At the October 7 election meeting, a Board member explained why the Board was treating “last to occur” as “first to occur” in the Covenants and By-laws. Read the key points and listen to the audio recordings below.
1. Attorney’s opinion letter was withheld from homeowners
Board’s point: Board member says the opinion was confidential and suggests that “ongoing litigation” explains why it was not shared.
Listen: why the attorney’s opinion was withheld (0:35)
It’s unclear how a withheld opinion allows the Covenants to be changed. Warner also disputed that any lawsuit existed. Hear the litigation claims and correction.
2. The 2023 turnover meeting
Board member argues that electing homeowners in 2023 means the Applicable Date happened in 2023.
Listen: the 2023 homeowner election (0:41)
It’s unclear how this lines up with M/I’s turnover announcement, which expressly describes retained rights during a transition period. This supports “last to occur”; the notice alone does not conclusively establish when Class B membership ended.
This ignores Section 11(b) of the Covenants, which allows the Declarant to fill vacancies before the Applicable Date and even contemplates Homeowners filling the role. Read the covenant excerpts.
3. The 2023 rental amendment
Board member cites homeowner officers signing the rental amendment as evidence that control had already turned over.
Listen: the 2023 rental amendment (0:41)
Section 11)b) of the Covenants allows homeowners to serve in the Initial Board prior to Applicable Date. Acting as officers does not establish that “last” was a drafting mistake or explain away the pre-Applicable Date vacancy provision. Read the covenant excerpts.
4. The 2023 agenda and turnover notice
Board’s point: Board member points to the elected officers and the notice saying the Declarant Board would resign after the Owner Board was elected.
Listen: the 2023 agenda and turnover notice (0:50)
The actual notice describes a “transition period” with continuing Declarant rights, pointing to “last to occur” as the correct wording. Read the turnover announcement.
5. “First to occur” as standard wording
Board member says “first to occur” is standard and argues that “last” could keep the developer involved until all three conditions were met.
Listen: “first to occur” as standard wording (0:50)
Unusual wording is not proof of a typo, and the Declarant’s turnover notice acknowledged that they retained rights thing a “transition period.” Both the Declaration and Bylaws say “last to occur,” making a “drafting error” highly unlikely. Read the covenant excerpts.
6. What the developer supposedly intended
Board member summarizes the attorney’s view that the developer intended “first to occur” to protect homeowners and end developer control.
Listen: the attorney’s view of the developer’s intent (0:50)
The Board acknowledge that M/I Homes declined to verify that. Listen to M/I Homes’ response being read.
7. How the 2026 seat was selected
Board member says the 2025 nominations were for three-year terms, then explains that he volunteered his seat after counsel advised annual elections.
Listen: how the open seat was selected (1:31)
The Covenants do not allow “volunteering” to decide when each Board seat expires, and they certainly do not allow re-arranging Villa and Tamarack seat expirations. Expirations from 2024 meeting minutes were not followed. Read the 2024 minutes; Read the covenant excerpts.
8. M/I Homes did not verify a drafting error
Board member reads M/I Homes’ response: M/I declined to verify a drafting error.
Listen: M/I Homes does not verify a drafting error (1:47)
M/I’s turnover announcement also describes retained rights during a transition period. This supports “last to occur”; the notice alone does not conclusively establish when Class B membership ended..
What would actually change the covenants?
Section 22(a) ordinarily requires 75% owner approval, execution, and recording — which is now 2/3 because of an Indiana law change. Section 22(b) gives the Declarant a limited correction power — not an automatic power for the homeowner Board post-Applicable Date. An attorney’s opinion letter is neither a recorded amendment nor a court order. It does not carry the authority to change the Covenants, and it was not even shared with Homeowners.