Sierra Canyon, Somersett, Villages, The Vue – Your Community Forum

SOA Attorney Legal Opinions

The SOA’s legal Counsel (Michael Schulman) has issued a letter on the status of legal issues before the association. Specifically the following:

  •  The 39 Vue Lots for Sale
  • Easements Between the Association and Homeowners
  • Subsidy Reimbursement Case with Ombudsman
  • Country Club Agreement
  • Mediation Claim with Boulder Sub-association.

Details are accessible by clicking in the following link:

SOA Legal Opinions 2-18-2014

 Item 4 is of particular interest as it relates to the ongoing CC&R amendment vote and the future Country Club (SGCC) purchase agreement. Comments on this legal opinion follow.

  1.  If the proposed CC&R amendments are approved, they will establish voting requirements for the upcoming SGCC purchase agreement. That is, the purchase agreement could be approved by a simple majority vote of a 20% quorum of unit owners. Much has been said in previous blog articles about giving the BOD the authority to inter into multi-million dollar purchase agreements with such limited voter approval requirements. One can only speculate that the 20% quorum was proposed by the BOD to ensure easier approval of the SGCC purchase agreement.
  2. If the CC&R Amendments are not approved, the SGCC purchase agreement vote will still take place. However, it must be accompanied by an additional CC&R amendment allowing only for the SGCC agreement to be approved. That is, it will not grant the BOD the broad purchasing powers provided via the currently proposed amendments.
  3. The legal opinion regarding the SGCC purchase agreement clearly states that a CC&R amendment is required to grant the BOD the authority to enter into such an agreement. In previous answers to homeowner questions, the BOD stated that “If the proposed changes to the CC&Rs are not approved, the proposed new deal with the SGCC will still go to a homeowner vote as a stand-alone issue”, without any acknowledgement that a CC&R amendment would also be included (required) to grant such authority. Why this omission one can only speculate. However, it does raise the following questions
  • If the current CC&R amendment vote fails, what will the voting requirements be for a subsequent SGCC purchase agreement vote?
  • Given the propensity of the BOD to express their views and opinions in the ballot mailings, will the BOD grant equal space for opposing views and opinions in future ballot mailings, that is, in accordance with Nevada statute NRS 116.3105?
  • Answers to both of the above have been requested previously.  To date the BOD has not responded. These are not difficult questions, Again, one can only speculate as to why not.

Previous comments on this blog site have expressed the opinion that if the SGCC fails, property values in Somersett will be adversely affected, hence the primary purpose for a SGCC agreement, others disagree. Whatever the case, this is not a reason to vote for approval of the current CC&R amendments, as the SGCC agreement will be voted on independent of the ongoing CC&R vote.

Given the preceding, SU still recommends a DISAPPROVAL vote for those of you who may not have submitted your CC&R amendment ballots. Reason being that it grants too much BOD authority with too little homeowner approval.

Advertisements

Comments on: "SOA Attorney Legal Opinions" (4)

  1. Why does Somersett United not publish a name of the opinions published.

    • Terry,

      Why do you care? Are making a list? Based on reading the SOA attorney letter, the article is factual and I agree with the conclusions and the subsequent recommendation. Others with this same opinion would be too numerous to list. Bottom line, if you have anything substantial to say about the content of the article, rather than worrying about names, I would love to hear it!

  2. Basically, a NO vote on the CC&R change will deprive the BOD to ability to get things done ‘with a pen and a phone’.

    Sounds good to me!

    • Joe Bower - Del Webb Owner & SOA Member said:

      Give me a ride Stagecoachdriver. Better to ride than walk as too often there is a snake where one leasts expects it.

      Our Board did the interim vote count because it is not specifically prohibited in Nevada Laws or our Association Governing Documents. Why not? Because no one ever imagined prohibiting such a dirty trick would be needed. Interim vote counts need to be declared verboten by board resolution.

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 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: