The President’s February 17, 2026, email informs members that the litigation filed by Ward, Houlihan, Kennemer, and Dixon has cost the membership $9,700 to date.

What the email does not explain is far more important than the number it highlights.

The lawsuit (Ward, Houlihan, Kennemer, Dixon v. Indian Hammock Hunt & Riding Club Inc.) concerns governance issues, including:

• Whether the Board and its Architectural Committee are acting consistently with the Declaration and governing documents
• Whether the enforcement authority has been expanded beyond what the documents authorize
• Whether certain rules conflict with recorded covenants
• Whether property owners’ rights are being restricted without proper amendment procedures

This lawsuit is not a personal grievance. It is a dispute about document compliance and fiduciary duty.

The President’s message presents only one fact:
The case has cost the membership $9,700.

It does not:

• Describe the legal issues raised
• Explain the alleged document inconsistencies
• Acknowledge that members have a legal right to seek judicial clarification
• State whether a settlement or mediation was attempted
• Disclose how legal strategy decisions were made

Instead, it highlights a dollar amount and names the members involved.
That approach risks signaling to uninformed members that:
“These four individuals are costing you money.”
That is not responsible governance communication.

Board members have fiduciary duties of loyalty and care to all members, including those who disagree with them.

When leadership communications single out members and attach financial cost to their names without explaining the underlying governance dispute, it creates unnecessary division.

Litigation expenses are not “caused” by members who file suit. They are the result of:

• The underlying dispute,
• The Board’s decisions in response,
• And the strategy chosen to defend the case.

If the Board believes it is correct, it can say so — and explain why.
If it believes clarification is needed, it can pursue resolution.
What it should not do is communicate in a way that appears designed to isolate or pressure fellow property owners.

A communication made in good faith would have included:

• A neutral summary of the issues in dispute
• A commitment to transparency
• A statement reaffirming respect for members’ rights
• An explanation of the steps taken to resolve the matter

Instead, the focus was placed on cost and names.
That is not a sign of constructive intent.

Reasonable people may disagree about how documents should be interpreted. That is why courts exist.
But framing a governance dispute as a financial burden imposed by specific neighbors risks damaging the community fabric. Indian Hammock deserves better.

Get informed, see: https://ihmyhome.com/violations-reported/2025-05-20-ward-houlihan-kennemer-dixon-vs-indian-hammock-club/