We have a Vote Count!

Subsequent to yesterdays post on “Where is the Vote Count”, SOA management sent out an email to Association Members announcing the litigation vote count results. Was this just a coincidence, or was some prodding in effect here?  Whatever the case, the results were as follows:

  • 716 in favor of the law suit
  • 205 opposed
  • 36 unusable ballots

Note that the number of ballots submitted amounted to 32% of the approximately 3000 Somersett unit owners, and therefore, the 716 votes in favor of ratification fell way short of the required majority vote (i.e., 50% +1) of all unit owners.  Something the SOA did not address in their email. So what now? The Board could decide to extend the voting process, which ran heavy in favor of ratification. However, given the low percentage of initial ballot submittals, it would appear that the Board would be hard pressed to gather the additional 800 votes in favor of ratification should they decide to do so.

Hopefully a decision on how to proceed will be forthcoming shortly. Meanwhile, without a ratification vote, one would assume that litigation activities on the part of the SOA attorneys, and related legal expenses, are on hold.

As of mid-March 2018, SOA legal expenses for the rockery wall issue totaled approximately $62.6K.  This does not include an additional  $13.3K in legal expenses in a dispute with the Country Club over responsibility for the rockery wall failures adjacent to the 14th fairway.

 

4 thoughts on “We have a Vote Count!

  1. So……$13,300 has been spent in LEGAL FEES simply to resolve the SGCC repayment of THEIR share of the costs for the repair of THEIR portion of the 14th fairway wall??? Seems like we are rapidly incurring unnecessary (and apparently ongoing) legal fees.

    On April 4, 2018 Tracy sent us an email (in response to a question we sent him):

    “There were two wall failures, one wall belongs to the SOA, the other is part of the golf course which carries a warranty from the SGCC.  The Board made the  decision that the walls needed to be repaired as quickly as possible for various reasons and the SGCC was unable to do so at that time.  The SOA is currently negotiating an agreement to reserve all its’ rights against the SGCC while attempting to recover the cost of repairs from the parties that constructed and installed the walls.”

    On April 5th we sent the following in response to Tracy:
    .
    “We understand the urgency to get the walls repaired, but we are very concerned that an agreement was not made with SGCC for SGCC to pick up THEIR share of the expenses…..PRIOR….to the HOA getting a loan.  The Homeowners are being asked to pay for the repairs to SGCC property, with no written agreement of repayment in place ????  That appears to be a EXTREMELY unwise business decision, which could potentially leave homeowners in the midst of yet another lawsuit , and/or potentially having to  pay for all repair costs .  Additionally, we feel that ALL homeowners should be made aware of this situation IMMEDIATELY”.

    QUESTION: What is the “warranty from SGCC” that Tracy referred to? If there is a warranty, why was it necessary to spend $13,300 (thus far) in legal fees to settle this?

  2. The vote did not necessarily constitute an overwhelming support.. Many knew that not voting was a “no” vote..

  3. Only 31% of owners bothered to vote at all. Even though a few ballots were unusable, their owners tried.

    The percent of For Votes was far below (53%) the number needed to pass.

    Looks like the Board didn’t beat the drum loudly enough to get the job done.

    That 69% of owners couldn’t care less should worry board members unless they don’t care and “we’ll just special assess our way out.”

    Of course many owners consider not voting is the same as a No Vote.

    I appreciate board legal strategy being confidential, but legal related facts aren’t. I fail to comprehend why the 716 number was withheld from owners for so long.

  4. ARE ALL HOMEOWNERS AWARE THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY INVOLVED IN 3 SEPARATE AND COSTLY LAWSUITS? It is my understanding that these lawsuits must be disclosed, if you are selling your home. This information is buried in Somersett.net. 1. The Board has apparently referred the rockery wall vote to the attorney to decide how to proceed.. 2. The SOA paid for the SGCC’s portion of the already repaired rock wall because “SGCC was unable to do so.” The SOA apparently took out a LOAN to pay for the repairs. Now the SOA has apparently already spent THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS suing SGCC for repayment. 3. Since 2016 there has been an ongoing SOA lawsuit to try to enforce CC&Rs on Somersett homeowners who purchased adjacent lots from Northgate Golf. ……………..I would like to see such important issues (which impact the value and costs of our homes) HIGHLIGHTED on Somersett.net’s dashboard….or better yet….notifying every homeowner by email or text message.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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