Horseshoe Bay POA vs. resort back in court

A visiting district judge is considering granting injunctive relief to the Horseshoe Bay Property Owners’ Association from the Horseshoe Bay Resort following a temporary restraining order hearing on May 16.

The order request is part of a lawsuit filed by the POA against the resort on May 6 in the 33rd Judicial District Court in Llano County. The POA is claiming breaches of contract by the resort and seeking between $200,000 and $1 million in damages, among other forms of relief.

The POA filed the lawsuit after failing to receive its 45.6 percent share of money from a maintenance fund for several months. The fund is operated by Horseshoe Bay Resort, which collects and allocates money to the POA for landscaping and other public improvements.

Retired Judge Frank Griffin of the Brown County Court at Law heard the case on May 16 at the Burnet County Courthouse Annex following the recusal of 33rd District Court Judge Allan Garret.

If ordered by Judge Griffin, the court would require the defendant, Horseshoe Bay Resort, to immediately release the operation of the maintenance fund to the POA, provide an accurate list of all property owners in the POA and the number of lots each owns, and provide a monthly account of all deposits into the maintenance fund.

“I’m going to take this into consideration,” Griffin said at the end of the hearing. “I’m hoping you can sit down and work some of these things out.”

According to POA attorney Greg Godkin, Horseshoe Bay Resort has not collected an estimated $4.75 million from delinquent property owners. Also, the resort is sitting on another $195,000 that belongs to the POA, according to a calculation by POA officials.

“We need relief immediately,” Godkin told the court. “(The POA) board cannot govern without it.”

The dispute reached a tipping point in April when the Horseshoe Bay Resort and Maintenance Fund took away the POA’s duties to maintain public spaces.

“ … The POA is relieved of its charge to so improve, maintain, and beautify,” reads an email from Horseshoe Bay Resort attorney Zachary Garsek. “Instead, Horseshoe Bay Resort Development, LCC (“Declarant”) has assumed control of improvement, maintenance, and beautification.”

Another resort attorney, Clark Aspy, said the decision was “within the rights” of the governing documents of the POA board.

“Our clients have the discretion and authority, and they (the POA) don’t,” he told the court.

The POA also claimed it has yet to receive a comprehensive list of owners living within the association’s boundaries.

“The defendants won’t hand over an accurate property owners list that will allow for us to provide notice, which is required by the Texas Property Code, for a duly noted election of (POA) board members,” Godkin said.

Aspy argued that officials had provided the POA board with the list on several occasions.

“I did it three times,” he said. “I gave it to the (board’s previous attorney), Mr. Godkin, at mediation, and a third time in January 2024 after I told my clients, ‘They keep saying we’re not doing it, so send it by certified mail so that I can prove to the court that you did it.’”

Those lists only included the addresses of residents and not the number of lots owned by each. Residents are allowed one vote per lot in POA elections. Horseshoe Bay Resort officials said the lots were not included because of a change in software. 

“It’s not appropriate, and it’s illegal,” Godkin said. “It is critical that we immediately receive relief from this court to allow us to govern in accordance with the governing documents that we have to follow.”

He continued, saying the lack of an election and the POA’s inability to maintain its contracted facilities could open board members and the association to litigation from POA property owners.

“We’re subject to litigation from the members for not doing what we are required to do,” Godkin said.

The lawsuit filed by the Horseshoe Bay POA on May 6 followed a separate $1 million suit filed by Horseshoe Bay Resort against the POA in October 2023. That case was later dismissed in March after both parties failed to reach an agreement during court-ordered mediation in February.

Judge Griffin did not give a timeline for deciding on a temporary restraining order.

“I will read through this,” he said.

If granted, the TRO will be valid for only 14 days, Aspy told DailyTrib.com.

nathan@thepicayune.com