No Suit for You
?
Think
Again
Looks like the Sun City Anthem Board of Directors and the Association General Manager "took it on the chin" regarding the construction default lawsuit against Pulte Homes of Nevada....
...for now
!
The vote has been tallied with these
results:
Yes
3,470
No
294
What does this
mean?
The association fell 103 votes short of achieving the necessary 3,573 total needed to go forth with the
suit.
Will this end the
situation?
Absolutely
not....
Folks, this is merely Round One !
...and we believe this group wants this lawsuit and will
do ANYTHING to get it.
That's obviously the reason as to why
the Board has called an "Executive Session" to figure out a way to bypass Nevada
law.
Though we are sure we will be reminded
again and again that 92% of those who completed the
ballot stated they wished to sue, the fact remains that only
48.5% of all unit owners indicated their approval, meaning
that...
51.5%
DID
NOT
Thus, the "rules" state that the legal
action DID NOT ACHIEVE THE NECESSARY TOTAL TO
PROCEED.
Were we surprised at the total
votes?
NO
Were we surprised that 92% of those who
voted, voted in favor of litigation?
NO
Why?
..because when you
only tell the POSITIVES and try to convince others that a pot of gold
awaits them without "telling the
full story", of course you can't be surprised.
Let me state again as we have in the
past...
Initially...
WE TOOK NO
POSITION as to whether or not this action should be supported. We
specifically stated that is was up to YOU to make the
decision.
All we asked was that the association
"play by the rules" prescribed by
Nevada law and/or Sun City Anthem CCRs.
Sun City Anthem CCRs
called for 75% of ALL UNIT OWNERS, while Nevada
statutes called for the lesser amount of 50% to
proceed.
...and the lesser total of those rules
specifically stated that in order to go
forward, a majority of unit owners
(3,573) was required to approve going forth with a
formal lawsuit.
Having questioned a number of past
board decisions that in many cases have had negative
financial results to Sun CIty Anthem, we made numerous attempts to get
clarification as to how the word "majority" was to be
determined.
Was it the majority of all unit owners
or the majority of those who voted?
We knew what the law stated, but just
to "play it safe", we believed it was in the best interests of the community, to
obtain a definitive answer before casting a
ballot.
Finally the
Association President acknowledged that The Board would follow NEVADA LAW rather
than association CCRs, and require that the 50%
amount of "yes" votes would apply to proceed with any civil
litigation...
...but...it took a
number of inquiries to obtain that answer !
We also believed that other rules had
to be followed to the letter of the law as well...and in our opinion, following
those rules, also meant...
...GIVING UNIT OWNERS THE FULL FACTS to make an
informed decision.
Because they were NEVER provided, and the complexities of a major civil
action are unknown to many, we felt compelled NOT
to SUPPORT this legal action for some very
strong reasons...
...all of which
included DEMANDING COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW.
NRS 116 states
that an Association must provide EQUAL TIME for both "PRO" and "CON"
arguments.
We did NOT believe that to be the case.
We
originally received notification from the Association on November 11, 2016 that any CONS had to have
been received by November 9, 2016.
No...that
is NOT a misprint !
Obviously
how does one file a CON two days AFTER being notified that the deadline had
passed?
When
one looked at the letter from the law firm, it indicated that THERE WERE NO CON
STATEMENTS provided by members
of the Association.
The
only CON was the comment from the Law Firm that stated the remote possibility of
losing and being assessed the legal fees of the defendant, Pulte Homes of
Nevada, which in our opinion, further biased the decision making process.
There
were many others that could have, and SHOULD HAVE been included, yet were not,
which further biased the decision making.
In our
opinion, failing to meet that state requirement constituted an omission intended
to unfairly influence unit owners to vote in favor of the legal
action.
Was
that intentional?
We
believe it was, but whether intentional or not, the fact remains that NEVADA LAW WAS BROKEN.
We,
on numerous occasions, brought this to the attention of THE BOARD, as well as,
other residents who sent emails to us and the members of the Sun City Anthem
Board demanding such information.
Their
reaction to the concerns?
THAT REQUIREMENT WAS
IGNORED.
Over the past six weeks, other community publications also IGNORED mentioning this requirement in their reporting;
which in our opinion, was also clearly intended to "enhance" a "yes"
vote.
Their comments:
JUST VOTE "YES"
NEITHER EVER indicated any adverse arguments; one even using the
terminology that voting in favor of legal action, was a "no
brainer"....
...advice from a former attorney who both lost a license to
practice law, and sued an elderly resident, only to obtain a "nuisance"
settlement in the respective case.
Both bloggers mentioned the success of previous litigation against
Pulte...
...yet what was ALSO IGNORED was that
in filing that previous action, the law evidently was also PREVIOUSLY BROKEN by
never placing that decision to sue before the association unit owners in a
formal ballot.
