CC&R Amendment Lawsuit Settlement

Somersett United
Somersett United


  • In 2014, A group of Somersett homeowners (Plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit against the Somersett Owners Association (SOA) alleging the CC&R Amendment voting process was unlawfully conducted, this resulted in a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), which prohibited the SOA from officially recording the amended CC&R’s and moving forward any new activities associated with the SGCC purchase agreement.
  • In December 2014, a hearing was held in the 2nd Judicial District Court of Nevada regarding the lawsuit. The purpose of this hearing was to determine Plaintiffs request for a preliminary injunction which would extend the provisions of the Temporary Restraining Order until disposition of the case on its merits.
  • The December hearing resulted in a Court Order denying the issuance of the preliminary injunction. The primary basis for the Court’s denial order was that the Plaintiffs did not demonstrate irreparable harm if the preliminary injunction was not issued. The Order stated “the Court has difficulty in recognizing irreparable harm as a result of defendant’s actions” and that “the Court is convinced that a monetary award can adequately compensate the plaintiffs should they prevail on their claims”.
  • However, in issuing the Order, the Court also made the following findings: “there is a reasonable probability that the plaintiffs will prevail on most of their claims for relief since it is apparent that the Board did not follow the requirements of NRS 116.31035 nor NRS.311(9) as they pertained to the vote on the CC&Rs amendment” and that “The response of the Board to the plaintiffs’ repeated requests for equal time to present their positions, in the Courts opinion, was disingenuous.” 
  • The lawsuit moved forward with the litigants negotiating a settlement, which has been agreed to by all Plaintiffs and the SOA Board of Directors. Pertinent details of the settlement are summarized below.


  • Plaintiffs will receive a payment in the amount of $40K from the SOA, and their $5K Bond will be refunded.
  • Case is dismissed and both plaintiffs and the SOA are released from all claims associated with the case.
  • Plaintiffs agree not to pursue any new claims, either through the Courts or the Nevada Real Estate Division, related to the underlying facts of the case. Also, not to work with any other parties in pursuing such claims.
  • Neither the Plaintiffs nor the SOA shall make any disparaging remarks, either verbally or in writing, against each other regarding the subject matter of the case.
  • Settlement does not constitute an admission of liability by either party.
  • Each party will bear its own costs, expenses and legal fees.


Both parties will most likely spin the settlement to their advantage, but it remains that the BOD felt it better to settle than to continue to pursue through the Court system. Whatever the case, SU believes praise is in order for those homeowners who stood up for what they believed to be for the good of all.  Although costly for the Association, perhaps the BOD has learned a lesson here. That is, to assure that all future ballot measures are conducted in a proper and lawful manner.

16 thoughts on “CC&R Amendment Lawsuit Settlement

  1. You seven homeowners continue to make Somersett an uneasy and contentious place to live. There are almost 3000 homeowners in somersett and “seven” of you think you speak for the whole community and continue to get in the way of constructive progress.

    I’m not sure how you sleep at night. I hope your $40k settlement, which was only agreed to to stop the bleeding from mounting legal fees, makes you proud. It kind of makes me sick…

    1. These lawsuits hurt all of us. They waste our resources (many of which are volunteers) and our money. Only a twisted person would take pride in hurting his neighbors.

      1. Old Joe,
        Did it ever occur to you that your neighbors are also hurt when a BOD does not follow proper procedures to promote their own agenda? Nothing wrong with holding them accountable for their actions, they are not infallible. Time to leave the disparaging remarks behind and move on.

        1. unfortunately you are the only ones that feel as though your neighbors were or are being hurt, only because it does not align with your agenda. The community voted overwhelmingly to support both the CC&R issue and the SGCC acquisition, but because you didn’t agree with them, you saw fit to file lawsuits, possibly also with a motive to financially gain from those lawsuits, which in fact is what happened.

          You must be so proud…

          1. Please please when can “The community voted overwhelmingly to support both the CC&R issue and the SGCC acquisition” be “put to bed?”” Everyone knows that neither would have passed without the Board extending the voting deadlines over and over again AND opening the ballots on a weekly basis AND not permitting opposition statements to be included in literature the Board mailed out to owners as allowed by Nevada Law. I never heard of these sneaky methods from sixth grade class elections all the way up to federal elections. At least I am sure no dead people voted. Besides, while I don’t have the final number of owners who did votes for these two issues at hand, as I recall the pro numbers were barely over 51% of the total eligible to vote. For sure not overwhelming.

  2. Specifically, where is this $40,000 settlement going or being applied?? Are these seven homeowners splitting these settlement funds??

    1. The $40K settlement was paid to the Plaintiffs, how it was distributed between them is not known. When the SOA releases the Settlement Agreement details, SU will republish on this website

      1. What the seven owners do with their money is not the business of anyone, but them. Maybe one or more will make a donation towards xeriscaping the grounds around TCTC or, even better, pay the legal costs for revising the PUD so owners can put decorative rock in their mow strips instead of turf or juniper. After all, they do live in the community and water is bigger than any lawsuit.

      2. That is wonderful as these are the same folks that would like to see their SOA dues decreased… One of them also tied up a sickening amount of money in litigation with the SOA over rock in his yard… Pot, Kettle, Black… These seven could be handed $1M cash and would complain about the denomination of bills… Please move and find another group to share your toxic ideals with…

  3. How sad that seven people with nothing better to do would waste our HOA money on legal fees and now for personal gain. How sad that a wonderful community like Somersett is tarnished by a small group of disgruntled members. How sad that these people would rather be vindictive instead of contributing to this community. Not sure why you have “United” in your name, the goal seems to be to divide. If you don’t like it here, why not move?

    1. Erin has spoken like a true Country Club member who was the beneficiary of $1M+ under the old SGCC agreement and $2.75M under the new agreement, all of which come from Association dues. Why is it that SGCC supporters need to disparage those residents who took the lead in opposing these arrangements? They did so out of principal, not for personal gain. Can’t say the same for Country Club members. I guess if you have an opposing viewpoint, you are not welcome here by the likes of Erin. That is what is really sad!

      1. Congrats to the Magnificent Seven! Someone’s got to keep an eye on things around here. Oh, do you remember we were told during board presentations that the $15 would be reduced to between $9 and $11 and our dues accordingly. Still waiting. Yeah right, just like politician tax reduction promises when they are campaigning for office.

        1. If you are really looking for $9/month HOA dues why don’t you either find a way to subsidize it or move to Yuma, AZ. Seriously??????? We would like to attract future residents and your ideas of no grass and $9 HOA dues will turn this place into a trailer park in no time…

    2. I agree. “Somersett Divided” would be a better name for this pitiful blog. But then they would loose the “SU” acronym (short for “sue” as in “we’ll SU you if we don’t like the way the vote turns out).

      1. Can anyone do grammar school arithmetic? Not $9 dues (monthly assessments), but $6 lower than what they are now, i.e. instead of $15 out of dues going to pay the mortgage only $9. Owners were told that as part of the pro vote propaganda.

        Grass is “old fashioned.” One of these days the State/County/City will order such cutbacks in water usage that grass will be out and xeriscape in. Some associations have already started to remove the grass from their parkway center dividers saving water and labor costs for mowing. Cities too are considering trading grass for water and maintenance savings.

        We are already starting to have a “trailer park” in place of the West Park. Go take a look. Oh, in case you don’t know, there will soon be an RV Storage Park on Somersett Ridge between Maria’s restaurant and the entry to Del Webb at Somersett (Sierra Canyon). That will be a nice attraction as people enter (and leave) greater Somersett.

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