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

Satisfaction of Claims??

Somersett United

Somersett United

In a revised version to the SGCC Purchase Agreement that was originally published on the community website, the following provision was subsequently added at the end of Section 3:

“3.9. Satisfaction of Claims. The consummation of this Agreement by the approval of the members of Buyer and the members of Seller constitutes complete satisfaction of any concerns or claims that the Buyer has or had about or against the Developer and the Buyer board members appointed by the Developer arising out of or relating to the execution or negotiation of the Existing Lease Agreement entered into by and between the Buyer and the Seller.”

The Buyer being the Somersett Owners Association (SOA), and the Seller being the Somersett Golf and Country Club (SGCC).

What does this mean? It means that if the Purchase Agreement is approved, the SOA forever relinquishes any claims against the Developer (Blake Smith), his Associate (Tiffany Roland) and current BOD member Ray Lee pertaining to their involvement in formulating and implementing the existing SGCC Lease Agreement.  As many know, the current Lease Agreement is the subject of a Complaint being filed before the Nevada Real Estate Commission on Common Interest Communities by the Nevada Attorney General’s office. The complaint alleges that by entering into this agreement, the then SOA BOD (Blake Smith, Tiffinay Roland, and Ray Lee) violated several provisions of Nevada Law.  Most notably, acting outside of their authority, misuse of surplus funds, conflict of interest and failing to act in good faith.

To date over $1,2M of association money has been given to the SGCC under the existing Lease Agreement.  The intent of the added provision is obvious, and that is to shield Smith, Roland and Lee from any potential law suits (i.e., on the part of the SOA) arising from the Complaint discussed above.

The “Satisfaction of Claims” provision has no relevance to the SGCC Purchase Agreement and, therefore, no business being included therein. In addition, at the August homeowner information meetings, no mention was made by the BOD of this added provision.  SU suspects s this omission was intentional and shows a lack of transparency on the part of the current BOD. Perhaps the BOD will chose to address why this provision was added to the Purchase Agreement the next homeowner information meeting.

Advertisements

Comments on: "Satisfaction of Claims??" (5)

  1. Bob Perkins-Del Webb said:

    This is just another example how the BOD is trying to hide information from the group. They are being dishonest and are being manipulated by Blake Smith and his associates at the determinate of the home owners to cover their ass. This is just another reason to vote no for the purchase of the Golf Course.

  2. Laurie Menozi said:

    We attended one of the meetings concerning the golf course purchase. I asked why Blake Smith would go along with this. It didn’t make sense. Danielle Kirby responded that she thought he wanted to leave a legacy. I cautioned her not to be naïve. NOW with this additional information, I can see how this benefits Mr. Smith. This now makes sense. So either our board representing us is naïve or they do not have OUR best interests in mind.

  3. The BOD has a fiduciary duty to disclose this clause in all communications to SOA members. It is a material addition to the SGCC Purchase Agreement and SOA members should be informed on what it means to them. At the last BOD meeting I asked Tony Fakonas about the posting of an updated contract without notifying homeowners. He said it was SOA members responsibility to stay informed. So we are supposed to periodically check a 100+ page document to see if the BOD has tried so slip something by us. That’s not only insulting but a beach if fiduciary duty. Also the BOD is supposed to disclose conflicts of interest. Since a current BOD member is a direct beneficiary of 3.9, the BOD has failed on this score.

    Whether or not you agree with 3.9, the BOD is compelled by NRS 166 to conduct its affairs honestly. Be transparent. Explain everything in the contract and let each homeowner decide for themselves.

    When the BOD pulls these kind if shenanigans, it undermines their credibility.

  4. Peter Myers said:

    Having read the helpful comments of residents who have trenchantly exposed the persistent dishonesty and lack of integrity of the Somersett BOD, I fall to wondering how these people are chosen, and whether they can be unseated?

    Would be most interested to hear information and comment on this. I came to this website, after just receiving the ballot paperwork, to find out more.

    I find the BOD’s representation of the ” purchase/leaseback” issue, and the description of the pros and cons, to be scandalously misleading and inaccurate. Bloody scoundrels.

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: