Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

Code · Nevada · CHAPTER 119A - TIME SHARES

NRS 119A.310 Grounds for denial of permit; burden of proof.

327 words·~1 min read·/nv/chapter-119a-time-shares/119a-310·

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

NRS 119A.310 Grounds for denial of permit; burden of proof.
1. The Administrator shall deny an application for a permit to sell time shares if the Administrator finds that:
(a)The developer failed to comply with any of the provisions of this chapter or the regulations adopted by the Division; or
(b)The developer, any affiliate of the developer or any officer of the developer or an affiliate of the developer, has:
(1)Been convicted of or pleaded nolo contendere to forgery, embezzlement, obtaining money under false pretenses, larceny, extortion, conspiracy to defraud or other crime involving moral turpitude;
(2)Been the subject of a judgment in any civil or administrative action, including a proceeding to revoke or suspend a license, involving fraud or dishonesty;
(3)Been permanently enjoined by a court of competent jurisdiction from selling real estate, time shares or securities in an unlawful manner;
(4)Had a registration as a broker-dealer in securities or a license to act as a real estate broker or salesperson, project broker or sales agent revoked;
(5)Been convicted of or pleaded nolo contendere to selling time shares without a license; or
(6)Had a permit to sell time shares, securities or real estate revoked.
2. The Administrator may deny an application for a permit to sell time shares if the Administrator finds that the developer has failed to offer satisfactory proof that it has a good reputation for honesty, trustworthiness, integrity and competence to transact the business of a developer in a manner which safeguards the interests of the public.
3. The burden of proof is on the developer to establish to the satisfaction of the Administrator that the developer is competent to transact the business of the developer in a manner which safeguards the interests of the public.
4. If a developer has substantially complied with the provisions of this chapter in good faith, a nonmaterial error or omission is not sufficient grounds to deny a permit.
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.