Yesterday (August 2nd) the SOA Board President, in a “Somersett Happenings” email distribution to Homeowners, announced that the Nevada Court of Appeals has upheld the District Court’s Summary Judgement dismissal (based on statutes of repose and limitations) of the SOA’s lawsuit against Somersett Development Company et. al. That is, the SOA’s lawsuit for damages (In excess of $4M) associated with the SOA Common Area Rockery Wall failures. This essentially bringing an end to the litigation. Or does it? Will the SOA be liable for any of the defendants legal fees?
In announcing the appeal decision, the SOA email contained a brief summary of litigation events (initiated in April 2018), implied that the lawsuit was ill advised and will end up costing the SOA in the area of $754K.
Did the SOA Attorneys lead us down the “primrose path” for their own benefit? Many believe so. However, the previous Board did conduct Homeowner Information Meetings on the lawsuit, wherein the SOA Attorneys and Engineering Firms presented the case for litigation and addressed owner questions. Subsequently, information letters and ballots were distributed to all SOA members (approximately 3000) for ratification of the lawsuit by majority vote as required by Nevada law. The Vote count being 716 for, 205 against, and 36 invalid. Note that a “majority vote” would constitute approximately 1500 votes. However, the SOA attorney advised that the SOA had conducted a good faith effort and that their interpretation of Nevada Law allowed the SOA to proceed with the litigation without having to extend the voting deadline to obtain a majority vote, which they did, bringing us to the present.
The President’s email contained the following quote from the Court of Appeal’s decision, describing it as a “scathing opinion”.
“NRS 11.202(1); NRS 11.2055, which we clarify in the context of the common law, means sufficiently complete so that the owner can occupy or utilize the improvement. Here, SOA failed to offer anything beyond “gossamer threads of whimsy, speculation, and conjecture” to support its argument that it commenced this action within that six-year period.”
However, for the complete text (13 pages) of the Supreme Court Opinion, the reader is referred to the following legal filing:
For those interested in reading the “Summary Judgement” issued by the District Court in October 2019, which was he basis for the appeal, the following link is also provided.
The SOA President’s email also contained a paragraph about being more judicious in pursuing legal actions. Amen to that. However, Board members are normally not legal experts and have to rely on the Association’s legal team for guidance. Perhaps a new legal firm representing the SOA is warranted!