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