Lawsuit for Temporary Restraining Order and Permanent Injunction

The following post submitted by a homeowner group opposed to the proposed CC&R Amendments:

A large group of Somersett homeowners met Thursday Aug. 21st with two leading Nevada HOA attorneys to discuss filing a lawsuit to prohibit the SOA Board from continuing their charade of a fair and unbiased vote to amend the CC&Rs.

After reviewing all the facts the attorneys agreed that the SOA Board has clearly committed and continues to commit violations of the Law with respect to their conduct of the CC&R Amendment vote, and that the whole voting process has been tainted.  Hence, the filing of a lawsuit to forestall its implementation has merit.

An additional point of contention is that passage of the CC&R amendment would allow the SOA Board to conduct a vote to purchase the Somersett Country Club  property with approval requiring a mere 10% +1 of eligible association members (i.e., majority vote of a 20% homeowner quorum).  This represents a potential violation of Nevada Statute NRS 116.3112.

The alleged violation of NRS 116.3112 with respect to application of the 20% quorum to the Country Club purchase is an agenda item on the Wednesday August 27th BOD meeting (5:30 PM at TCTC). All homeowners are urged to attend this meeting to demand that the Board, regardless whether or not the CC&R Amendment vote passes, establish that purchase of the Country Club property shall only be passed by a majority (i.e., 50% +1) of all eligible SOA homeowners, and any such future vote shall be concluded accordingly and not extended beyond December 30, 2014.

3 thoughts on “Lawsuit for Temporary Restraining Order and Permanent Injunction

  1. Let’s see? There are how many homeowners in somersett today? ~2800? More? I’m curious? What do you consider “Large”?

  2. It is unconscionable that the Board would try to run a vote to buy the CGC under the 20% + 1 quorum rule – we are spending $2.75 million.

    We need to have full participation and voting of 50% + 1, if not on a supermajority on all consequential financial decisions, investments, etc.

    One more time, we need to have the vote to buy the CGC and amend the relevant CCR’s to allow us to actually own the CGC done under the 50% + 1 rule at least.
    Apathy is no excuse for having a 20% + 1 rule for MAJOR community financial decisions

    (that is a small association – with only $4.5 million in revenues – making any capital investment over $100K (without a vote) – especially as we are all buying assets (in hock!) valued at over $8,000,000!)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s