Rockery Wall Lawsuit Summary Judgement Hearing

The July 16th SOA Attorney Legal Disclosure Letter contained the following update with regard to the Rockery Wall lawsuit:

“Plaintiffs Motion to Strike Certain Affirmative Defenses Relating to Statutes of Limitations and Repose, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgement and Somersett Development Company’s Separate Motion for Summary Judgement were heard on July 15th, 2019. The Judge took the motions under submission and a written opinion is expected within the next two to four weeks”.

The Court order that set the above referenced Hearing and the resulting Hearing Minutes (as filed in Court records) may be viewed via the following Links:

Order to Set Hearing

Summary Motions Hearing Minutes

Note that the Hearing Minutes are not overly informative as to what was presented by the various attorneys, only a chronology of what transpired during the two and a half hour Hearing. However, it is safe to say that they simply argued their previously submitted motions to the Court, which may be accessed via the following links:

Motion to Strike Certain Affirmative Defenses Relating to Statutes of Limitations and Repose

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgement

Needless to say, the Courts ruling on the Summary Judgment motions will have a significant impact on the case moving forward. If the Court finds for the Defendants (Somersett Development Compant et al.) and issues a Summary Judgement in their favor, will that essentially end it for the SOA?, or will an appeal be in order? Same for an unfavorable ruling against the Defendants. Hopefully, the Court will indeed issue its opinion in the next two to four weeks.

For additional background information, see the previous SU post of June 19th, 2019 entitled:   Rockery Wall Litigation Update (5)

5 thoughts on “Rockery Wall Lawsuit Summary Judgement Hearing

  1. Rockery Wall Litigation

    I read through both Somersett’s homeowners and the opposition briefs (Somersett Development/Q&D Construction, etc.). The case argued by Somersett is very persuasive, in the sense that the statute of limitations does not and cannot start until the community is “finished” and turned over to the residents.

    I would like to urge that all owners of property in Somersett read through the briefs.

    We are talking about catastrophic failure of the Rockery Walls in the common area and on SGCC leased ,land. This is an essential part of our community’s infrastructure, to shore up hillsides, building pads, etc. When a catastrophic failure occurs, it is more than likely due to improper construction of the wall, failure to properly prepare ground. This should never happen!

    Most catastrophic failures are due to human error!

    Recently, in Mountain Crest, built in 2003/04, 6 homesites suffered from pad “Collapse” which lead to the houses sagging, cracking etc. Toll Brothers fixed their defective site construction work, by shoring up each affected house with steel pilings, at a cost of $100K per house. Needless to say the homeowners had to sue to get Toll to repair their houses and still suffer through the inconvenience of living in less than perfect housing!

    Mountain Crest is next to the Catastrophic wall failure on the Golf Course, which suggests that this entire section of Somersett was inadequately prepared when the Rockery Walls were initially built.The fact that Toll Brothers in Village 6 (the Cliff’s) have extensively terra-formed the hillsides and built new walls, suggests that the original development in that area done by Somersett Development was not adequate.

    Missing from the complaint, was the Country Club’s involvement, in that one major wall collapse occurred on land leased from Somersett Homeowners Association. As they only pay a nominal leasing fee, our agreement with them means that they are responsible for the ~$760K in fix up costs. After all the SGCC is not a part of Somersett, it is an independent entity. It makes sense to consolidate the action against the declarant/Somerestt Development, but they should be responsible for $760K/$2800K (28%) of the not inconsiderable legal bills incurred (excess of ~$200K). This would also represent their share of any monies recovered from the developer and associated companies insurance.

    1. Why is the Board of Directors continually letting the SGC off the hook? Why does the BOD have no collateral for loans to the SGC, when it exists in the form of land, buildings, other assets, and the assets of its members? Because of this, if the SGC goes bankrupt, the SOA would have to pay for the Clubhouse and land it sits on, when it could have had it as collateral?? Fiduciary Duty requires more than this for the owners of Somersett property.. Come to the meetings.. watch what goes on.. draw your own conclusions..

  2. I forgot to thank Somersett United, Jim Haar; for taking the time to obtain these documents, at 50 cents/page!

  3. The case argued by the defense is also very persuasive. The ENTIRE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY is in the defense’s court on this one, and SOA is getting taken for a ride by their attorneys perusing this case at all. $200K+ and the clock is still running.

    1. The case is not persuasive, per the tolling agreement..regardless of the ENTIRE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY..

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