On May 13th, a civil action was filed by the Association against Big Canoe Company, LLC and Big Canoe Holdings Group, LLC seeking “equitable relief, declaratory judgment and fees”. (1) Several days later an amended complaint was filed correcting errors found within the original complaint misidentifying the land in question as “Waterfront Properties”. (2) The defendants will have thirty days to respond to the complaint following the service of the summons and supporting documents.
-
-
- The complaint 2026SUCV0326 can be viewed by clicking here
-
Where this goes from here is up to the court and will be anyone’s guess, but these filings will not be fodder for this writer’s opinions. Regardless, one might anticipate that this site will be updated as additional court documents are filed.
Note: Opinions and anonymity can be found on another site currently hosted by unknown individual(s).
A flurry of activity . . .
Interestingly, the review of superior court records revealed yet another civil action filed by the Association only two days later against a related party and property owner for “unpaid assessments” and “attorney fees”. (3)
According to records prepared by the Director of Finance and included in the complaint, this account has been delinquent since year end 2019.
And yet, as noted in a previous post on this site, during the presentation of the audited financial statements in June 2024, the representative from Mauldin & Jenkins went out of his way to proclaim to the Board and the property owners that the Association’s delinquency policy was among the best they had seen. (4) https://bcmatters.org/outside-the-box/
Without regard for the governing documents . . .
And although past due balances continued to accumulate, no lien was placed against the property until late 2025 with the subsequent civil action filed in May 2026 seeking $28k in assessments, interest and attorney fees. All the while, the owners of the lot were allowed to continue using Association amenities contrary to the 2006 bylaws (5) as well as the 1988 covenants (6) and with what appears to be waived charges for several items such as golf equipment and to-go orders. (3)
Note: Obviously, the property owner named in this action will have the opportunity to respond and perhaps challenge the validity of the Association’s claims.
Admittedly shocked by the Association’s previous inaction regarding the severe past due status of this account, this writer reviewed another civil action filed by the Association two months earlier against a property owner for any similarities. (7)
Remarkably, this account was also past due at the time of the M&J audit with the owner continuing to use the amenities contrary to the Association’s governing documents. And although the past due balances continued to accumulate, no evidence has been located of any lien placed against the property prior to the civil action seeking $31k in past due assessments, interest and attorney fees.
Given the above examples, one must seriously question how and why the Mauldin & Jenkins representative chose to so overtly praise the Association’s collection policies.
It would also appear that given leadership’s failure to adhere to the governing documents, unpaid amenity charges and fees are yet another subsidy provided by the remaining property owners much like the food and beverage losses.
Note: Any defense claiming these examples as exceptions would be a clear demonstration of selective enforcement.
And then there’s those usurious finance charges . . .
But despite whatever culpability might lie with the owners of the past due accounts, the real exposure lies with the Association and it’s defiance of Georgia Code 7-4-2 limiting the rate of interest to 7 percent per annum.
In that previous post, (4) this writer questioned whether the accountant’s review of the delinquency policy included an analysis of the proper calculation of finance charges on late assessments and AECD fines?
The post further stated, “property owner statements specify that interest on all delinquent accounts will be calculated at 18% per annum whereas OCGA 7-4-2 states the maximum rate to be 7% per annum. To confirm compliance with code and ensure that the Association is not applying “usurious” finance charges, someone in leadership might want to take a look at Northside Bank vs. Mountainbrook of Bartow County Homeowners Association at https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ga-court-of-appeals/1742434.html and https://ljlaw.com/georgia-courts-strike-blow-hoas/.
Seven months later, with the issuance of the February 2025 property owner statements, the language was changed to state that “interest of 7% will be charged on all delinquent accounts”. At that time, this writer questioned whether property owners previously assessed usurious finance charges had been reimbursed. (8) https://bcmatters.org/walking-it-back/
Unfortunately, it now appears that no efforts were made by management to reverse or correct the unlawful calculations of finance charge. In fact, the records prepared by the Director of Finance included in the two complaints evidenced interest calculated at 18% up through February 2025. In addition, interest was compounded throughout the history of the accounts likely contrary to Georgia Code 7-14-17.
And where was our legal counsel in all of this? . . .
However, both complaints prepared by legal counsel clearly state that the interest was calculated at (7%) per annum “in accordance with the Declaration” with the Director of Finance asserting to the Court that the facts contained in the complaint were true and correct. (3) (7)
Needless to say, they were not. And needless to say both the Director of Finance and the attorney should have known.
-
-
-
It is unknown how the Court will view such a significant inaccuracy as this.
-
It is unknown what the Association attorneys will do to correct this error.
-
Further, it is unknown how the defendant(s) might respond.
-
And finally, it is unknown how many other accounts and/or outstanding complaints, judgments or liens have included usurious finance charges.
-
-
Regardless, the Association is at significant legal risk and exposure if the unlawfully calculated finance charges are not corrected especially with Georgia Code 7-4-10 (a) stating that “Any person, company, or corporation violating the provisions of Code Section 7-4-2 shall forfeit the entire interest so charged or taken or contracted to be reserved, charged, or taken.”
It really is past time for leadership to insist that management do the right thing and clean up the mess before the Association ends up on the other side of a lawsuit.
And finally, all of the above information and documentation is either pubic record or posted to the POA website. No need for anonymity.
. . . . .
Should you believe the information found in this post is important, please continue to share with your friends and neighbors wherever possible. As for those who wish to see additional articles posted in the future, please subscribe for an email notification or check back frequently. And as always, feel free to contact me directly at thepcrosses@gmail.com for questions or further discussion. Meanwhile, take care and thank you for your readership.
Patricia Cross
10438 Big Canoe
References:
1) Civil Action #2026SUCV0326 filed May 13th, 2026 in the Superior Court of Pickens County, State of Georgia. 2026SUCV0326 can be viewed by clicking here
2) amended complaint can be viewed by clicking here Filed May 18th, 2026 in the Superior Court of Pickens County, State of Georgia.
3) Civil Action #2026SUCV0330 filed May 15th, 2026 in the Superior Court of Pickens County, State of Georgia.
4) “Outside the box”, July 2nd, 2024, bcmatters.org, https://bcmatters.org/outside-the-box/
5) 2006 bylaws at Section 2.7, https://www.bigcanoepoa.org/property-owners/poa-community-governance/governing-documents/bylaws/, (No password required)
6) Article IV, Section 3 of the Declaration of Covenants, as posted to the POA website (No password required), https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t4T5uvufoqYpk9QEqVD5lKCLFp8DXV5t/view
7) Civil Action #2026SUCV0184 filed March 18th, 2026 in the Superior Court of Pickens County, State of Georgia.
8) “Walking it back”, April 7th, 2025, bcmatters.org, https://bcmatters.org/walking-it-back/