Dear Fellow Southern Highland’s Homeowners

               

         Subject: My November 2020 legal action against the association- a full disclosure and update

 

It is critical owners have trust in our association leadership. The decisions of our board are of vital importance to each owner and the community as a whole. The lack of transparency by the board on an extensive list of issues (you can find here) over many years, is why I strongly believe change is needed.  Is our board acting in the best interest of owners as they assert, or others?

 

In a letter to owners of the community during last year's election, Mr. Goett, owner of Olympia Companies and Olympia Management Services (OMS) wrote that I “filed, or participated in the filing of 11 claims against the Association”.  All of the “claims” Mr. Goett notes were not court actions. They were administrative actions containing a number of alleged statute violations filed with the Nevada Real Estate Division (NRED) over my five year search for transparency.  This website identifies most of those concerns.

​

Unfortunately, many owners have wrongly come to believe, based on Mr Goett's letter, I have engaged in multiple court actions (something I suspect was not lost on Mr. Goett in the way he worded his letter).

 

What owners should be asking is how and why, if even true, our SHCA board has seen fit to spent $100,000 on legal fees resulting from my complaints? It is outrageous. It should give owners great pause in light of the fact NRED does not pursue an investigation based on an administrative complaint until it first determines the complaint is not frivolous. So what is the association hiding that requires any legal fees- much less the extraordinary sum Mr. Goett suggests? 

​

What Mr Goett's letter also did not tell you is he and his Olympia Companies, in late 2017, filed a defamation action against me. The action was recently dismissed under Nevada's anti-SLAPP laws following a Nevada Supreme Court ruling and subsequent district court order.  The lower court wrote "(My) statements (Olympia) challenged are largely opinions premised on true facts and not actionable." (underline added) 

 

I was subjected to a long, expensive, and unnecessary action that has produced extreme stress on my family, friends, and myself. It is critical no owner ever again be threatened by a developer, management company, or other deep pocket for speaking out on a community issue.

 

Prior to filing its action against me, Olympia did not reach out to me to obtain comment nor seek a correction/retraction. I believe it was intended solely to silence me and the other owners supporting my efforts around actions of Olympia and our board since 2005.  Here is a list of some issues. 

​

I and another owner, having exhausted all options, filed a last resort court action in November 2020. It was my first legal action against any person in my life. It sought an injunction, asking a court to hold the 2020 Board election until our board made a viable showing as to why the developer's control of the SHCA board had not been terminated. We argue the three appointed director positions should have been included on the ballot.

​

The questions the action seeks answers to are simple and mirror what I have been asking for years. Transparency by the board could have averred this action and could today end it.

 

The court did not hear the case until after the 2020 election was complete (COVID and a constipated legal system). Thus, the court rejected the injunction as mute. It did however, agree to hear arguments on the continuation of the declarant's control period. Here is how  Olympia, answered after demanding it be included in the action despite my assertion it has no standing. Does it appear Olympia is seeking to provide transparency? 

​

I recognize the November 2020 action is being effectively taken against all owners, which includes myself and those who have joined with me. This, I truly regret. If the courts do their job or better yet, our board simply provides transparency, this matter can and should be easily resolved. Thus far however, this has not been the case as we once again approach what I assert is a questionable election that fails to include all appointed directors' positions.  

​

Thanks for taking the time to read this article. Please know I worked very hard to find a different route. 

 

Respectfully.

 

Mike Kosor