​

​updated 2/8/25

​

Summary- In May 2023 the SHCA board ousted me from my elected directorship. It did so despite a clear conflict of interest, lacking authority, failed due process, and more. In a November 2023 action, supported by the Association's Director & Officer (DO) policy, I asserted my May 2023 removal from the SHCA board was unlawful. SHCA owners had elected me to fill this board position nearly 18 month earlier and only a vote of SHCA owners could remove me. This action continues.

​​

In December 2023, the association's board rejected my application seeking re-election. It alleges my filing a legal action seeking a court ruling on the board's legitimacy makes me ineligible.  On 2/1/24, I petitioned the court to halt SHCA's 2023 election count scheduled for 2/14/24.  On 2/8/24 a temporary restraining order was granted pending a 2/27/24 hearing. The Association sought out a different judge.  A hearing was eventually held 3/18/24.  At end, the second judge assumed control of the litigation lifting the restraining order.  As a result, the election ballot count was conducted 3/13/24.  ​​

 

April 30, 2024, SHCA filed a counterclaim that is ongoing. Owners are paying for litigation they never authorized. SHCA alleges I violated NRS in simply applying for re-election- an application the board denied. SHCA seeks fees and damages- despite failing to allege any damages and having never placed my name on the ballot. SHCA's objective seems clear- silence me, silence the owners who support me and intimidate those that may question the developer's over quarter century control of our community. An anti-SLAPP action (case 89439) was filed and is pending before the Nevada Supreme Court. SHCA's action send a clear message to every owner who may in the future seek election and/or speak out- do so at great personal and financial peril.   

​

SHCA and the developer have rejected all effort to settle the above actions amicably. Despite flawed assertions to the contrary by the Board, I do not stand to gain personal profit or compensation from any litigation. I am simply standing for the rights of all SHCA owners.

​

Litigation:

​

MICHAEL KOSOR JR vs SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION (case #A-24-886317-C)

 

This action was filed 2/1/24. It seeks to halt the 2023 board election until a court can rule on what I allege was my unlawful exclusion from the ballot.  The Court issued on 2/8/24 a temporary restraining order (TRO/OST). In a 3/7/24 hearing the TRO was not continued. Litigation continues combined with the action below (A-23-881474-W).  All my efforts seeking a settlement, avoiding this costly litigation, have been rejected.

 

MICHAEL KOSOR JR vs SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, a Nevada Non-Profit Corporation; SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a Nevada Corporation; CHRIS ARMSTRONG, an individual; RICK REXIUS, an individual; MARC LIEBERMAN, an individual; (case #A-23-881474-W)

 

​In May 2023 I was ousted as a director by the developer’s (Olympia Companies) controlled board. I believe the board's action lacked the needed authority, violated due process, and more. Owners who disagree with the board and/or exercise their fiduciary duty should not be bared nor removed from serving as a director.

 

It is my position the SHCA CC&Rs and NRS require the developer cede control of SHCA and the board to homeowners- which must occur no later than 75% of the Maximum Units are conveyed. SHCA's position is 90%, not 75% per our CC&RS. Read more here.

​

In a January 12, 2024 hearing the Court denied my request for an immediate halt to the election. Owners can read the full text of the injunction and complaint filed November 17, 2023 by selecting the applicable blue underlined document. Read here, the opposition filed by SHDC (joined by SHCA).  A hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss was held 2/20/24. 

​

April 30, 2024 SHCA answered and filed counterclaims. Once again, they did so without authority and I allege in violation of NRS. The association seeks fees and damages (despite pleading no damages occurred) for my simply applying for re-election. The counterclaims also seek damages for allegations I failed to adequately disclosure my potential conflicts of interests (despite the extensive disclosures contained on this web site) and for being "uninsurable"- all unsupported and I deny. As noted in the Summary above, this ruling is on appeal before the Nevada Supreme Court (case 89439)

​​​

MICHAEL KOSOR JR vs SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY ASSOC; SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS DEVELOPMENT CORP. (case #A-20-825485-C) 

​

On appeal (Case 87942). A link to the current status and all filings can be found here. 

 

Case Summary- I and another owner brought an action in a good faith effort to obtain a Court declaration that Olympia's control over the Association board had terminated as a matter of law—or must terminate under the contractual terms of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) —and also to obtain an injunction to force the free election by the homeowners of all board seats (not just a minority of seats). We did so at personal cost for the benefit of our neighbors and community. It was filed in November 2020 . We believe the SHCA board failed to place the three appointed director positions on the ballot, as a termination of declarant (developer) control requires under the law. We asked SHCA for transparency.

