Rockery Wall Litigation Update (2)

It has been three months since this website published an update (accessible via the following link: May 22 “ROCKERY WALL LITIGATION UPDATE”) on the Somersett Owners Association (SOA) lawsuit against the Somersett Development Company et. al. pertaining to the SOA Common Area Rockery Wall Defects. What has transpired since then? Not much with regards to resolutions or settlements. As usual, the wheels of justice move slowly, meanwhile the SOA Attorneys continue to rack up their $285-$375 per hour legal fees.

In the May 22nd posting, reference was made to the “First Amended Complaint for Damages (Corrected)” document, filed with the Court on May 3rd, which updated the original Chapter 40 Complaint for Damages against Somersett Development Company, Q&D Construction and Parsons Brother Rockeries.. Access to this document is available via the following Link: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (CORRECTED)

Subsequent to the updated complaint, documents filed with the Washoe County District Court (Case # CV17-02427) include the following, filing dates noted:

• DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL by both the SOA and Somersett Development Company (June 21 & August 17)

• ORDER OF RECUSAL by District Court Judge David Hardy as being a member of the Somersett Owners Association. Case was subsequently transferred to another department (July 12)

• Q&D CONSTRUCTION ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (August 13)

This document contains Q&D’s response to the SOA’s Complaint for Damages. The first 15 pages are responses to each allegation contained in the SOA’s Complaint. Basically, all responses are repetitive in which Q&D denies each and every allegation. Pages 16-20 “Affirmative Defenses”, puts forth 21 stated defenses against the SOA Claim. These include references to: plaintiff misconduct & negligence; statutes of limitations & repose; doctrines of estoppel, waiver, laches, & unclean hands; acts of God; acts by others; and limited liability should the Complaint for Damages prevail. A reprint of Q&D’s “Affirmative Defenses” contained in the Court filing document are accessible via the following link: Q&D CONSTRUCTION DEFENSES TO SOA CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

• SOMERSETT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND CROSS-CLAIM (August 17)

Document filed on behalf of Somersett Development Company, Somersett LLC and Somersett Development Corporation. The first 5 pages contain repetitive denials of all allegations contained in the SOA Complaint. Pages 6 and 7 offer up 11 supplemental “Defenses” which include references to: statutes of repose & limitations; acts by others; improper acts and conduct on part of the plaintiff; doctrines of consent & estoppel: and violation of NRS 116.31088 (majority owner approval of lawsuit).  A reprint of Somersett Development Company’s “Defenses” contained in the Court filing document are accessible via the following link: SOMERSETT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY DEFENSES TO SOA CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

Pages 8-13 of this document represents a Cross-Claim by Somersett Development against co-defendants Q&D Construction and Parsons Brothers Rockeries. This Cross-Claim, without admitting any truth to the SOA’s Claim for Damages, basically alleges that the matters referred to in the SOA Claim were “proximately caused by the acts and omissions of Cross-Defendants”.

• PARSONS BROTHERS ROCKERIES ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (August 21)

This document contains Parsons Brothers Rockeries response to the SOA’s Complaint for Damages in which they deny all allegations contained in the SOA Complaint. Also, some additional stated “Affirmative Defenses” which reference: improper acts on the part of the plaintiff; statutes of limitation or repose; violation of NRS Chapter 40 provisions; and the doctrines of waiver, estoppel, accord, satisfaction & latches. A reprint of Parsons Brothers “Affirmative Defenses” contained in the Court filing document are accessible via the following link: PARSONS BROTHERS DEFENSES TO SOA CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

• PARSONS BROTHERS ROCKERIES ANSWER TO SOMERSETT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY CROSS CLAIM (August 23)

A response to the Somersett Development Company Cross-Claim in which Parsons Brothers denies all allegations contained therein and offers up some “Affirmative Defenses” to the allegations.  Since these do not represent a response to the SOA Claim for Damages, but rather against Somersett Development Company, a reprint has not been included.

Other Activities Pertaining to the Rockery Wall Lawsuit:

• A Mediation session between the litigants was held on June 21st. However, per the SOA Attorney, “Mediation proceedings are confidential, so the details of the session cannot be disclosed”.

• The SOA response to the Intervention Affidavit filed by a Somersett Homeowner with the Nevada Real Estate Division (NRED) was submitted on July 30th to the NRED Investigator. This Intervention Affidavit (see previous post by clicking on: ROCKERY WALL LAWSUIT NRED INTERVENTION) alleges that the SOA violated NRS 16.31088 by not obtaining majority homeowner approval for proceeding with the Rockery Wall Lawsuit. No results to date on the NRED investigation into this matter.

• SOA incurred Legal Fees as of June 30th, 2018 related to the Rockery Wall Defect issues are as follows:

1. Somersett Development Company et. al Lawsuit: $138K  ($44K in 2017, $94K in 2018)

2. Dispute with Country Club:  $28K  ($13K in 2017, $15K in 2018, to date, no information regarding the SOA dispute with the Country Club has been made available to Association members).

3. NRED Intervention Affidavit:  $8K

Comments Anyone?

SNPAA Wine Sharing Party

The following posted in support of the Sierra Nevada Performing Arts Association (SNPAA). SNPAA ia non-profit organization established to support the performing arts in Northern Nevada and to provide scholarships to local talented students:

Hello: I am pleased to invite you to our Sierra Nevada Performing Arts Association Underwriting and Wine Sharing Party at the Villa Ciorciari in Arrowcreek on Saturday, August 25. (Details below) This will be a very casual summer party. Tickets are $35 each, which can be purchased on-line at snpaa.org by going to our Events page, or purchased by check by printing the form below and mailing it to our address for receipt by August 17. We are also asking that you bring along a bottle of wine per person for sharing with others that night. We will be auctioning off a Wine Wagon, as well as, implementing our usual 50/50 Raffle. Hope you can join us. Please feel free to pass this invitation on to others. If you have already responded, thank you and just consider this a reminder. Joe Morabito

P. S. If you would like to donate wine with a retail value of $25 or more per bottle for our Wine Wagon Auction, just let me know and we will pick it up.

Joseph Morabito
President
Sierra Nevada Performing Arts Association
+1.949.500.0753 Cell

Project Site Mud Flow

The following memo submitted by Joe Bower with permission of the author:

Village 3 Neighbors,

On July 21st, there was a heavy rain storm which caused a large amount of mud to flow from the Toll Brother’s project onto Hawk Meadow Trail, Somersett Parkway, and into storm drains.

A few days ago I received an e-mail from the City of Reno Engineering Department regarding this incident. There was a meeting recently with a representative from the City of Reno Engineering Department, the developer, their contractor representatives, and inspectors from the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. The meeting was held to discuss the Stormwater plan for the development.

According to information provided by the City Engineer’s Department, several items were identified for improvement. These items will be inspected and recorded during follow up inspections by both the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection and the City of Reno.

Toll Brothers is responsible for the clean up of the mud, and the City Engineering Department indicates the clean up activities are still in progress. According to the Engineering Department, there is a high clay content in the mud, and the clay has “cemented” into the roadway. Too much water during street sweeping will turn the material back into mud. Aggressive street sweeping operations when the material is dry creates too much dust violating the Dust Control Permit with Washoe County Air Quality. Consequently, cleaning up the clay on the street is not an easy task.

If I hear more I will let you know. Keep your fingers crossed the officials from the City of Reno and the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection take this situation seriously.

Ken McNeil