Ron Johnson's Today's
Anthem View
In Deep Need of Realty
Check
At what age is it appropriate for a
person to "hang up their
spikes"?
The "Babe"
knew when...
...and perhaps the time has come for Mr. Johnson to do the same ...
...after his latest senseless
diatribe.
We at Anthem Opinions suggested YOU KNOW ALL THE FACTS before you cast a
ballot.
Not Mr.
Johnson....
Blogger Johnson took
the "liberty" today of TELLING PEOPLE HOW THEY SHOULD
VOTE regarding the potential law suit with "Pulte
Homes of Nevada"....
...and...like the letter from the law firm, Mr.
Johnson, MADE no mention of the details of the matter for one
reason...
HE DOESN'T KNOW THEM
EITHER !
...yet feels qualified to advise unit owners they
should do so !
Never did he use the words..."In his opinion".
Mr. Johnson sounded much like another blogger who
has successfully hoodwinked owners for years....and
the statement is so deceiving that it created the reason for this
article.
It also indicates his complete lack of knowledge
and experience as to the realities of a major civil law
suit.
First....
"As noted in the
letter, the Association will not bear any of the law firms expenses in pursuing
this legal action against Pulte."
Read the words carefully,
folks....the part about "expenses" IN PURSUING the
legal action.
They are being ADVANCED...and upon any success or settlement, WE WILL PAY
THEM, not the law firm.
Second.....
"Failure to approve the Board’s action would necessitate the
use of existing reserves. However, such reserves would have to be replaced
either by increasing assessments or by a special
assessment."
He also manged to completely ignore any other aspects of the situation in his attempt to influence others.
Mr. Johnson attends just
about all meetings and in case he missed the one about the 10% dues
increase...
...the reason given for the dues increase was replacing those reserves.
About the only thing we
agree with on Mr. Johnson's "take" was the part about
...
"Homeowners are encouraged to carefully read
the law firm’s letter"...
...the
rest....
"vote your approval of
the Board’s effort to recover costs incurred to repair the damage to Liberty
Center by marking the YES box"
...without COMPLETE
DETAILS OF THE AGREEMENT WITH THE LAW FIRM, is nothing more
than...
... senseless rhetoric
from an individual who has over the years, questioned many motives and actions
of numerous Boards, yet now seems to fall in step with those who have created
volumes of financial ruin.
This is a man who
wanted croquet at the Liberty Center, and suggested that a librarian was more qualified to handle construction financial matters than an individual with years of financial self-employment success in many aspects of
residential and commercial construction...
...the same man who made
every attempt to nip the problems we are now being confronted with...yet was ignored.
Mr. Johnson....after this latest article, you portrayed yourself as some sort of "expert"...which you are
NOT....
YOU should be
ignored.
Anthem Opinions
Administration
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - -
Got a
comment?
Did Ron Johnson go too
far to influence his readers?
What are your
feelings?
Send those comments
to:
He also conveniently failed to mention the fact that, if SCA loses the lawsuit - a very likely outcome when someone takes the time to review Pulte's previous 'modus operandi' when they are sued (they will spend multiple times the suit amount in legal fees to defend themselves)-
WE might have to pay Pulte's legal fees.
THAT would be 'throwing good money after bad'
(something that the "Restaurant Aficionados" on our HOA Board are all too familiar with).
From Mary Lee Duley...to...Anthem Opinions
Does Ron think Anyone can Win Against Pulte given past history of Losing?
Only the attorneys will win with endless fees; and IF SCA loses, then SCA could pay Pulte's legal fees!!!!!
He's at it again, and once again, in order to "cover up" the fact that his BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS CREATED THIS PROBLEM....the main issue has been AVOIDED....
...namely the TERMS OF THE CONTRACT with the respective law firm !
Why is that request unreasonable ? Why will neither mention that "detail" ?
That's all we want before we "check" the respective box on the ballot.
Perhaps we might put this in perspective in order for those who advocate legal action might comprehend...
Let's say you want to buy a car. Do you telephone a dealer and merely say...
SEND ME A CAR ?
...that is irrelevant as to the make, model, price, or warranty ???
Do you just say...
JUST CHARGE MY CREDIT CARD or JUST SEND ME THE BILL?
I think NOT.
Perhaps we might use another example.
When you bought your home, did you just call a real estate agent and say...
"Just pick one out and send me the bill...no need to see it or inspect it" ???
Well that is what is being advocated by two bloggers, one of whom lost a law license because of trying to "pull a fast one" over a client, a judge and a state".
...or did you examine it closely, making sure it was right for you?
