And The Saga Continues – 4th Installment

A brief summary of previous posts (installments) pertaining to the SOA/SGCC Purchase and Lease Agreement litigation follows, for details just click on the referenced post:

Installment 1  – In our July 22nd Post “SOA Legal Complaint Against the SGCC“, SU documented the civil action that the SOA filed against the SGCC for breach of the Purchase and Lease Agreements  by failing to live up their warranty obligations with regard to Rockery Wall repairs, as well as their liability for a water well pump replacement.

Installment 2- On July 23rd SU published the “SGCC Response and Counterclaim to SOA Complaint“, in which the SGCC denied all the SOA allegations, accused  the SOA of misconduct, misrepresentation and withholding of information (i.e. implied fraud?) when entering into the Purchase and Lease Agreements, and countersued for their own damages and re-formation of the Agreements.

Installment 3 – On August 5th SU published the “SOA Response to the SGCC Counterclaim“, in which the SOA contended that the SGCC allegations were too vague, too ambiguous and lacked particularity to respond to, thereby seeking more definitive statements and a dismissal of their claims.

Which brings us to the latest legal filing, this one by the SGCC, which may be read in its entirety via the following link:

SGCC Opposition to SOA Motions for More Definitive Statements and to Dismiss

In the above filing, the SGCC basically refuted the SOA’s claim that the SGCC counterclaim was too vague, too ambiguous, lacked particularity and hence provision of more definitive statements were not warranted nor was dismissal of their counterclaims.

So how did we get here?

It all began with the ill conceived SGCC Purchase and Lease Agreements, when the SOA paid $2.75M to purchase the SGCC Land and water rights back in August 2014 and then leased it back to them at $2,200/year for 90 years.  Under these agreements the SGCC had certain obligations, which the SOA felt they were not living up to. This came to a head with the controversy over liabilities associated with the Rockery Wall failures adjacent to Hole 5 of the golf course, which involved both SOA Common Area and SGCC leased properties. This liability controversy was placed on hold via a “Tolling Agreement”, under which both parties agreed  to put any litigation on hold pending the outcome of the SOA’s lawsuit against the Somersett Development Company. Under this agreement the SGCC was to pay the SOA $500/month while it was in effect. The Tolling Agreement was terminated December 31, 2019 and a SOA Executive Committee was established to negotiate a settlement with the SGCC. The Executive Committee consisted of SOA Board members Hanson, Baker and Fitzgerald.  This Committee apparently met four times (February 11th, February 25th, March 16th and April 11th) without reaching an agreement. Information derived from the meeting minutes, which were not very inclusive, provided the following information:

  • Feb 11th Meeting  – The SGCC claimed they spent $74K of their own money to repair the golf course. Seth Padovan, SOA Consulting Engineer, recommended that the SOA and the SCGG split the repair costs.
  • Feb 25th Meeting – The SGCC offered to pay the Association $30K, over time, to the Association toward the repair costs. That they have already spent $129K, including the Tolling Agreement, of their own money toward repair costs. (SU Note – The Tolling Agreement ran for 18 months, at $500/month this equates to $9K paid to the SOA, not sure what the other $120K applies to as the meeting minutes were  not very complete).  The Committee then passed a motion to extend to the SGCC a counter offer of a 50%-50% total cost split.
  • March 16th Meeting  – The Committee rejected the SGCC’s $30K offer and extended a final counter offer in which the SGCC would pay half the total cost amounting to $264K, the amount due after all credits and expenses have been applied (SU Note – The meeting minutes did not provide a breakdown of what these credits and expenses consisted of).
  • April 21st Meeting  –  No SGCC representatives at this meeting, only the SOA Board members. They discussed an April 15th letter from the SGCC wherein the SGCC advised they could not accept the SOA’s $264K offer and were unable to provide any counter offer at this time.  The Committee then passed a motion to instruct the SOA Attorney (Michael Schulman) to proceed with litigation.

