SOA Board Performance?

As a fallout of the Court Order granting the Defendants in the Rockery Wall lawsiut a Summary Judgement in their favor, along with losing the Northgate Owners (James) litigation (which collectively total aproximately $800K in SOA legal fees, not counting any Defendant legal fees the SOA may be subject to on the Rockery Wall lawsuit), calls on both this website as well as on the Somersett NextDoor website have been for the SOA Board to resign and to fire the SOA Legal firm.

However, in all fairness, it needs to be recognized that current Board Members Retter and Strout were not on the Board when the then Board voted to move forward with the Rockery Wall lawsuit and that Board member Roland recused himself. The Board Members that approved the lawsuit were Fitzgerald, Leto, Burns and Guderian, of whom only Fitzgerald and Leto are currently on the Board. Only Board members Leto and Rowland’s positions are open for election this year.

Additionally, other than inheriting it, none of the aforementioned Board members were party to the initiation of the Northgate Owners litigation, the fault here (if you want to characterize it as such) lies with previous Boards.

Given that yesterday (October 4th) was the deadline for submitting Board candidate forms for the Roland and Leto positions, it will be interesting to see who will be running. Will it be any of those who have expressed disdain over the performance of the current Board? Are Leto and Rowland running for re-election? If so, they should not be judged solely on the Rockery Wall and Northgate Owners lawsuits (especially Board member Rowland, who did not participate on any vote associated with either), but rather on other issues as well.

9 thoughts on “SOA Board Performance?

  1. Birds of a feather flock together and have you noticed board votes are almost always unanimous! Oh yes, what great accomplishments can re-running candidates claim would not have happened had they not led them while on the board? I look for boilerplate reasons for re-running.

  2. Although Retter and Strout were not on the Board at the time as you point out, would they have voted for the wall lawsuit? Most likely, given they are both country club members who would have benefitted from a successful lawsuit due to the country clubs $700K liability to the SOA for wall repairs.

    1. I maintain that the two SGC members have profited, regardless of the lawsuit, as they have paid no more than any other homeowner for the SGC debt. Each SGC member should have paid his portion of the wall repair cost, that being approximately $2500. As of now, I suspect they have paid the same $1200 assessment as every other homeowner.. Seems like they have profited to the tune of $1300, each, to me..If true, this is a violation of NRS rules prohibiting profiting as a board member of a homeowners association.

  3. Drop the Lawsuit ! and the Golf Course ; They are just a hole to throw money into with no benefit !
    It is the home owner who has to foot the bill with no return.

    1. Completely agree. Go after the SGC for what they owe, spend the future legal fees on wall repairs and move on. There will be a life after golf in Somersett, so let’s get started. Why must we continue to subsidize a legal team that was obviously out of their league.

      1. Agreed, John.. the Board should have been working on Plan B..long ago..just delaying the inevitable at homeowners’ expense.

  4. As I recall, the board decided to move forward with the law suit based on a majority of votes submitted rather than a majority of home owners. At the time, many home owners said the board’s action was wrong according to Nevada HOA laws which stated a majority of home owners were required.

    If that is true, the board members who moved forward with the legal action should be financially liable for their unilateral action in moving forward with legal action.

    Hopefully the board carries director liability insurance.

    1. Dusty,

      Under NRS 116.31037, Board members are indemnified for any liability claims, unless it can be proven they acted with “willful or wanton misfeasance, or gross negligence”. You are right about them voting to move forward without a majority vote of all homeowners as required under NRS 116.31088. This based on the advice of the SOA Attorney, who acted on the premise, and upheld by a NRED investigator, that those that did vote were 77% in favor of the lawsuit, and therefore, in moving forward the Board acted in good faith. I have no doubt that if this was challenged in a Court of Law it would have been reversed.

      Jim Haar

  5. For sure!!! And faulty premise. BTW didn’t lawyer put in a letter to owners that he would not proceed under (what circumstances???)? Maybe SU could copy the letter here.

    If court too late, then recall.

    Somersett is a corporation. Could any of the board members have been on the board where they worked or are working? We’re talking big bucks in this tiny corporation.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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