SOA/SGCC Lawsuit Update – Installment 5

Perhaps a little history first:

    • On June 5th 2020, the Somersett Owners Association (SOA) filed a complaint against the Somersett Golf and Country Club (SGCC) regarding liabilities for Rockery Wall Failure and Water Well Pump repairs as required under the Purchase and Lease Agreements. Details of the complaint may be accessed via the following SU Post of July 22nd  –  “SOA Legal Complaint Against the SGCC
    • On July 10th, the SGCC filed an answer to the SOA claim along with their own counterclaim. Details of the SGCC response may be accessed via the following SU Post of July 23rd  –  “SGCC Response and Counterclaim to SOA Complaint
    • On July 31st, the SOA filed its legal response to the SGCC counterclaim in which they sought an order to dismiss the counterclaim and for the Court to require the SGCC to provide more definite statements regarding their stated causes of action against the SOA. Details of the SOA filing may be accessed via following SU Post of August 5th  –  “SOA Response to SGCC Counterclaim
    • On August 7th, The SGCC filed its opposition to the SOA motion to Dismiss and to the provision of more definitive statements regarding the causes of actions in their counterclaim. Details of the SGCC filing may be accessed via the following SU Post of August 16th  –  “And the Saga Continues – 4th Installment

Which brings us today. On November 11th, the Court denied the SOA’s motion to dismiss the SGCC Counterclaim but upheld the SOA’s position that the SGCC did not adequately plead their case and therefore granted the SOA motion for the SGCC to provide more definitive statements regarding their counterclaim. The SGCC has until November 20th to file an amended Answer and Counterclaim, after which the SOA has 21 days to respond.

The Court ruling in its entirety (which provides a good historical overview) may be accessed via the following link:

Order Denying Motion to Dismiss, Order Granting Motion for a More Definite Statement

So what does 2021 have in store with regard to this litigation? Obviously more legal fees, or can a negotiated settlement be reached between the parties? At last notice, the SOA proposed splitting the contested amount which would result in $264K from the SGCC. The best offer from the SGCC being $30K over time, quite a difference, unless something has transpired that we are not aware of.

7 thoughts on “SOA/SGCC Lawsuit Update – Installment 5

  1. The SCCG has no interest in paying any money to Somersett. Their offer is offensive after all they have done. Its interesting to see that they continue to go to court, so I wonder. who is paying for their legal fees, or do they have an attorney pro bono among members?
    Are there any assets that Sometsett can get ,assuming they win? And they dont know that. Maybe its time to call it quits and forget about pride. Yes, the Boards have spent a lot of money on legal fees and should be ready to be criticized for saying: enough. Better that than throwing the money down a black hole.

    1. Ivonne

      Your implication that “you can’t squeeze blood out of a turnip” may have merit. However, I believe there is some blood there. If the Court establishes SGCC liability (not necessarily a given) and the SOA stays with their $264K settlement offer, this would amount to less than $1000 per member (i.e., based on the 274 equity members at the end of 2019, which reportedly is higher now), most of whom spend more than $500/month on their membership. I believe it fair to assume that Club loyalty is such that member assessments, especially over time, could be accommodated to pay off this amount of liability. One can only hope that the new Board can negotiate a fair settlement with the SGCC, eliminate the legal mess and move on.

      With regard to your attorney question, John F. Kirsch is the SGCC attorney of record. Mr. Kirsch is also a SGCC member.

  2. Let’s just have the SOA buy the golf course, the SOA can then add a pool (instead of the ugly sea of asphalt you have in the front) a gym and some tennis courts to alleviate overcrowding at the Towne Center. We could call it Towne Center West.

    With all the new houses coming up, the Towne Center overcrowding is just getting worse and worse.

    Also, they could also landscape/pave the golf club parking lot. Right now, it’s far from being “premium”

    1. Dusty – In answer to your question YES! Back in October 2013, the SOA won a lawsuit (Washoe County Court Case CV12-01707) against Moana Nursery for irrigation system defects and was awarded $375K. In this action the Moana lawsuit was undertaken only after receiving a majority vote of all owners, this unlike the ongoing Rockery Wall lawsuit, wherein most owner votes were in favor of the lawsuit, they did not constitute a majority vote of all eligible owners (i.e., only 31% of owners returned ballots).

      1. I believe we won a lawsuit (Chapter 40) (or it was settled) about the rocks on the hillside in the “cut” falling down onto the road, which required fixing… Note the fixing was inadequate, based on Tom Fitzgerald’s recent comments.

        Note the “cut” is between the East entrance and the 1st Rdbt

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