Open Letter to SHCA Owners
Dear Neighbors,
I believe the SHCA board is illegitimate. This assessment is not new. But instead of addressing my concerns openly, your majority appointed board is using your money — and lots of it — to protect itself. Read more in the blog titled Southern Highlands Governance Is it legitimate?
When I first attempted to serve on the SHCA board, Olympia and Gary Goett, responded by suing me for defamation. That litigation gave rise to Kosor v. Olympia Companies, (2020), where the Nevada Supreme Court ruled in my favor and on remand the District Court found that Olympia had violated Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statute and imposed the statutory maximum penalty.
You elected me to your board in 2023 precisely because I raised concerns and pledged to advance owner interests over those of the declarant. Olympia has controlled our community for an inexplicable 26 years. A majority of the board are Olympia appointees, two serve in senior roles at Olympia itself, and our management company, Olympia Management Services (OMS), is wholly owned by Olympia. None of this is illegal — though I believe it should be.
The two questions you should ask are simple: who is acting to protect your best interests — the homeowner? Where are the voices of the two directors you did elect?
The issue itself is straightforward. SHCA’s own annual reports to the Nevada Real Estate Division, going back years, show that more than 75% of units have been conveyed. This fact is not in dispute. As I read the law and our CC&Rs — and as the Nevada Court of Appeals held in Kosor v. NRED (2021) — the declarant’s control ends once 75% of units are conveyed.
"Both Nevada common-interest ownership law and the master declaration required that the Declarant's control over the SHCA would terminate after conveying 75% of the units within the SHCA."
I am unaware of any alternative interpretation of the law outside the Association’s lawyers, and even that has never been clearly articulated to owners- to my knowledge.
Yet control has not terminated. This dispute has never been adjudicated on the merits, and still the board spends hundreds of thousands of dollars — taking what I see as inappropriate action to suppress a ruling and remains in control.
How is that in the interest of owners?
The board unilaterally removed me in May 2023, from the seat you elected to fill- eighteen months into my two-year term. In my view, they did so without authority, without cause, and absent due process. Their claim was that my directorship became void “by operation of law” simply because I sought a civil interpretation of the statute.
That issue is now in litigation not because I want an unpaid, volunteer position on the board, but because I feel a duty to the owners, am being personally attacked, and SHCA is my home. Find a detail litigation picture here
No damages have been alleged by SHCA. Yet the legal fees are astronomical — exceeding the average cost of a home in Southern Highlands. One recent example: SHCA and the developer are seeking more than $120,000 in attorney’s fees for a single appellate reply brief in Kosor v. SHCA — more than twice what the average Nevadan earns in a year, and nearly equal to the annual salary of the presiding judge.
SHCA and SHDC were aligned on this single issue and their interpretation did not differ in the slightest. They used three law firms and nine attorneys to file two Answering Briefs which covered the same ground- where a single joint Answering Brief was more appropriate. At the bottom of this letter you will find numerous links to information and explanations.
A clear dispute exists. If the board truly believed resolving it was in the best interest of owners, there were relatively inexpensive and straightforward options: a regulatory hearing, an Administrator’s advisory interpretation, a request for statutory clarification by a judge, even binding arbitration. I would have agreed to any of these, saving you and me hundreds of thousands of dollars. I am not wealth. I am a retired military officer seeking competent and importantly, legitimate governance of my retirement community.
After my ousting and subsequent filing for re-election, the board went even further. It rejected my application then, notably after the election was over, sued me personally for punitive damages — because I sought election to the board which required the association to send every owner my candidacy statement. In my opinion, the counterclaims now being pursued by our board are not allowed under the law and meant to intimidate me while chilling other owners from ever speaking up. And on this final point, it appears the board has succeeded. Despite more than 8,300 units in Southern Highlands, only myself and one other owner have come forward to question the community's governace.
The pattern is clear. Rather than explain publicly why they believe they are entitled to keep control, or ask the Nevada Real Estate Division for a ruling to put the dispute to rest, the board has chosen litigation. And we are all paying the bill. Assessments collected for the community’s best interests are, in my view, being wrongly poured into lawyers to shield directors from exposure.
That money will not go into reserves, amenities, or maintenance. It will not increase the value of our homes or provide better security. It went into legal fights to keep you from knowing whether your board is legitimate. This issue has never been resolved on the merits. Instead, the board is betting your money on keeping the question out of sight — a question that any owner has the right to raise.
A detailed explanation of this eight-year effort can be found at here: Litigation involving SHCA. The filings speak for themselves
Board election are coming soon. Please act. Southern Highlands should be governed in the community’s best interests — by the homeowners, for the homeowners. Not by directors who remove those you elect, sue those who run, and drain assessments to avoid accountability.
Respectfully,
Mike Kosor
Southern Highlands Homeowner
Find several related blogs SHCA owners should find of value:
Nevada Supreme Court Ignores the Law on HOA Disputes—Become Policy Makers In Robes
Nevada Knows Fee-Shifting Is Dangerous — But Uses It In HOAs
"Declarant's control" - misunderstood
Anti-SLAPP- what HOA owners need to know to protect themselves
A wealth of additional information of value to owner can be found at the website of the Nevada HOA Reform Coalition.