Neighbours,

On February 27, 2026, the President sent an email to members stating that the lawsuit filed by Michael Dixon, George Ward, Paul Houlihan, and Hop Kennemer had already cost the community $9,700.

That email named these members.
It emphasized cost.
It did not explain what the case was actually about.
It did not explain the legal issues.
It did not indicate that the Board of Directors might be at fault.

At that time, the clear impression given was:
“These four members are costing you money.”

Now Fast Forward

On March 17, 2026, a judge issued a ruling — and it changes everything.

The Court granted a Temporary Injunction in favor of Michael Dixon, George Ward, Paul Houlihan, and Hop Kennemer.

This is not a minor step. It means the judge reviewed the evidence and found strong reasons to act immediately.

The Court found:

• There is a strong likelihood that Dixon, Ward, Houlihan, and Kennemer will win the case
• The 2025 rule changes were unreasonable
• The Board of Directors likely violated Florida law (Statute 720.304(1))
• The changes effectively eliminated long-standing hunting rights
• The Club must go back to the 2024 SOP and cannot change it for now

Read That Carefully

A judge has already determined that there is strong evidence that:

The Board of Directors likely acted outside the law.

So Let’s Ask the Obvious Questions

Why did the February 27 email:

• Emphasize cost — but not explain the real issues?
• Name specific members — but not explain why they filed the case?
• Suggest harm to the community — without disclosing the Board’s legal risk?

And most importantly:

Why were members not told that this case may have had serious merit?

What This Now Looks Like

With the Court’s ruling in hand, that earlier email is not just incomplete.

It appears misleading by leaving out critical facts.

Because now we know:

• This was not a weak or frivolous case
• This was not personal
• This was a serious legal challenge — and the judge agrees

The Reality

The $9,700 cost did not come from four members doing something wrong.

It came from:

• The Board of Directors adopted rules that the Court now says are likely unlawful
• The decision to defend those rules instead of fixing them
• Continuing that path until a judge stepped in

Bottom Line

This case was never about “members costing money.”

It is about:

• Whether the Board followed the law
• Whether the Club followed its own governing documents
• Whether owners’ rights were restricted improperly

And now we have the first clear answer from a judge.

Final Point

Members deserve full and honest information, not selective messaging.

When leadership highlights cost but leaves out the legal reality, it creates a false picture.

Now that the facts are clear, everyone should reassess based on what has actually been proven — not what was implied months ago.

If you haven’t read the Court’s ruling yet, it is worth your time.
Facts matter; you can check them all (very long) on https://ihmyhome.com/violations-reported/2025-05-20-ward-houlihan-kennemer-dixon-vs-indian-hammock-club/