​

The injunction was ruled mute. COVID and the resulting backlog of the court system resulted in the case not coming before the court until after the election. Nonetheless, the court elected to hear the action. In subsequent court filings, SHCA and Olympia denied and deflected- but never explained why their failure to effect control change complied with Nevada law. Instead, both engaged in a litigation strategy based exclusively on making resolution of what should be a simply question of law, too costly.

 

Owners elected me to the SHCA Board the following year on a clear platform of not trusting our board. My election prompted discussions with Garry Goett- the developer. In early March of 2022, I was invited to two three hours plus in person meetings, hosted Mr. Goett. However, discussion stopped abruptly, terminated by Goett, despite commitments from him during each meeting he would voluntarily terminate his control “in the next six to twelve months” provided I'd agree to undisclosed and never provided condition(s) Goett was going to put in writing- but never did.

 

This case was not decided on it merits.  I asked the Court leave to voluntarily dismiss our complaint without prejudice. SHCA filed a countermotion. SHCA and SHDC filed opposition requesting that dismissal be conditioned on awarding their exorbitant attorney fees (exceeding $79k for Developer and $67k for Association). In attempting to condition dismissal on an award of exorbitant attorney’s fees, SHCA and SHCA once again resorted to disparaging me in a baseless attempt to portray me as a bad actor who should be punished for the audacity of challenging SHDC’s control over the HOA board. Similar disparagements tactics were employed against me in the Olympia defamation action, which the district court completely rejected, having found no evidence of defamation by me. Instead, the court found parties had improperly pursued a SLAPP action. The irony of the disparagement of me in this action was lost on the SHCA Board, as the only parties to have been adjudged to have engaged in improper or wrongful conduct are Developer’s president (Goett) and Olympia Companies, LLC. 

​

The request to withdraw was heard 07/20/22. The Court entered 9/9/22 an order dismissing the case with prejudice without me an opportunity to reject the conditions of dismissal and to withdraw my motion and proceed to trial. The Court ordered I pay SHCA's attorney fees it allegedly incurred-to the penny- without SHCA first producing any billings to have based its determination. 

​

After obtaining new legal counsel, I came to be believed the Court had no jurisdiction to act on my claims as the required administrative processes were not completed. SHDC and SHCA knew of this requirement, had cases dismissed when homeowners did not follow it, and obtained writ relief against courts that did not enforce mediation. But it failed to raise this in my case. It is obvious that they allowed my case to proceed and would use NRS to have the decision overturned had I prevailed.  

 

A hearing challenging all court orders was held December 12, 2023. The Court denied my request for dismissal. SHCA was awarded attorney fees and I have paid all attorney fees awarded. The case (87942) is now on appeal before the Nevada Supreme Court. It is ongoing. The details and filings can be found here.

​

At end, despite the ultimate rulings in this case, the core issue will likely remain unsettled- is the HOA Board, a majority of which are appointed by the declarant legitimate?   

 

In full disclosure, I was involved in the following additional legal actions. They did not directly involve SHCA. They have been resolved as noted and closed.

 

Kosor, Jr. v. Olympia Co. . Olympia Co.’s LLC (Case No. A-17-765257-C)

 

A defamation action by Olympia Companies (parent company of our community manager Olympia Management Services) and Garry Goett filed a defamation action against me in 2017. It was dismissed almost four years later under Nevada's anti-SLAPP law. It involved a Nevada Supreme Court ruling and subsequent district court order (a SLAPP action). In dismissing Olympia's action the lower court wrote "(My alleged slanderous) statements (Olympia) challenged are largely opinions premised on true facts and not actionable." (underline added) In a recent November 2017 hearing the judge called it "a quintessential SLAPP". The full Nevada Supreme Court case (83403) can be found here.

​​

SHDC and Garry Goett would in August 2021 file for an Appeal (case 83403) of the lower court's order granting my SLAPP (NRS 41.660) with award of attorney's fees and damages. In February 2022 appellants filed for dismissal.  

 

Kosor, Jr. v. Nevada Real Estate Division (Case No. A-18-778387-C)

​

During the pendency of my anti-SLAPP litigation, I initiated the first legal action of my life, suing Nevada Real Estate Division (NRED). I sought an order declaring that the Third Amendment to our CC&Rs was invalid ab initio (from the start) and compelling NRED to re-open my administrative case no. 2017-913. The SHCA was not directly involved. On appeal, the Court agreed with NRED's statute interpretation. The district court concluding “the 2005 [Third] amendment to the [SHCA] master declaration is presumptively valid after one year.” Apparently, the “system” permits any amendment recorded under any condition that is not challenged within one year of recording to stand, even when it violates multiple provisions of the law. The full Nevada Supreme Court case (79631-COA) can be found here.

 

​