Add to the above, the almost daily BARRAGES of reminders to
vote...
...all stating to vote "yes"....
...and in each and every case, NOTHING WAS
EVER MENTIONED as to the potential adverse affects
this legal action could bring unit
owners.
Nevada law specifically states
that....
...any such BALLOT unit owners are sent,
INCLUDE ANY AND ALL PRO and CON arguments supplied by residents in order to
provide a sufficient amount of information necessary to make an INTELLIGENT and
WELL INFORMED decision.
What were some of the additional items we believed
residents were entitled to know before casting a
vote?
The full contents of THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT WITH ANY LAW FIRM that
would handle this matter.
Once again, this was
IGNORED.
Unit owners should have been advised that any such legal action
MUST BE DISCLOSED PRIOR TO THE SALE OF ANY
PROPERTY.
Once again, this was
IGNORED.
If Sun City Anthem prevailed, and Pulte Homes of Nevada
subsequently filed an appeal, the legal fee contingency associated with the
inItial suit DOES NOT APPLY TO LEGAL FEES REGARDING APPEAL...those fees would
have to be paid separately by the association.
Once again, this was
IGNORED.
Add all these elements together, and as a result of not "playing by rules" set forth
in Nevada homeowners association laws, we could not,
in good conscience, recommend such a serious
action.
Will this end the quest to sue
Pulte?
We believe that further legal court action will be taken (with the
association paying additional legal fees), to pursue the
lawsuit.
Have a comment?
Have a comment?
Send it to us at:
His comment indicated that those who took an alternative opinion than his, should be ashamed of themselves for doing so.
When we read this comment, we were astonished.
When you ask a Board to merely comply with the law and they choose not to do so, evidently in Mr. Weinstein's opinion, that should constitute shame !
How dare residents take a stand to demand full disclosure of a major lawsuit that could substantially impact them, prior to a vote?
Who are they to question the decisions of those who have, in the past, proven their "economic worth" by continuously wasting association funds on restaurant subsidies, improperly vetting loans that resulted in losses in the thousands of dollars, and paying a general manager a compensation package that will total approximately $100,000 more than the City Manager of Henderson receives?
Well Mr. Weinstein, let me also remind you that it was the incompetence of a Board that wasn't intelligent enough to have the Liberty Center professionally inspected prior to its acceptance years ago...
...and that basic error in financial judgment, a.k.a.stupidity, caused this community to lose the use of that building for in excess of a year, creating an out-of-pocket cost that is apparently approaching $1,900,000 as a result.
Last but not least, the nonsense you are stating about a "special assessment" or increase in annual dues without the "yes" vote.....
...you've already covered that contingency by raising the dues 10% in 2017; there's talk of another 10% increase in 2018, and yet, and adding the two together pretty much covers the $1,900,000 out-of-pocket cost of the Liberty Center. We were told that would increase association reserves...reserves that undoubtedly were drained as a result of the Libery Center fiasco and so many other needless and wasteful expenditures.
No Mr. Weinstein, don't say "shame" on those who did not go along with your lawsuit....
...Shame on those who created the problem to begin with....and trying to make the rest of us pay dearly for mistakes your board isn't even mature enough to admit they created.
I think it is the best article you have ever written.
Bravo!
The no vote could have been cast in 2 ways.
Return the form and say NO or DO NOT RETURN THE FORM.
SINCE THIS INTELLIGENT BOARD TOLD US ONLY THE YES VOTES ARE IMPORTANT, THOSE THAT WANTED TO SAY NO JUST DID IT THE EASY WAY…..
...RETURN NOTHING SINCE THEY DO NOT COUNT.
SAVE THE TIME AND EFFORT….SAVE THE STAMP.
IF THE BOARD REALLY WANTED AN ACCURATE VOTE, THEY WOULD HAVE ASKED EVERYONE TO VOTE……
SO THE 92% THAT VOTED "Yes" DOES NOT REPRESENT THE VOTING COMMUNITY, BUT ONLY THE ONES WHO CHOSE TO BOTHER TO VOTE.
Our residents need to be aware that a law suit against the builder negatively affects property values because if they want to sell their home it is mandatory that this lawsuit be disclosed to potential buyers.
How many people would be interested in buying in a development where this is hanging over their head?
That also means that property values will drop and that affects all the people that own homes here.
It seems the silent majority that wishes to sue doesn't understand what this lawsuit would do.
After having had a long time legal case against the builder over the floors and the years it took to get a final decision, which was not in favor of the owners, people must realize that Pulte has deep pockets and can fight against any legal actions.
Homeowners don't stand a chance of winning in this type of action.
There is someone named Mary E. (she is obviously too much of a coward to use her real name) who has accused me of stating Mr. David Berman lost his law license.
Well, Mary E. looks like you're the one who needs some education.
Perhaps you might wish to check these links....it provides the full documentation as to the loss of your hero's law license.