SU Comments

  • It is a sad situation when one Somersett entity has to sue another, but SU believes the SOA was left with no choice here. The SGCC’s $30K offer was obviously unacceptable given their liabilities under the Purchase and Lease Agreements. In addition the caveat to pay the $30K over time was somewhat laughable.
  • The offer by the SOA to settle for $264K was more than generous, given that, per the Tolling Agreement, the total costs for the hillside repairs was established at $680K. It is still unclear where the $129K in credits and expenses, apparently accepted by the SOA, came from, as $264K is certainly not half of $680K.
  • At $264K, the SGCC could have met this by simply assessing their equity members $1000 each (they had 274 equity members at the end of 2019).  Not an unsurmountable amount, but then again the SGCC has always been willing to take from the SOA, while providing little in return.
  • Unfortunately there is no doubt that the SOA will now rack up significant legal fees in pursuing the litigation. Perhaps encroaching significantly on the $264K the Board was willing to accept as a settlement.  The SGCC will most likely not have this problem as their Attorney of record is also a SGCC member (pro-bono or contingency?), or perhaps the SGCC will yet come to their senses, accept the $264K and we can all be done with it.
  • It is also curious that the SOA Board chose not to apprise Association members of the filing of the civil action and the basis therefore.  An issue clearly of utmost interest to many owners.

Copies of the above referenced Meeting Minutes, including the SGCC refusal letter, may be accessed via the following link:  SGCC Executive Committee Meeting Minutes

Reader comments are always solicited.  Likewise, if any SGCC member wishes to post their own article in response to the preceding, they are welcome to do so by submitting it to



29 thoughts on “And The Saga Continues – 4th Installment

  1. Clearly this has become a battle that only the Lawyers are benefiting from. They never want to see a resolution. Why resolve something that is paying them so much.

    Why not approach the situation from a different perspective. SOA owns the water. Turn it off. I do
    understand that that’s not realistic. Just raise the cost of water by about $250,000 a year for perpetuity. Play dirty. Go for the damned throat. The SGCC won’t hesitate to do so.

    By the way, what is the status of the pump station repairs ?

    Lastly, never negotiate with the SGCC. All that does is put the burden of lost income / repayment on the SOA residents. I don’t play golf there and I don’t want to pay so others can. You play …. you “PAY” all the associated costs ….. not the residents !

  2. Time for the Association to recognize that it is a corporation and neither a social club nor a democracy and stop making measly puny offers to SGCC. Business is business. Do what is necessary to get the full amount of money legitimately owed.

  3. What is the obsession in this group with going after the SGCC? Do those in this group realize that the SGCC PAYS the SOA to operate the golf course in addition to covering all of their own operating costs? This is unheard of/not commonly practiced. Do you know that if you sink them and bring in a management company that YOU will have to pay the management company to manage the golf course AND have to cover the expenses associated with operating it? WELL over 1 million dollars a year. Think about what you’re trying to accomplish here. It’s going to come out of your pockets eventually.

    1. Anonymous,

      Could you please enlighten our readers as to exactly what the SGCC pays the SOA with regard to your statement “Do those in this group realize that the SGCC PAYS the SOA to operate the golf course”?, as if this is so, it is unknown to all.

    2. You are dead wrong in your assertions! Arrowcreek turned over the golfcourse management to a professional company who has turned it around to the benefit of all.

      The SGCC has taken advantage of the owners in Somersett for too long. If they can’t afford to pay for their obligations, they should stop running up the Legal Costs to all of Somersett. Time to pay up!!

    3. Hi anonymous!

      When Tony Fakonas negotiated the deal with the SGCC to buy the land under the golf club and the water rights, this was so a clubhouse could be erected. As far as I can tell, if one takes into account the monies we paid for the illegal lease deal (~$1.5 million), the lost ~$1 million in reserves, that the Declarant owed under NRS rules at turnover. We have sluiced in over $5 million of hard earned homeowner money to keep the greens green since 2010.

