenses, and that payments were set up via autopay. Another described invoices on autopay with digital signatures.

That is not a description of misconduct. It is a description of a normal, modern, efficient accounts-payable arrangement — and it is how the statutory signature requirement quietly stopped being satisfied. Automation moved the signing from a person with authority to a system configured by people without it. The respondent's own explanation, quoted in the order, is in the same register: that the co-signature was “an error that we have corrected, unfortunately it was a setting in our system that applied to communities outside of Nevada.”

A system setting. Applied across state lines. That is the mechanism, and it will be present in many Nevada communities whose managers operate in more than one state.

What to check this week

• Pull three months of cleared checks on the operating and reserve accounts and look at the signatures. Not the approval workflow — the signature on the instrument.
• Ask who is on the bank signature card. If a management-company employee who is not a board member or officer is on it, that is the finding in this case.
• Audit the autopay and digital-signature configuration, including any defaults inherited from a multi-state template.
• Know that the exposure has grown. Since July 1, 2026 the Commission's administrative fine ceiling is $5,000 per violation, up from $1,000. This order's nineteen and twelve occasions were charged as conduct rather than as per-check violations, but the ceiling applies “for each violation,” and the arithmetic of a per-occasion charge at the new number is not small.

Two notes on the record

The order recites that the consolidated matters came on for hearing on March 10, 2025. The order is dated and filed April 23, 2026, the underlying investigative events run through 2025, and the case numbers are 2025-series. The hearing year as printed appears inconsistent with the rest of the record, and this article does not rely on it.

One commissioner recused himself from the proceedings, citing an ongoing business relationship with the respondent — a reminder of how small Nevada's community-management world is, and why the Commission's recusal practice matters.