Rio asks judge to change ruling allowing public on golf course

Bill Gang

Friday, Dec. 18, 1998 | 12:06 p.m.

Attorneys for the Rio hotel-casino were back in court today asking District Judge Mark Gibbons to reconsider his decision to allow residents of Seven Hills to use the golf course the resort hoped would be private for hotel guests.

Gibbons ruled in October that the Rio must keep the course located in the middle of Henderson's Seven Hills development open to residents of the community, based on master convenants, conditions and restrictions -- commonly referred to as CC&Rs -- that indicated the homeowners would have access to what is now the Rio Secco golf course.

A trial to set fees for residents is due to begin Monday, but Rio attorneys hoped to avoid that hearing by Gibbons persuading to change his mind or at least limit the access to residents who bought their homes before the controversy found its way into District Court.

Residents who bought after the lawsuit was filed or who have not yet purchased homes should be kept off the course, because they have been given notice that the Rio wants to keep the course private, Rio attorneys argued.

There also is a motion to prevent homeowners in developments through American Nevada Corporation and the Silver Canyon Partnership from being able to play at Rio Secco, because their CC&Rs are different from those at Seven Hills.

The intent apparently is to prevent as many of the people who live in the 3,500 homes at Seven Hills as possible from tying up tee times at Rio Secco.

That already has been done in a fashion through the $300 green fees the course requires for non-hotel guests. Few members of the public are said to have availed themselves of the opportunity to play on the "high-end" course.

The trial beginning Monday will determine whether the Rio Secco can keep those green fees or whether the high rate is a way for the Rio to keep the course, in essence, private. Hotel guests can play for $190 if they aren't given free privileges by the hotel.

Homeowners are asking to guarantee access to the course by setting green fees they can afford.

In addition to complaining about the green fees, some residents have contended that any closing of the course to the public would diminish the values of their property.

After buying the golf course a year ago, the Rio chose to restrict its use to casino high rollers and other guests, but homeowners and developers had been told the course would be public and filed lawsuits.

Testimony during the trial was clear that homebuilders and potential homeowners routinely were told the golf course would be a high-end, daily-fee public facility -- and that apparently was the intent of the original developers.

But when the Rio bought the course, a decision was made to close it based on language in the CC&Rs signed by buyers that there were no guarantees of access to the course.

Gibbons ruled that a seemingly contradictory provision in the master CC&Rs gave all homeowners and developers access rights.

That section is entitled "No right to use golf course" and began: "Each owner acknowledges that, if a golf course is constructed as a part of the project, the purchase of a lot or condominium by such owner does not confer upon such owner the right to use the golf course or any other facilities on the golf course property."

The second part of that section stated: "In order to use the facilities, each owner will be required to pay such fees and to satisfy such other conditions as may be in effect from time to time with respect to the use of the facilities."

Gibbons ruled the second portion modifies the first and gives homeowners access to the course subject to fees that are established.