      Presumably you are a newcomer and you are ashamed to be a non-participant in our community

  4. This golf course is an anchor on the SOA and all residents in this Somersett development. The mere fact that they have less than 250 members shows you much interest the average resident in this community has in the “Country Club” Unless your a pretty good golfer this course is not enjoyable to play, it is quite challenging.
    One of the arguments is that the golf course enhances our home values, this is total BS. Very few people are moving into this community because of the “Country Club” and if they review the litigation going on between the SOA and the SGCC and give it some thought they might to just the opposite and not move into the community for fear of future assessments.
    If we can’t rid ourselves of this anchor we should at least make an attempt to have it run by a golf management group such as Duncan which manages and runs a few courses in the area. The course should be open to the public with appropriate fees charged so the “Country Club” can be profitable and not a burden to residents who live in Somersett.

    1. Dear Bob:

      You are 100% correct in your comments. Kudos to you for making the issues clear! If a professionally run golf course can’t make it then, it will be time to turn it into something like the beautifully managed Caughlin Ranch with parks and walking trails. People aren’t moving to Somersett because of the country club or they would have more than 270 members. Why should the rest of Somersett pay for the privileges of a few members who want the prestige of a private club but, refuse to pay their own way for this privilege.

  5. It’s been made crystal clear multiple times that the SGCC “DOES NOT” want to open their financial books for inspection. When this occurs it indicates that they have something to hide. I find the statement that SGCC is paying SOA to operate. Maybe they’re paying for the water.

    My vote is as it always has been …. make the course semi-private of public. Bring in a larger number of people to play what is a beautiful course. Having so few play the course doesn’t make financial sense. It’s a business. If it can’t be profitable then changes are absolutely required.

  6. As a member, in good standing, of the Antisanguisugae Society, I feel it is entirely appropriate, at this time, to form a” Sue The Bastards ”
    “GO FUND ME.. And.. let’s sell some of the water rights out from under them.

  7. From the view of a Pro SGCC and a somersett resident on the rock wall matter-

    1) Didn’t everyone get the same wall from the developer (that the SOA is already suing – how’s that going btw)? 2) if we all got the rock walls from the same “parent” then why do you think a golf course would warranty a rock wall that could cost Hundreds of thousands of dollars to repair? A pump or a well sure, and that’s another issue we’ll get to it at the end.

    And if your first thought is “well they signed the lease” then I would counter with the SOA knew that the homeowners’ yards above were falling apart during the “warranty period”. The homeowner settled with the builder and changes to their backyard were done. The SOA had to approve the backyard remediation/remodel, via the AGC committee, changing the construction/weight distribution to an alleged “warrantied” item. I’m not a judge but I’d bet you don’t get to approve changes to a house’s backyard then blame the bottom of the wall’s “warranty” for the entire failure. It looks even more embarrassing, to this resident, when you’re already suing the builder for the same thing and you’ve got walls falling all over the HOA. *there are also many other reasons to poke holes in the warranty argument.

    And the Three person committee consists of the President who, I assume was gun ho for suing the builder, and a new board member who basically ran on the premise of SGCC is the problem (paraphrase from his interview in SomersettUnited)…. That’s 2 people, a majority of the 3 person committee, representing over 3,000 homes’ interest in suing a local business (aka the other sibling from the developer).

    Solution – SOA started the 1st lawsuit with the builders and obviously started this 2nd one, the SGCC is simply responding. It’s the SOA’s job to prove everything in court. There are many holes to their argument and they are the ones paying the same lawyers who “gave them a deal” on the appeal with the builder. From the documents they are clearly delaying this lawsuit to increase bills and buy time while their appeal with the builder continues. And SomersettUnited has a good point- most lawyers golf, I doubt many accept lap pool hours as their hourly rate.

    Grab an olive branch SOA and use your Lawyer money to better the future of Somersett with your neighboring businesses (like a new well!!!). We’ve got a great attraction/partner in the SGCC that we all get to use. Even if you don’t golf, you still eat. Golf has become very popular and new residents are joining at record pace. And maybe everyone can use the lawyer money for some water improvements.

    We all inherited this place from the developer, let’s fix what needs fixing and move on and be a great neighborhood.

