Last week, I posted a court order ending one of the two lawsuits against the development of the Badlands Golf Course. About a dozen homeowners there have been pursuing court delays while urging City Government to condemn the golf course, buy the land, and save their views.
The city attorney’s office says they have no case under the law, and they each initialed disclosures that they knew the golf course was not part of their purchase and that it had separate development rights. If if City Government does what they want, all the rest of the taxpayers in the city would end up paying to save their view. So I told the dozen homeowners that wasn’t fair, and I would work to prevent that from happening.
So they recruited a candidate to run against me – one who is not concerned the common sense, fiscal responsbility, and basic fairness – one who will open the city’s treasury to them. The election will be April 4.
In the meantime, the dozen homeowners apparently reacted to last week’s sanctions by “rolling out the big guns” – they filed a series of new court documents that laid out the rest of the legal theories they had been holding in reserve – most notably the “NRS 278A” argument.
Yesterday, the judge issued additional sanctions, increasing the amount of legal fees the litigant homeowners will have to pay the developers – from $80K to $130K – and laying out the several large reasons the “NRS 278A” argument fails. Here’s the ruling in it’s 42-page entirety. Some highlights:
“It is clear that the Golf Course land is not part of or within a planned unit development. Plaintiffs do not even possess standing to assert a claim under NRS 278A , as they are governed under NRS 116.” Para 130 p. 33
“NRS 278A does not apply to NRS 116 common-interest communities like Queensridge.” Para 131 p. 34
“Plaintiffs have argued the ‘merits’ of their claims ad nauseum and they have not established any possibility of success.” – paragraph 35, p. 11
“The golf course land is not subject to the Master Declaration.” – paragraph 38, p. 12
“The Fraud cause of action is incompetent, fails woefully for lack of particularity as required by NRCP 9(b), and appears disingenuous under the facts and law of the case.” – paragraph 53, p. 15