February 28th BOD Meeting Agenda

The Somersett Owners Association (SOA) Board of Directors (BOD) open meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, February 28th at 5:30 PM at The Club at Town Center (TCTC) Sports Court. The Meeting Agenda may be accessed by clicking on the following link:

February 28th BOD Meeting Agenda

With regard to BOD Meeting Agendas, it appears that their associated Board Meeting Packets are no longer available on the SOA website (www.somersett.net). Although not always timely, these Packets, which provide supporting information for the Agenda topics, were previously made available on the website prior to the meeting.

Perhaps the new BOD has decided to no longer publish this document for Association Member access. If so, this would be unfortunate as it provided Members with a broader base of information for any comments or questions they may have on Agenda topics.

SC Dehumidifier Litigation Comment – 2

Submitted by Steve Guderian as an addendum to his previous post

To the SU Community,

I forgot to add a very important piece of information in my previous post, as required by NRS the SC BOD did go out to the community and obtained a vote that was 6 to 1 in favor of going forward with the lawsuit against Pulte. Below is Mr. Bower’s response to this fact in the SC discussion board thread, Mr. Bower’s post was made on 1-31-18 at 2:52 PM:

“What has happened in both Somersett and Sierra Canyon is that the boards have added wording of their own to the voting instructions stating that the board may extend the ballot to be received by date deadline at its option. In real life that means that if we the board do not get the necessary number of votes we want to proceed in the manner we want we will allow more votes to come in until we have the number we want and that that number includes the 50% Plus One number needed. In other words, unlike most elections voting continues until the desired result has been achieved.

That may not be “fair” in the minds of many, but the many don’t conduct the election. The few do.

In one Somersett election the ballots were opened on a weekly basis by staff and one or two board members so the board could know whether to extend the voting deadline or not. Owners didn’t know anything other than more time to vote was being given. Don’t believe that happened? Well, I was physically present at some of the vote count sessions to help count and have documented notes on the number of For and Against votes and their count dates.

There is no “BY LAW” (where an it be read?) that “you have to go out for another vote . . . . . .” Actually the election is over at first count, but since the desired result by the Board was not reached, it enacts its pre-stated option and extends the ballot must be received by deadline.

A non-returned ballot is a NO vote!”

This piece of information is wrong on every level. The simplest way to show this is by looking at the very last statement, the one stating “A non-returned ballot is a NO vote!”

Historically, and I am sure that most SU readers know this, a majority of the residents is never reached on the first ballot. If the ballot is worded in the negative or converse form of what they really want the board can go through with any action they want after one vote. In other words, simply word the ballot such that a “NO” vote allows the board to do whatever they want to do. This way all of the non-returned ballots, which is easily the majority of ballots, is a “NO” and if what Mr. Bower is saying were true the board could move forward anyway they want to.

The facts, and the law speak for themselves.

Respectfully
Steve Guderian
Sierra Canyon Resident

SC Dehumidifier Litigation Comment – 1

Submitted by Steve Guderian in response to Mr. Bower’s previous post:

Ms. Colquhoun and the rest of the SU members.

Mr. Bower is leaving a few facts out of his post that are critical to know and all need to be made aware of.

The first fact that Mr. Bower neglected to state and for Mr. Colguhoun, an email blast from the SC staff went out to SC residents back in late January, as I recall, explaining what the lawsuit was all about, and that to date less than $10K has been spent on legal fees for both lawsuits and Pulte is now talking with the SC attorney about both lawsuits. A complete explanation of the lawsuit has been provide to the SC residents. Another related fact about the whole lawsuit, that has been discussed multiple times and Mr. Bower continues to neglect to mention, is that at least two prior SC board of directors neglected to file a construction defects lawsuit under chapter 40 BEFORE the 10 year statue of limitations ran out. The last board that filed this lawsuit Mr. Bower is complaining about had no ability to file against Pulte until they made a mistake and gave the SC community a chance to take a second bite from the apple under Chapter 116, and an entirely different strategy. The cost to replace the dehumidifier, multiple expert reports and estimates put the cost at $350K to $500K. So for a cost of less than $10K at this time the SC community has a chance to save a whole lot of money.

In order to be fair and open to everybody, I was on the SC BOD when all of this took place and I was part of the fact gathering and decision making process.

Additional facts Mr. Bower has neglected to bring forward;

1. Mr. Bower has a personal agenda for continuing to push this matter.
2. Back on 1-29-18 Mr. Bower posted his complaint and issues about this matter on the Sierra Canyon Discussion board.
3. There were 27 posts associated with Mr. Bower’s initial post on this matter and it was this community involvement in this issue that resulted in the fact based email blast from the staff to the SC community.
4. The second to the last post in 1-29-18 SC discussion board started by Mr. Bower was on 1-31-18.
5. In other words, the facts came out in the discussion and email blast and the discussion died on the SC 6. This particular post is nothing more that a copy and paste from Mr. Bower’s post on the SC discussion board 3 days ago, 2-13-18.
7. Mr. Bower did state in his post that what was posted [sic] is from the SC discussion board, but he neglected to tell the SU readers that he posted it there.
8. The structure of the SC discussion board is that reposting in a discussion thread pulls the thread back up to the top of the discussion topics.
9. There are NO new posts in this discussions topic on the SC discussion board.
10. As stated above Mr. Bower reopened this discussion topic on 2-13-14, this was one day before the final day of voting in the SC board election.

Regarding my statement in 1 above, it is not my place to talk about Mr. Bower’s agenda in this matter as it is an issue that he needs to bring up to the community, or to deny.

Respectfully
Steve Guderian
Sierra Canyon Resident

SC Dehumidifier Litigation

Posted by Joe Bower – Sierra Canyon Homeowner

Part 1

On August 29, 2017 Sierra Canyon via its lawyer, Eva Segerblom, Esq. (formerly represented Somersett with the Maddox law firm where she is now a partner) filed a civil suit against PN II, Inc., (Pulte) et. al. – the developer of Sierra Canyon as well as potentially others who participated in the design, development and installation of the dehumidifier in the indoor pool room at the Aspen Lodge.

On January 19, 2018 the judge granted without prejudice PN II’s motion to dismiss the action.

Part II

Copied from the Sierra Canyon website:

Hello Fellow Sierra Canyon Owners,

Late morning today, February 13, 2018 (conveniently the day before our board election thus shutting out any input from the to be newly elected board members) an appeal was filed by our attorney in the Pulte Dehumidifier Case. So the Case continues.

As has been mentioned, the executive board may meet in executive session to consult with the attorney for the association on matters relating to proposed or pending litigation.

That right must be respected, especially when legal strategy is being discussed. HOWEVER, once a document has been filed with the court it is public. After that has happened, I and other owners believe our board should provide as detailed an update as possible to all dues paying unit owners.

An important a matter as this one should not wait for a board meeting at which a small percentage of owners attend.

We get bombarded with association social/Lodge activities related emails, but zilch on association business. Hopefully that will change once some new members of the board have been seated.

Rockery Wall Litigation – Owner Involvement

It has been confirmed by the SOA that the requirements of NRS 116.31088 “Meetings regarding civil actions; requirements for commencing or ratifying certain civil actions ….”, will apply to the SOA’s Rockery Wall civil action process (see previous post of February 5th entitled “Rockery Wall Defect Litigation”).

This NRS 116.31088 statute (paraphrased) requires the following:

  • That the SOA provide notification of and conduct an owner meeting to discuss the proposed civil action,
  • That the proposed civil action be ratified via majority owner vote or written agreement.
  • That prior to ratification, the Association provide a written statement to owners that includes a cost estimate for the civil action, including attorney fees, and an explanation of the benefits and/or adverse consequences of the civil action.
  • That once settled, a disclosure of the terms and conditions of the settlement at the next BOD meeting.

In consideration of the above, the SOA BOD intends to schedule a meeting for late February and the sending out of ballots for owner approval.

For those interested in a complete reading of NRS 116.31088, go to the “References” tab and click on the “NRS 116 Common-Interest Ownership Uniform Act” link. This will take you to the NRS 116 website wherein you can access all of its provisions.

Rockery Wall Defect Litigation

At the January 24th BOD Meeting it was revealed that the SOA had instituted legal action (i.e., a Chapter 40 Construction Defect, Complaint for Damages) with respect to defects and deficiencies in construction of the SOA Common Area Rockery Walls. (Reference: Washoe County District Court Case No. CV17-02427). Defendants in the legal action are identified as:

  • Somersett Development Company LTD
  • Somersett LLC (currently dissolved)
  • Somersett Development Corporation (currently dissolved)
  • Parsons Bros Rockeries, CA Inc.
  • Parsons Bros Rockeries, CA Inc. dba Parsons Walls
  • Q&D Construction Inc.

The SOA’s General Allegations against the Defendants include the following: (Note: the CV17-02427 article number is referenced in parenthesis).

  1. That the Defendants “failed to properly and adequately plan, design, investigate, inspect, supervise and construct the Subject Property”. (27)
  2. That the defects and deficiencies include: “excessive or inadequate voids with no, or inadequate, chinking rocks; failure to use filter fabric to encase the drain rock or otherwise in construction of rockery walls; drain rock and or retained soil spilling through voids; inadequate, improper or otherwise bad placement of rockery wall rocks: over-steepened and or non-uniform face batter of rockery walls; and inadequate stabilization of the rockery walls”. (31)
  3. That “Based upon investigation and testing performed by experts retained by Plaintiff, Plaintiff …. alleges that the above-referenced defects are pervasive throughout the Subject Property, …. .and that said Defendants …. had actual knowledge of many of the said deficiencies at the time of construction ….”. (32)
  4. That “All of the said defects which are the subject of this action were described and accompanied by an expert report” (Reference: American Geotechnical Inc. “Preliminary Evaluation – Somersett Master Association – Rockery Walls, dated December 22, 2017). (33)
  5. That “the defects and deficiencies …. are, among other things, violations or breaches of local building and construction practices, industry standards, governmental codes and restrictions, manufacturer requirements and/or product specifications at the time the Subject Property was planned, designed, constructed and sold”. (35)
  6. That “the deficiencies in the construction, design, planning, and/or construction of the Subject Properties described in this Complaint were known or should have been known by Defendants at all times relevant hereto”. (36)
  7. That “the conduct of Defendants, as more fully described herein, was and remains the actual and proximate cause of general and special damages to the Plaintiff”. (38)

The Complaint is an 18 page document that, in addition to the “General Allegations” summarized above, contains numerous articles under the following topics: 1) Negligence and Negligence Per Se, 2) Breach of Express and Implied Warranties of Fitness, Merchantability, Quality and Habitability Pursuant to Chapter 116 and Common Law, 3) Negligent Misrepresentation and/or Failure to Disclose, 4) Declaratory Relief, and 5) Breach of NRS 116.1113 and the Implied Covenant of Good Faith.

In the Complaint, the SOA is seeking a judgment of damages against the Defendants for the following; 1) costs of repair and/or replacement of defects, 2) costs and expenditures to correct, cure or mitigate damages caused or that will be caused by defects and/or deficiencies, 3) losses associated with the defects and/or deficiencies , including loss of use, relocation, and incidental expenses, 4) attorney fees and expert witness expenses, 5) relief as is necessary for a just adjudication of this matter, and 6) prejudgment interest.

The SOA is also demanding a trial by Jury.