Closing arguments wrap up Desert Inn homeowners’ suit

Erica D. Johnson

Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2003 | 9:46 a.m.

An attorney representing homeowners in Desert Inn Estates said Monday that his clients' rights were "intentionally ignored" when Steve Wynn bought out portions of the community and neighboring golf course to make way for his new megaresort.

John Netzorg said the residents' property rights were violated when Wynn's company, Valvino Lamore, blocked roads and built 10- to 20-foot dirt hills blocking views of the golf course.

The neighborhood near Paradise and Desert Inn roads borders Wynn Las Vegas, which is scheduled to open in 2005.

"In each instance the homeowners were ignored, in each instance the homeowners were not consulted, in each instance, their rights were taken and trounced on," Netzorg said in his closing argument.

But attorney Jim Pisanelli, who represents Valvino Lamore, maintained that the lawsuit had more to do with the homeowners' greed than their concerns about the neighborhood.

"The agenda is not about gates, not about entrances, it's about money," he said.

The closing statements wrapped up a long and complicated trial before District Judge Mark Denton in which the homeowners asked the judge to allow them to maintain access to their neighborhood roads and their views of the golf course.

The trial was the culmination of three years of suits and countersuits that followed Wynn's purchase of the Desert Inn in April 2000. By June of that year Wynn had bought out four-fifths of the neighborhood.

Stephanie Swain brought the suit on behalf of the remaining 10 residents who refused to sell to Wynn when he bought the Desert Inn property, including the adjoining golf course.

But Pisanelli questioned Swain's motive. He said many residents had expressed that they were holding out for the company to purchase their homes for a higher price.

"Ms. Swain herself appears to be a professional plaintiff," Pisanelli said. "She can't even recall how many times she filed administrative appeals against the company."

Pisanelli said the homeowners had no reason to believe that they had an expressed or implied right to a view of the golf course.

The word "view" was not used in any of the homeowners' deeds or other purchasing documents, he said.

"What they expected when they purchased the property in the 1980s and 1990s is irrelevant," he said. "The right to a view was never on the table."

Netzorg argued that the view of the golf course initially drew the homeowners to the community. He said each resident even received a free lifetime membership to the golf course when they purchased their property.

"We own a piece of the golf course, the golf course is still there and we're entitled to the view," he said. "Ms. Swain and all the residents got this benefit."

Wynn testified that the berms are to protect neighbors from flying golf balls.