Then even if you decided it was, did you HAVE IT INSPECTED before you purchased it?
These two individuals are asking YOU to "buy the farm" without even examining it !
Are you going to listen to that, or are you going to LISTEN TO COMMON SENSE and know everything there is to know, BEFORE YOU ENTER INTO SOME ARRANGEMENT, risking your financial future by merely saying "OK" without knowing the details ???
Listening to RUBBISH has cost the unit owners of Sun City Anthem THOUSANDS in wasted funds through failing restaurants, overpriced purchases...the list goes on and on.
...all because SO MANY INNOCENT INDIVIDUALS TRUSTED SOMEONE without knowing the full story.
Oh well, for those foolish enough to fall for more of this, P.T. Barnum said it best:
"There's a sucker born every minute" !
Dear Sun City Anthem Neighbors:
Having spent seventeen exceptionally successful years in real estate in Hawaii, I am shocked at one of the editorials on the SCA View’s blog pages.
In my opinion, the ONLY winners in MOSTS suits against developers are the ATTORNEYS. Given the history of Liberty Center, the "sign off" by the City of Henderson inspections when it was originally built, and then SCA’s President at the time (Roz Berman) taking it “as is" without a professional inspection” to check for defects and resolve them.
IF the Association sues, it’s money down the toilet. Let me be very clear, we do NOT have all of the facts in order to make a judgement but given what we have, I, personally, will NOT vote to sue Pulte and there are very clear reasons for my decision.
IF Sun City Anthem LOSES the suit, WE (Sun City Anthem Association) could be responsible for Pulte’s LEGAL fees and a corporation of this size will NEVER GIVE IN, NOR LOSE A SUIT. Their pockets are endless, whereas our association dollars, are not.
SECONDLY, anytime a SUIT is filed by a Homeowners Association, FULL DISCLOSURE FOR ALL DETAILS (which we don’t even have to have in order to make a decision), MUST BE DISCLOSED TO EVERY POTENTIAL BUYER IN SUN CITY ANTHEM. This disclosure of a suit against the developer WILL, in my opinion, cause buyers to change their minds and contracts will fall apart.
In my experience this law suit will NOT be over in a matter of months, and will take YEARS to resolve with attorneys fees continuing on a regular basis for both sides.
Will this suit have an adverse affect on property values in Sun City Anthem? My belief, YOU BETCHA! Will there be APPEALS? MOST LIKELY. Will SCA come out ahead? IT’S DOUBTFUL!
PLEASE DO NOT BE HASTY IN MAKING A DECISION WITHOUT ALL OF THE INFORMATION, AND CAST YOUR VOTE (yes or no) AS THERE WILL BE LASTING CONSEQUENCES.
I have never met Elizabeth Breier, one of the Sun City Anthem Owners, but just read her COMMENT on the Anthem Opinions web site, under their editorial “Voting To Sue Or Not To Sue”. It is well written and extremely informative and the last paragraph begins “I don’t sign a contract before Iread it in full - I won’t vote for or against a lawsuit until a I have all of the information. I want to see the Complaint and the Motion to Dismiss and have ALL the facts. The BOD should have representatives of Lynch Hopper address Members of the COMMUNITY at a Q & A before we vote”.
Lastly, NRS116 is the Statute that governs Homeowners Associations. The specifics of this are clearly defined word by word, in a previous comment section. Sadly, the majority of our Board of Directors tend to use their “interpretation” of NRS116 as opposed to how the law is written. After reading Ms. Breier’s full comment, I would suggest your seeing the specifics of NRS 116.31088 regarding requirements for commencing or ratifying certain CIVIL actions.
Again PLEASE DO NOT BE HASTY. EDUCATE YOURSELVES ON THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE AND OBTAIN ALL FACTS BEFORE COMPLETING YOUR BALLOT.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Mary Lee,
I concur........there will be only two (2) winners IF the suit goes forward:
1. the attorneys.
2. Roz Berman (HOA President at the time the new building was accepted WITHOUT any kind of professional inspection to assure proper construction, etc.). I say this because:
-IF we win the suit (HIGHLY UNLIKELY based on Pulte's history with such suits) she can say "See, all's well that ends well" etc, etc".
-IF we lose the suit (the likely outcome), she can say: "You see, there weren't any construction defects that contributed to the problem(s)" etc, etc."
Note that Johnson conveniently omits the fact that IF we lose the suit (the HIGHLY LIKELY outcome), SCA can be held responsible for Pulte's legal fees.
