Details

Published: 22 November 2025

Though a majority of the voting homeowners wanted to pass the Special Assessment,  a 50.01% of all homeowners was not met.  The Special Assessment did not pass.  Details of the vote will be presented in the December 8, 2025 Board meeting. If you choose to support the HOA with a donation, donations will be accepted to have legal support if this is to go to trial in February.  You can also make your 2026 donation. The Board has filed a motion for a Summary Judgment against Mr. Pryor's lawsuit with the courts.  A summary judgement provides a quicker resolution to cases thus saving time and resources and hopefully avoids a trial.  The PDF is the Summary Judgement the Board filed. Please note Mr. Pryor's Lawsuit makes allegations and conclusions that are Mr. Pryor's opinions.  There are legal limitations as to the length of time to contest a filing of the Covenants and there is a limitation on how much one person can up-end the Declaration for the entire HOA of 211 members. 

 CLICK HERE RRR Summary Judgement 

 Elizabeth Lonnquist

Details

Published: 06 November 2025

There has been a lot of misinformation regarding the “Craig Pryor v. Red Rock Ranch Homeowners Association” lawsuit and the RRRHOA Board would like to clarify some issues:

1) The 2010 RRRHOA Board did get a ballot approved by a majority of the RRRHOA members for the extension of the Covenants and registered with the county in early 2010. The fundamental allegation of the lawsuit is that the RRRHOA Covenants terminated in 2010 when the current board did not complete a ballot approval and register the results by January 1, 2010.  This is a “Timing Issue” lawsuit that was filed more than 15 years after a majority vote of the RRRHOA 2010 members approved the extension of the Covenants with not one of the 200+ members voicing a complaint/challenge/objection to the validity of the 2010 ballot approval.    

2) When the Plaintiff initially voiced his concern regarding the timing of the 2010 ballot, the RRRHOA board did take this seriously and met the Legal Counsel regarding his concern.  The current Board’s Legal Council has presented legal arguments to the RRRHOA Board indicating the Covenants are valid.  The RRRHOA Board has provided this information to the Plaintiff several times, with updated information, and this has not resolved the issue.

3)  It needs to be understood that the RRRHOA Board does not have the authority to declare the Covenants null and void. At both amending the Covenants and the Articles of Incorporation, it requires a majority approval of all the members (It requires a 67% member approval to dissolve the Association).  The Bylaws further clarify the limited RRRHOA Board power (Artical VII, para 3) by stating "The Board may not act on behalf of the Association to amend the Covenents,...". Basically, the Board cannot even change a comma in the Covenants without 1) a ballot process occurring, and 2) 51% of the members voting in favor of it.  The RRRHOA Board has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interest of all 200+ members and must stay within its limited power in addressing the complaint of one member.  Rogue actions taken outside the limited powers of the RRRHOA Board could be viewed as disenfranchising the other 200+ members and resulting in other litigation from members claiming damages (i.e., loss of property value).  The primary and proper way to void the Covenants of the RRRHOA is to go through the Ballot process which has always been an option for the Plaintiff.  However, the Plaintiff chose the judicial system which does have the authority to void Covenants and bypass the voices of the members.    

4)  The proposed assessment is to fund Legal Counsel for the Members and RRRHOA Board so they can be properly represented in the next steps of the lawsuit.