By: Rob Harris
Those seeking a stress free (and lawyer free) existence should think twice before moving to Louisville, Kentucky’s Glenmary subdivision.
The owners of the neighborhood’s golf course–Glenmary Country Club–faced with ongoing losses, wanted out. Having considered development, they instead reached agreement to sell the club for $2.15 million to the residents, memorialized in a written contract with the Glenmary Homeowners Association Board of Directors.
As reported by Louisville’s Courier-Journal, the Board’s September 2013 execution of the agreement followed on the heels of a 360-279 vote by the residents to proceed with the golf course purchase.
The dissenters, taking a page from the Ted Cruz “majority rules” manual, have blocked the transaction from proceeding. Three new Board members campaigned with a letter to homeowners asserting that previous members “lacked objectivity and accountability” regarding the purchase. Securing election, these new members were able to transform a majority of the Bboard members to oppose the purchase.
Of course, they still faced one little detail–there already existed a lawful contract signed by the previous Board requiring the association to purchase the golf course.
No problem. Having replaced the Board’s previous attorney with one favorable to their position, they informed the course owner that they had been unable to comply with the contractual condition that they secure “suitable financing” for the acquisition. Even though they, indeed, had received loan two loan offers, the new Board determined that the terms of these loans were not appropriate. Therefore, so they argued, they were off the hook.
The internal jockeying at the association has resulted in a legal dispute between former Board members against new Board members. It has resulted in a lawsuit by the golf course owner claiming that the association breached the agreement.
And now, just this week, a new lawsuit has been filed. The association, controlled by the new board, has sued the golf course owner. The owner, trying to move on from the association’s failure to follow through on the contract purchase, is attempting to develop part of the golf course property. The association, not wanting the development to occur–but not wanting to follow through on its contract to purchase the property–has filed a complaint alleging that the course owner’s development plan violates deed restrictions.
Real estate lexicon declares “location, location, location.” Until the dispute dust settles, Glenmary may not be the choicest of locations. Therein may be the real tragedy for association residents.