In a revised version to the SGCC Purchase Agreement that was originally published on the community website, the following provision was subsequently added at the end of Section 3:
“3.9. Satisfaction of Claims. The consummation of this Agreement by the approval of the members of Buyer and the members of Seller constitutes complete satisfaction of any concerns or claims that the Buyer has or had about or against the Developer and the Buyer board members appointed by the Developer arising out of or relating to the execution or negotiation of the Existing Lease Agreement entered into by and between the Buyer and the Seller.”
The Buyer being the Somersett Owners Association (SOA), and the Seller being the Somersett Golf and Country Club (SGCC).
What does this mean? It means that if the Purchase Agreement is approved, the SOA forever relinquishes any claims against the Developer (Blake Smith), his Associate (Tiffany Roland) and current BOD member Ray Lee pertaining to their involvement in formulating and implementing the existing SGCC Lease Agreement. As many know, the current Lease Agreement is the subject of a Complaint being filed before the Nevada Real Estate Commission on Common Interest Communities by the Nevada Attorney General’s office. The complaint alleges that by entering into this agreement, the then SOA BOD (Blake Smith, Tiffinay Roland, and Ray Lee) violated several provisions of Nevada Law. Most notably, acting outside of their authority, misuse of surplus funds, conflict of interest and failing to act in good faith.
To date over $1,2M of association money has been given to the SGCC under the existing Lease Agreement. The intent of the added provision is obvious, and that is to shield Smith, Roland and Lee from any potential law suits (i.e., on the part of the SOA) arising from the Complaint discussed above.
The “Satisfaction of Claims” provision has no relevance to the SGCC Purchase Agreement and, therefore, no business being included therein. In addition, at the August homeowner information meetings, no mention was made by the BOD of this added provision. SU suspects s this omission was intentional and shows a lack of transparency on the part of the current BOD. Perhaps the BOD will chose to address why this provision was added to the Purchase Agreement the next homeowner information meeting.