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