On June 5th the Somersett Owners Association (SOA) filed a legal Complaint (Washoe County District Court Case No. CV20-00872) against the Somersett Golf and Country Club (SGCC or SCC)) addressing two issues: 1) Liability for Rockery Wall failure repairs, and 2) Liability for Water Well Pump repairs.
This Complaint, along with an accessible copy of the legal filing, was summarized in a previous SU post of July 22nd, which may be accessed via the following link;
On July 10th, the SGCC submitted both a Response and Counterclaim the SOA Complaint. The SGCC Response and Counterclaim, along with an accessible copy of the legal filing, was summarized in a previous SU post of July 23rd, which may be accessed via the following link:
The SGCC Counterclaim was based on the following five courses of action, which were discussed in the SU post of July 23rd referenced above.
- Breach of Implied Covenant/Lease Agreement
- Breach of Tolling Agreement
- Quantum Meruit
In their Counterclaim, the SGCC basically accused the SOA of misconduct, misrepresentation and withholding of information (i.e. implied fraud?) when entering into the Lease Agreement, and therefore seeks its own damages and re-formation of the Agreement.
On July 31st the SOA filed its legal response to the SGCC Counterclaim, which may be accessed via the following link:
In its response, the SOA contends that the first three SGCC allegations are “Too Vague For The Association To Answer Properly” and that the fifth is “Too Ambiguous That The Association Is Not Able To Respond To Its Allegations” (the 4th item was not included in the SOA response). This is not to say the SOA ignored them, quite the contrary, they provided the basis under which they could not provide a proper response. Basically, that the SGCC did not provide the “particularity” of the circumstances behind their allegations as required by law (i.e., no set of facts to substantiate their counterclaims). The SOA concludes its response with the following statement:
“Based on the foregoing, the Association asks this Court to require more definite statements regarding the four causes of action indicated here; a finding that SCCs misrepresentation claim is not plead with appropriate particularity pursuant to NRCP 9(b); and outright dismissal of the misrepresentation claim for failure to plead the essential element of duty.”
The SOA response makes interesting reading and, in SU’s opinion, paints the SGCC allegations as a desperate act to avoid their obligations under both the Purchase and Lease Agreements.