Hi Neighbors.

We all received today’s monthly email, “From the desk of Barbara Roberts, President.”
The monthly report includes a paragraph that many of us have an issue with:
“We would like to bring you up to date on the ongoing lawsuit involving Dixon, Houlihan, Kennemer, and Ward.
On May 29, Indian Hammock will be returning to court. Mr. Dixon believes that Indian Hammock is in contempt of the Judge’s Order and clarification regarding the 2024 Hunt SOP. We want to assure all members that Indian Hammock has followed the Judge’s Order.
Mr. Dixon is also asking the Judge to allow him to place his equipment in the covered area of the Indian Hammock Quail Barn. As a reminder, the parking of equipment and other items in the RV parking area is reserved for members who pay a fee for designated parking spaces. There are no designated parking spaces in the covered area of the Quail Barn.“

I believe David Bass, our president prior to Barbara Roberts, covered this issue beautifully in his email.
Please see David Bass response

Hi Barbara,

Just read your Presidents letter dated today. I speak for a large number of members who have some concern about how you have communicated on the Dixon et al legal case.

The quail barn in its entirety is a “hunting facility” as defined by our declaration of restriction. It is not an RV parking lot. Your president letter has mis-informed the membership by claiming that it is an RV lot when it is a “hunting facility”. Is the tack room a pool? Can we store engines in the tack room? The hunt committee advises the board and has primary usage privileges of the quail barn in its entirety for hunting usage. Where are the minutes where the board has changed the primary usage of the quail barn?

The quail barn was built and approved for its intended purpose…a hunting facility in compliance with the donation letter and prior board’s properly noticed open board meeting motion(s). None of those prior motions have been modified by subsequent board motions. If you want to change that you need a motion to change the covered portion to something other than “a hunting facility”.

Your attempt to re-define the usage of the quail barn covered area is in contempt of the injunction and I ask the board to reconsider. Your position is going to cost all of the membership more in legal fees for what? Because of semantics? Fiduciaries should not act on emotions but instead act solely on the best interest of logic for the membership. Fighting over and spending legal fees to defend if a hunt buggy can stay or not stay at the quail barn or how many guests can join in on a paid bird hunt (even though FL720 clearly defines the reasonable application of that guests), makes absolutely no common sense and violates the board’s fiduciary duty to act prudently and in our best interest. I am sorry that there may be “feelings” otherwise, but feelings don’t support doing the right thing for the membership.

The board’s position on the covered area makes no fiduciary sense (just a quick read of the Club’s governing documents clearly states that game areas and hunting facilities are authorized as a primary usage of common land) and there are many members who are concerned that the legal fees will escalate with no benefit for the community and run against the Club’s covenants.

The Temporary Injunction, page 4, section 2, states, “…and provide all facilities required to fulfill the findings herein.” What part of that court order authorizes the board to deny facility usage? I was at the re-hearing and when Sarah asked Judge Wallace to explain what that reference meant, he clearly stated that he used the broad language, instead of naming specific hunting assets, because he wanted to make sure that the Club and the plaintiff don’t have to fight over what is or isn’t named in the injunction, but rather to promote resolution and move forward by allowing his injunction to be broad and not subject to further debate. I add this because there were no board members present to hear him say this, other than you and you have a history of interpreting facts differently than I do.

If the board wants to continue to disallow Hunt equipment to stay in the covered area then the board needs to motion to do that at a properly noticed open board meeting.

I have cc’d Ron and the board. I am a neighbor and always happy to discuss or debate. I hope that my concerns shared here foster some level of discussion. I look forward to any outreach. If I have missed something, as a past President and serving on the board for almost a decade, I would be the first to acknowledge and favor support.

I am just trying to help you and the board move forward with reason and respect for all members. That doesn’t mean listening to special interest groups (I have always hated that stereotype. We are a community of members who all bought here and agreed to live by our covenants. The only special interest are those that want to change those covenants.). If there is any doubt about what “all members” mean….read the Declaration of Restrictions.

Barbara, as you and I have done for 17 years, I look forward to discussing this further with you.

Dave