    1. Whoever you are, please remember, members of a private Country Club need to pay their own way and abide by the Lease Agreement. You already received $2.5m from the rest of the Homeowners and you are still wining! Shame on you all.

      1. I’d disagree. We are all losing because of the actions of the SOA. You can’t choose if you get sued, you can only respond and defend yourself.

        A majority of equity golf members are also the homeowners. We are paying 2 lawyers at the same time.

        We all became family in Feb/August of 2014 when the developer’s fingerprints truly left. The SOA RESIDENTS voted, by majority, to execute the deal. End of story. The Country Club’s early members paid anywhere from $0 – $50,000 to join the club when the developer ran it, notice no one is crying about that online. The Developer subsidized as he saw fit. That’s not the problem of the Country Club’s equity members pre 2014 to present. Let the past go!

        The Country Club built a clubhouse and SOA residents get to use it, golf and adds to the many reasons to make the community better than other places in reno. In turn this helps entice new residents to pay more for their house than you did, therefore increasing the price of your home. That theory seems to be going very well, even during COVID times.

        You’re assuming because there is a lease that the Country Club is liable for the entire wall. Look around – they fell everywhere and the Country Club INHERITED the wall from the same entity the SOA is suing. That’s probably why the tolling agreement was put in place. Good luck to you SOA and here is $500 a month – hope you win – if/when you do win we’d like our money back… (maybe the SGCC didn’t think they could win vs the developer due to the statute of limitations that may cost the SOA the first lawsuit and has racked up hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees). And don’t forget – losers of lawsuits usually have to pay for the attorney fees of the winner.

        Now since the SOA (all of us) are very unlikely to win (in my opinion) vs the developer (appeal pending) let’s officially go after the Golf Course. Horrible advice taken by the 3 person SOA board in regards to this event.

        We all live here SOA and SGCC board members. Put away your attorney’s and take the negative emotion of this decision OUT and look at the forest not the trees. This has to start with the SOA grabbing a branch. They are the older sibling with over 3,000 houses, almost all the land and the water, the Country Club just owns the guest house (clubhouse) with a great view, a new restaurant and 18 holes of golf.

        1. Pro SGCC – Your premise seems to be that the SOA and the SGCC are just “one big happy family” who should look out for one another, especially during financial hardships. Nor sure that has anywhere near universal acceptance. You imply the benevolence of the SGCC in allowing Association use of the Clubhouse (Sunsett Grill & Proshop) and rounds of golf (4 per year at standard guest rates, currently $80/round). What you fail to mention is that the Association paid for those privileges’ via the Purchase and Lease Agreements, or that the general public also has access to the same privileges’ and quest rates, so much for benevolence. But lets put that aside and just address the current lawsuit. It is a fact that the SOA spent approximately $680K in repairing the Hole 5 hillside when the rockery walls failed on both SGCC and SOA properties. An engineering report and legal interpretation of both the Purchase and Lease Agreement, yes by SOA Attorneys, established that the SGCC had liabilities under the warranty and maintenance provisions thereof. The SGCC disagreed and refused to pay. An Executive Committee was set up to negotiate a settlement. The SOA offered to settle for $264K The SGCC offered $30K. No meeting of the minds – hence the lawsuit. No “negative emotion” as you alude to by the SOA Board, just a business decision. Which raises the following question:

          If the SGCC looses the lawsuit, are they prepared to pay the judgement (e.g., via reserves, member assessments or loan), or will they expect the Association to forgive the judgement on the basis we are all one big happy family, so lets just sit around a campfire, hold hands, sing Kumbayah and forget about this nasty business?

          Perhaps you would care to answer this question. A similar one applies to the SOA, as it appears they have no plan on what to do if the SGCC defaults on the Agreements.

          I agree that pre-2014 (i.e., pre Purchase and Lease Agreements) is water under the bridge, however the provisions of the Purchase and Lease Agreements live on!

          1. Progress!!!! – pre 2014 is water under the bridge! Already more results than other community applications. Thank you for that.

            Few areas to correct from your statement and a few questions I have have Somersett United.

