| HOME | TODAY'S ANTHEM VIEW |
| An SCA View-Journal Editorial |
Pulte and the Court
Headline One: Two Resident Meetings, Thursday., Jan. 4th, at 3 and Jan 7th at 6 p.m.
Headline Two: Resident Meetings Cancelled
If you are confused, you are not alone. But before proceeding I’ll relate a story told this past week by a Sun City McDonald Ranch homeowner who was leading a meeting my wife had attended. As the disbelieving audience listened, this person was attempting to explain why this leader was unable to be present the preceding week. As was explained, a spot somewhere in the home felt a tad warm, almost pleasant as if the floor had radiant heating. As time went on, the area of warmness increased as well as the intensity of the heat coming through the floor until the floor was hot. Yes, it was a leak from the KITEC pipe under the concrete slab. A plumbing company was called and they repaired the leak. A timely lesson for us all. Now, getting back on target, we have that Headline One, which is obviously true, as announced by Favil West in today’s important articles in the Anthem Compendium, 23 December. Mr. West goes on to raise homeowner expectations about the eventual outcome of the meeting. He states that “Our expectation is that at the conclusion of the meetings you will be able to make an informed decision regarding this issue.” I wish I could share in Mr. West’s optimism about the outcome of the meeting. I would have preferred that Mr. West had taken a less partisan point of view of the matter. It was disappointing to see that he apparently felt the need to clothe himself in Pulte’s settlement agenda. Mr. West also went on to announce that Pulte’s Division President Patrick Aulds will be on our local Cox Channel 99 communicating to all Sun City homeowners beginning on Monday, December 25th with a message that is also published in today’s Anthem Compendium (reproduced here). Are we witnessing a full-court press to get homeowners aligned behind Pulte's settlement offer? Today’s publication of Mr. Aulds statement in the AC and his upcoming TV appearance is especially interesting, timely if you will, but not for the reasons you may think. And then there is that Headline Two. What’s that all about? I believe there is a slight possibility that those meetings will not take place, at least not with Pulte being present. But that’s pure speculation on my part and I’ve been known to be wrong on rare occasions. And without Pulte present, well, what kind of a meeting can you have about the construction defect matter without Pulte being there to guide us through the process. My conclusions concerning Pulte's possible non-attendance are based on what I read as the clear intent of a recent court order directed at Pulte's future communication efforts, as I will explain below. However, if Pulte believes their long-term interests are better served by holding those meetings in advance of a court conducted "fairness" hearing on their prior actions, that's their business. Whether the judge will be impressed by Pulte's showing (on Ch. 99 and at the two January meetings) will be evident when the judge holds his hearing in late January. One does not have to read between the lines to conclude that our Board, Favil West, and the Association’s attorney, John Leach, are most likely standing behind Pulte’s settlement offer 1000 percent. That must be very comforting to Pulte. One must assume that their support of Pulte is not entirely one sided. Presumably, some of those folks actually believe that Pulte’s offer is in the best interest of the homeowners. Admittedly, though, when matters are strictly high-stakes Developer motivated, the Board can not be expected to play a major decision-making role. But the question of what is in the best interest of the homeowner really begs the question, doesn’t it? What are the best interests of the homeowners? When you think about it, who’s looking after your best interests in this matter? If you had to pick, who would that be?
Pulte Division President Patrick Aulds reminds us (and the community) that Pulte is not involved in the class action suit. He says, “It is important to note that Pulte/Del Webb is not named as a defendant in that class action and is not directly involved in that case.” Actually, Pulte is a tad more involved than they would prefer to be at this point. As viewed by those greedy attorneys, also called the Plaintiffs, Pulte has at least three problem areas to address before the court:
As a result of Plaintiffs request, Pulte was in court on Thursday 21 Dec. before the judge in this case, District Court Case Number 04-A-493302.** While Pulte argued that the court had no jurisdiction over these matters, the judge disagreed. The judge, who could have dismissed Plaintiff’s request, found sufficient cause with respect to the issues being raised to call for what is known as a fairness hearing to be held within the next 30 days. A fairness hearing is designed to resolve matters that appear to be in dispute and to ascertain the reasonableness of the matter, in this instance, Pulte's settlement offer. In the case of Pulte's settlement offer itself, that may (or may not) be the best of all possible settlement offers. Then again, who knows, the judge may have a different perspective on the matter. As a result of apparent concern over this matter, Judge Timothy Williams issued a minute order on 22 Dec. declaring that Pulte shoud refrain from any communciations with all Anthem class members, which is virtually everyone in Sun City with Kitec fittings. The judge declared:
What are Ex-Parte communications? While variously defined and interpreted, the term Ex-Parte may refer to communications made to influence a decision-making official off the record and out of the presence of other parties, something that the courts frown upon, if not prohibit. In our situation, that “decision-making official” could just as well be the homeowner, as unlikely as it sounds, since Pulte is dealing directly with them and they are the ones being called upon to make those very important decisions in this matter. And, as for the “other parties” are concerned, they are the Plaintiffs in this case, who, interestingly, represent Sun City Anthem homeowners, whether they like it or not. Pulte and the judge will have to settle their potential dispute on the application of the law in this matter in some mutually agreeable manner and until they do, we may have to wait a few more weeks until we get the "final" word on the matter of who, what, when and how the construction defect matter will be resolved. Ron Johnson, 23 December 2006, Rev 25 Dec. _____________________________________________ "" Link to District Court page to look up case: http://courtgate.coca.co.clark.nv.us/DistrictCourt/asp/CaseNo.asp
|