Pursuing this suit is the proverbial 'throwing good money after bad' (a practice well-exercised by the restaurant aficionados running our HOA)
On the matter of the Liberty lawsuit ballot, I’m reluctant to spoil the theme of your many well-spoken commenters, but….
I’m a bit surprised and puzzled that more advocates of a possible “yes” vote to proceed have not stepped forward. While reasons for caution and somewhat lowered expectations are always in order, it would also seem that strong consideration for a “yes” vote to proceed as discussed below should be considered.
The rules, such as they are, in appropriate NRS sections outline the process that a community such as ours must go through to initiate or proceed with a lawsuit on construction defects (CD). Without such a vote and favorable outcome to it, nothing further can proceed in pursuing all or some financial recovery for what occurred at Liberty, as in our previous CD situation with Anthem, Independence & the Villages. Our history in pursuing legal remedies suggests that the lawsuit route has been successful in a similar manner before.
Furthermore, the SCA Board is apparently functioning under NRS imposed time and mailing content deadlines and restrictions in issuing the ballots. A careful interpretation also indicates that the Board must not provide an editorial opinion in the mailing.
Given that the lawsuit process can be revisited or reconsidered at a later date after a favorable vote, such as in the case of possible settlement offers or concerns as to any new costs of its pursuit, a “yes” vote at this stage seems to be justified as the most monetarily prudent. Coupled with the fact that the case would be agreed to on a contingency basis with our law firm, our downside risks would be minimal, even if the return were reduced and/or delayed in a possible victory. With these factors involved, it’s hard to see any property value risk, even if the upside value in a potential win is relatively minimal.
In brief, I see no reason(s) to vote “no” and nullify or restrict our options and continuing negotiating abilities at this point. My vote would be a “yes” to proceed.
Thanks for this opportunity to respond.
Mike, let's be clear about something. We are not advocating a "yes" or "no" as to voting to bring a lawsuit against "Pulte Homes of Nevada."
What we are advocating for is FULL INFORMATION in order to come to a proper decision.
The initial elbast sent on November 11, 2016 brought out that CONS would have to be submitted by Novmber 9, 2016. Perhaps that was the reason there were no CON comments. Had it been done in a timely manner, I can assure you that many of the CONS brought out by Anthem Opinions and our readers, would have been part of the letter brought out to the community.
Secondly, the Board is asking our unit owners to undertake a MAJOR law suit that has the possibility of an adverse affect, especially for individuals wishing to buy and sell homes.
As I would hope you and the rest of the Board are aware, any litigation would have to be disclosed as part of any sales agreement.
That is not editorializing.
That is a fact EVERY BIT AS IMPORTANT that should have been acknowledged...but WAS NOT.
Also the letter does not specify the definition of "majority" that, to our knowledge, has still not been addressed.
NRS states that in order to go forth, the necessary "yes" votes would have to be a majority of the total unit owners plus one (3,573), and our Sun City Anthem CCRs are even more stringent saying that a 75% vote (5,358) "yes" votes would be required.
Which of these requirements must be adhered to?
That too was NOT ADDRESSED in the letter from the attorney....
...nor clarified by the Board.
Why ?
Perhaps the Board can address that question that has remained unanswered...
..to which the UNIT OWNERS are entitled.
Finally, was there a reason the letter came from a law firm and not Sun City Anthem Administration?
History dictates that the decisions of past Sun City Anthem Boards have had a NEGATIVE IMPACT on the financial stability of the community; the perfect example of which were the constant infusion of funds in restaurant after restaurant through loans that were never repaid, and tenants who "took us to the cleaners" due to the inexperience and lack of knowledge in vetting procedures....
...all made without notifying the community with the result of a loss of THOUSANDS of DOLLARS.
We paid a substantial $100,000 IRS fine due to incompetence.
A building that cost millions was not properly independently inspected before acceptance due to INCOMPETENCE and SHORTSIDEDNESS....resulting in this request from unit owners to support legal action.
Your wife and each board member have had heavy influence from another blogger whose past includes a history of dishonesty.
Should the community be skeptical with the track record that I have summarized ?
One would have to be foolish not to do so, knowing these facts !
In summary, it appears to be the belief that the community IS fully entitled to see the FULL terms of any agreement made with a law firm and the definition of the word "majority"....
...BEFORE any action commences.
That is GOOD BUSINESS SENSE from individuals who have had SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS CAREERS, knowing the full impact of potential disastrous decisions made "without the facts".
Once again, GIVE US FULL INFO in order to make an intelligent decision.
Would you invest personal funds knowing the party you were investing in had such a record?
...or would you want to know "the full story" before you did ?