            One Big Happy Family – I did not say that. I said family- and families fight. Funny that our somersett family usually doesn’t fight during the holidays, when the roundabouts are lit and Holiday lights are up on houses…. Side note – I feel there should be at least 7 board members for the SOA. Too many sub associations/interests for a 5 person board.

            The SOA is the elder sibling. They own pretty much all the land in Somersett. The town center is the play house for the kids, the 2 business buildings are not related but have a big interest in the success of somersett for their own survival. The smaller businesses inside there as well. The management company – that’s like the care taker/babysitter for everyone (except the Town center businesses/landlords). Urban living in the Village, roundabout pride everywhere else – and we all know where the grumpy grandparents live (joking back at you- and jealous of the interior pool and the fun events that are ran at the Aspen Lodge).

            The entire SOA made a deal with the country club to not exclude the HOA members from enjoying 1) eating at a private country club (can’t do that at Arrowcreek or Montreux, 2) four -FOURSOMES (16 people) per HOA resident for $80 per person (bring your buddies out and play, can’t do that as a resident at Montreux/Arrowcreek) (to the gentleman who said it should be $60 that’s only $10 more than Washoe golf course- you want to live there? and $80 is what red hawk charges), 3) free driving range and bocce ball. So other residents don’t have to pay a monthly fee to belong, like our competition requires, to use it for personal use. That was included in the 2014 Purchase price and that helps somersett sells more homes at a better price. A realtor on the deck on the Patio at the club could say to a potential California home buyer “You can get pizza/sushi/fine dining without having to leave the roundabouts.” Finally – The general public can’t show up in the pro shop and get a tee time. Let’s keep our facts straight.
            The link to what all SOA residents get is

            back to the lawsuit-
            I didn’t get a response back about the “changes” that were made above the warrantied wall. Any thought to that in a court of law? and let’s review how gracious the SOA negotiating committee has been, according to your notes above…

            1) Feb 11th – they met and the management company suggested to split it in half. SGCC disagreed and claims to have spent $74,000 already. If the bill was $680K divided by 2 that’s $340K per. Put in the Country club’s $74K and that’s down to $266,000 for their “half”.

            2) Feb 25th – SGCC comes back as says we’ve spent $129,000 and we’ll give you another $30K. That’s a net offering of $159,000 on a $340,000 suggested price. Also that’s nearly 25% of the total $680,000 ($159,000/$680,000).

            3) March 16th- SOA denies the $30k offer (which really is an overall $159,000 offer aka 25%) and then comes back with a final final final offer (little quick for a third date if you ask me) of….. the exact same amount as they asked before – $264,000. Include the Country Clubs already $79K (not the $129K) already paid plus this $264,000 that would be a total of $343,000. Their original offer of half, just renamed. This does not seem very family friendly. 3 meetings and they gave a “take it or leave it” offer for the same price they wanted on day 1 via suggestion by a “caretaker/babysitter” who says “just split it” after houses above the wall were falling, repairs had been made and the dirt was severely manipulated on top of a wall the SOA claims the Country club “warrantied”. Keep in mind this was the SOA’s final offer – $264,000 on top of what the country club already spent when the wall failed. Sounds like the SOA hung up the phone after not budging even though the Country Club increased their offer.

            4) April 21st – no meeting of the minds – just the SOA saying the SGCC rejected the “counter offer” and decided to sue the Country Club and use the same attorneys they are using to sue the developer for the rock wall.

            so Zero bend by the SOA from day one is how I am reading your interpretation of the meeting notes. And if you read the lawsuit reply from their lawyers when I see them responding with “what houses are SGCC referring to when they claim prior wall failure?” The same one your suing the developer for smarty pants. Now bill another couple hours and a filing fee….. That’s why the SOA is getting taken for a ride. And forming a committee comprised of a majority of anti SGCC board members put all the power in too few hands (response to my interpretation of Board member Hanson’s interview with Somersett United?). that’s why the SOA’s negative emotion still appears to exist from my point of view. All they have to do is pick up the phone and not hide behind their lawyer’s paperwork.

            in regards to your “can SGCC afford the lawsuit if they lose?” I’d say that’s a private business, just like the restaurants and commercial building owners in the town center. Not polite to ask a tenant if they can pay their bills. It’s a private business. Respect that privacy. Country Club members haven’t lost anything and are getting bullied by the SOA’s associates, and many SOA residents online, to save face for their main lawsuit against the developer. (update on that please? )

            My questions for Somersett United:

            1) When did you start the website? Most people hear about it via referral. But when I type in it takes me to the SOA’s webpage as if everything is fine? Was it the SOA who bought the .com address first and Somersett United decided to use the same address but buy the .net version? Or did the SOA try and limit the amount of traffic that goes to Somersett United? It appears that SU and the SOA are on the same page regarding the lawsuit, but it doesn’t seem to be an honest way, by the SOA, for education opportunities for residents to find other points of view.

            2) Why doesn’t everyone keep their eyes on the prize on the big lawsuit? Why did they lose the first one vs the developer? And why do you think the Country Club didn’t become a co plaintiff on that case?

            3) Do you agree if another wall on the country club golf course falls (I assume there are more) that the SOA is on the hook for the entire repair costs since the 4 year warranty has expired?

            4) The new condos next to the Canyon 9 tee box. They were just recently built. If the rock walls below those fall and they sue the SOA should the SOA be held liable? Or would SOA lawyers tell the judge that the builder of the condos knew the rock wall was there, manipulated the dirt to build those units so the SOA can’t be held responsible for the damage? Even though I’d imagine the SOA had to approve the plans, via the AGC, the condo association used those approved plans to build on top of the rock wall. If it failed and the condo assoc said ‘hey SOA fix your wall” that wouldn’t taste good and would be very expensive to defend. That’s how the Country Club probably feels, except they didn’t get a say about repairs (to a wall they feel is warranted) when the houses started to fall above the rock wall. I believe the timeline was within 6 months of fixing the backyard and the wall failing.

            Appreciate the calm demeanor from most of the other comments.

            1. Hey Pro SGCC and Anonymous. Do you have a names ? Your arguments are mostly irrelevant, inaccurate, or unsound. SGCC has been given generous subsidies by SOA for many years, the most obvious the lease purchase agreement, which now they won’t even live up to. Its long past time for this to end. I have no objection to golf courses, just the members of SGCC who want to continue a free ride courtesy of the 3000 residents who are not members. SGCC has never been a financially viable organization without SOA support and never will be unless the 250 members are willing to pay for their luxury or it restructures. Since many SGCC members seem to think this is such a great amenity for new home buyers (doubtful) maybe they should get Somersett Development to subsidize SGCC.

              1. You can call me Nunya. last name Business.

                and feel free to type out opposing opinions you mention about my argument. Like I will here about yours:
                1) about the actual numbers of equity members. Good news though- your “250 members” comment is only 60+ members short of the actual number of equity members.

            2. Stop trying to find a way to defend the SGCC. They are clearly at fault and need to cough up some funds to pay for their privileged country club. The rest of the community doesn’t want to pay for your private interests. You are in the minority and need to pay up! Majority rules! You are not the majority. Ask the SOA to send out a email vote request to the entire community and put an end to this debacle. You will see how wrong you are.

            3. Pro SGCC

              Sorry for the delay in responding to your four specific questions for Somersett United, which follow:

              1. The SU Website was started in March 2012. SU’s original URL was, a result of using a “free” WordPress template and website. It was later changed to There was never a website managed by SU, and contrary to what you say, accessing it will not take you to the SOA’s website. Bottom line – the SOA and SU have always done their own thing independent of each other.
              2. SU is keeping their eye on the “big Lawsuit” and when something substantive happens, as always, it will be reported on this website. The Developer prevailed due to the statutes or repose (time limitations). For a complete reading of the Courts decision visit SU’s post of October 3, 2019 entitled “Rockery Wall Litigation Update (6)”. SU has no knowledge as to why the SGCC was not a co-plaintiff in the filing of the lawsuit.
              3. The SGCC is still bound for any rockery wall repairs on their leased property under the “Repair and Maintenance” provisions of the Lease Agreement.
              4. SU cannot speculate intelligently on “what if” scenarios. There are lots of rockery walls on SOA Common Areas, if one on them fails, then its consequences would be dealt with on a case basis.

              With regard your other comments, without disputing them, I believe the following clarifications are in order:

              • The SOA is not an “elder sibling” to the SGCC. They were developed/constructed at the same time. In fact, the Developer turned over operation of the SGCC to the equity owners before relinquishing control of the SOA to the owners.
              • SU concurs that a seven member SOA Board would be better for the Association than a five member Board.
              • Golf rates for Reno courses, high season, weekday/weekend with cart are as follows: Red Hawk $70/80, Lakeridge $65/75, Wolf Run $55/65, Washoe $50/50 and Sierra Sage $43/43. Therefore, the $80 fee for Somersett owners to play their four rounds at the SGCC is really not that big a deal.
              • With respect to the other “owner” amenities you mention, I have never known the SGCC to exclude the public from eating at the Grille or to buy products at the Pro Shop. The Bocce Ball courts you refer to were paid for by the SOA via the diversion of $15/month/homeowner assessments to the SGCC under the original SGCC use agreement, which was subsequently invalidated by the Nevada Attorney General’s office. Also, under the original agreement, the SGCC was to provide three Bocce Ball courts for SOA use, they only built two and the SOA BOD let it slide.
              • Regarding the SGCC lawsuit, we all have our opinions as to who is liable for what portion of the Hole 5 hillside repairs. It is too bad for both sides that a negotiated settlement was not reached. Only time and, unfortunately, the Courts will decide.

              It is SU’s observation that the majority of Somersett Owners are “Pro SGCC’ as you are, and certainly want the SGCC to succeed. The caveat being “on their own” and not at their expense. Something they are not convinced of given the SGCC’s financial history.

              Thank you for your comments, they are always welcome.

              1. More misinformation from this website.
                does, in fact, resolve to the official Somersett Owners Association website. It is a privately owned URL, not managed by the SOA. It was proactively registered before the amateurs who run this website decided to get a real domain.

                1. Let me make this perfectly clear. The website is a product of a free “WordPress” Web Services account. SU does not nor never has owned the domain. If whoever does own it has linked it to the SOA’s website then that is unknown to SU. Besides why, to our determent, would SU want to link a Somersettunited domain to the SOA website, just common sense. Not sure what point you are trying to make here! Given your “SU Lies Again” moniker, please advise a specific instance where SU has ‘lied” to its readers, as opposed to an opinion you may disagree with. Constructive comments pro or con are always welcome.

              2. SU – thanks for the response.

                1) Website – thanks. Sorry for the trouble it caused.

                2) Elder sibling – Yes the SOA is the more elder/more responsibilities child. 2,999+ more houses, 2 golf course sized yards, multiple amenities and many more responsibilities. Bigger budget and handles more things than golfing and eating like the SGCC does. And today’s SGCC was really not truly formed since 2014 as we discussed.

                3) Big Lawsuit update – thanks again. The big lawsuit is very long process. And if we lost because “The Developer prevailed due to the statutes or repose (time limitations)” that’s seems like a hard appeal to win. No clue if there’s been settlement talk with the developer, I wouldn’t bet multiple mortgage payments (aka attorney fees) on winning that appeal. How much has the SOA spent on that do you think? well north of $250,000?

                4) The need for 7 more board members vs 5. Agreed – that should be addressed, especially with an SOA election coming up.

                5) Golf rates – pretty close on the rates you listed, but you can’t play private clubs like Hidden Valley, Arrowcreek or Montreux w/out a member. Somersett Golf and CC is in that exact same category and all SOA residents get to play it, if they desire, (at the same price I’d pay for my guest.) Also looking at section 10.3 of the sale contract. It specifically shows that the SOA wanted every resident to have access to the same food prices/golf/driving range/bocce ball (glad they didn’t build 3 of em- I don’t think they get used). And I imagine that was pre 2014 when the developer still had major hands in the HOA. I doubt many golf members who paid up to $50,000 to join were demanding $15 a month from the residents to build a bocce ball court. But thank you for everything you did prior to 2014 (water under the bridge).

                Private members have access to more at the golf course and pay for it. Social memberships are available to both residents and non residents starting at $65 a month. Private catering, special events are included in that membership along with much more.

                6) You believe a majority of residents are like me “Pro SGCC”? Really? – that’s great! A huge vast Majority are I believe too, but a very silent majority that are raising children along with everyday life. That’s why I decided to post via SU not the hot mess of Nextdoor Somersett……
                I agree with you in concept but also feel the small group of Anti SGCC folks are the only ones working so hard to discredit anything Pro SGCC. They believe blindly whatever the most vocal neighbors say and just assume the rock wall on #5 is clearly the golf courses’ problem without using the common knowledge of this community’s history and that we all got the walls from the same parent and are fighting amongst ourselves with negative emotions – all started in court by the SOA. They’ve got the keys to stop all of this madness.

  8. We still have a great divide and again very little details on timelines, accountability and resolutions … I remember the past and our financial support of the SGCC even though I was not a member.

    In saying that, time to look at bringing in a third party to make the SGCC profit generating. The $500 the SGCC is paying is a smokescreen to be used as support for their legal filings, future negotiations. etc….

    Legal fees continue to rise on all sides and unless we can reach a negotiated agreement soon it will continue to cost us $$$$.

    Maybe these options:
    1. Can SOA bring in a third party without SGCC approval and use the course? What rights do non-SGCC members have in course use. Will a foursome be arrested if they just jump in and start playing 🙂
    But seriously, time for a true marketing/support team to make this revenue generating. The golf course does not sell homes or greatly increase home values in our community. It is a small value-add in today’s world except for those current SGCC….. IMHO. $80 for a round of golf a resident was recently quoted is probably $20 to high when we are trying to bring in revenue.
    2. Hire a proven negotiator to reach an agreement and resolve the differences.

    I and pretty sure many of our residents are tired of all the BS and want to resolve this ASAP..

    1. I concur. SOA should force the issue. Pay up or cancel the lease. Once he SOA takes back the course, do an RFP for a third party management group manage the course. If it is not cash flow positive then shut it down. If it can be viable then great. Operate as a daily fee course. so many other country clubs have gone down this path to as daily fee course. As far as the club house, that is the SGCC’s problem. SOA should not entertain buyiny it for more than $1.

  9. When all is said and done I doubt SGCC financially viable entity long term based on the available financial information. Suppose they somehow make it through this debacle. Do they have the resources to deal with another unexpected catastrophe or the next recession? SGCC has violated the lease agreement. They need to pay up and present SOA a realitsic plan of survival that does not depend on SOA subsiudizing SGCC. As Geoffrey Brooks has pointed out, SOA has pumped $5m into the survival of SOA. (Without so much as a thank you I might add!) What have the members done? Are they prepared to raise eassessments to biuld a fortress balance sheet? Or is it just kick the can down the road? If SGCC can’t demonstrate their viablily through a future severe rescepion then it;s time to look at Plan B.

    1. Excellent assessment Dan. I believe the SGCC is financially unstable and that is why they are fighting against paying their debt to the SOA.

  10. The bottom line to all of this is that nothing will change unless the SOA forces a change. The SGCC absolutely will never change unless forced to do so. Why should they ? They have the very best of all possible situations right now. They do what they want and someone else is paying the bills. Why change ? What I would greatly like to see is ………

    # The SOA “NEVER” negotiate with the SGCC in reference to payback of funds owed to Somersett
    residents. To accept anything less than the full amount is a slap in the face to all home owners.

    # Force the SGCC to open all financial records for review by an independent third party.

    # The SOA “must” go after the SGCC from a position of power. The SGCC will do nothing unless
    they realize that the SOA is going for their throats. They have to fear the SOA before they will do
    anything to meet SOA’s demands. Anything less will result in failure.

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