Dear PBNA Members,

We hope everyone had a great summer and we’re glad to see so many friends back on property.

First, a clarification to the prevalent rumors, social media posts and misinformation:  PBNA is an independent group of over 400 property owners whose dues support our fact-based educational activities, which we conduct primarily though our web site, which provides a huge depository of PB information, including our founding documents, and prior communications, FAQs on specific topics, member meetings, outside speakers, direct conversations, and email alerts on emerging and on-going issues.  PBNA is NOT associated with a group of plaintiffs, generally represented by PB Community Advocates (PBCA), NOR are we associated with a second group of property owners who are in formal mediation with SSP.   And lastly, we have no affiliation with PB’s owner, SSP.  For more detail on our mission, please go to our website: pbnabluffton.com.  For any questions, you can contact us at pbna2020@gmail.com, or call one of the volunteers listed below.

This newsletter has three topics:

1) update and summary of ongoing litigation and mediation matters

2) a call for volunteers to be 2024 PBNA board members

3) an update on 2024 dues and website sponsors.

On-going litigation and mediation efforts

First, one thing to clarify:  we have been troubled by the tone of many communications, postings, and emails swirling around on this topic which have been unneighborly at best and divisive at worst.  The PBNA volunteers respect everyone’s rights to enforce contracts and property rights, and we hope and trust that tolerance and mutual respect will prevail. 

Second, the founding documents and the agreements we all signed when we became property owners are “developer friendly” in the extreme.  As property owners, we comparatively have few rights, and many we talk with believe it is important to defend the few contractual rights we do have.

Third, we are not lawyers, and this update is for informational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available in this email and on our website are for general informational purposes only. Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information. 

Litigation.  As you may recall, the litigation filed last year between the group known as PB Community Advocates (comprised partly of, but not exclusively of, owners of properties in the short-term rental areas) continues.   Given the nature of the litigation, little new information is publicly available.  However, there is nothing that would lead us to believe that we can expect a resolution any time soon.  Both sides have published “analyses;” SSP has a 9-page FAQ about the litigation (subsequently removed, but available on the PBNA website).    PBCA continues to update their website. 

Both sides have lists of claims and counterclaims, that may somewhat obscure the central issues.  To us, the PBCA makes three key claims:

• Claim #1:  The PB Club is inherently unlawful, as it cannot be both (a) a private for-profit company owned entirely by the developer, while at the same time (b) be mandatory for PB property owners to join and pay what the developer choses, without any rights.  Response by SSP:  Outside of the legal proceedings, SSP now has waived the requirement that PB property owners join the Club, so it is now optional, which may (or may not) render claim #1 moot.  SSP legal authority to unilaterally waive the membership term is being challenged by a second group.  Let’s call this the “mandatory membership waiver” matter.  More on this below.

• Claim #2:  SSP changed the rules to prohibit short-term rental guests access to Club facilities, which PBCA viewed as an improper change of the rules.  Response by SSP: Outside of the legal process, SSP implemented new access rules and fees for renters.  This may (or may not) render claim #2 moot as well.

• Claim #3:   Under the governing documents, the Club was supposed to be offered to the members for purchase at the time SSP acquired PB (under a right of first offer provision), and this unlawfully was not done.  This claim also asserts that the Club should have a non-profit, mutual benefit company structure, which is common in the Lowcountry.   SSP Response: In its FAQ, SSP pushes back on the legal basis of this claim and asserts it has continued economic interest in the Club amenities for which it has not fully reclaimed their value in marketing new lots.  SSP has also stated that it believes the right of first offer was not applicable given the structure of the transaction.

There are a host of additional claims/assertions which we think are secondary.  But, for those interested in more, we recommend you go to the respective source documents referenced above.  Again, for further information, please email us or reach out to one of the volunteers.

Mandatory Membership Waiver (MMW).  As you may recall, on May 31st SSP notified PB property owners by email of a significant change, making PB Club membership optional.  In a July 12 PBNA email to you (available on the PBNA website, under communications), we let you know that a group of property owners submitted a formal complaint (explained below) to SSP, per the process outlined in PB’s covenants.  We understand that the negotiation process, which has a limited time window, is likely to come to an end soon and without a resolution.   The group is considering next steps.

The heart of the complaint is that SSP, in making such a fundamental change to PB Club membership, was required to use the amendment process, outlined in section 4.2 of the Recreational Covenant, and obtain an instrument signed by a majority of Owners of residential units and The Founder.  This did not happen. Instead, SSP relied on a waiver provision (section 4.5) to promulgate the new policy.  So, the complaint group filed a mediation request, which is step one in our PB dispute resolution process.  The complaint group believes this is a fundament legal property owner right, and if “we” allow “them” to make fundamental changes unilaterally now, then we risk giving up our legal rights for future unilateral changes.  The reasoning is:  If SSP can “waive” this important property owner's protection provision without challenge, what’s to stop SSP from “waiving” other important provisions in the future?

For those who want to learn more about, or participate (named or unnamed) in, this effort, please contact us at pbna2020@gmail.com and we will put you in touch with the leaders.

Call for 2024 PBNA Volunteer Board Members

As we complete the second year of PBNA’s “reboot”, we want to make sure we fulfill our mission and continue to evolve as the needs, size and complexity of our community grows.  If you are interested in joining our effort, please let us know and we can explore.  Eric Sutherland, the chair of our Nominations Committee, will soon email the PBNA membership specifically looking for engaged property owners to explore deeper participation.

2024 Dues and Sponsors

Please join us in giving a shout out to our website sponsors, as their contributions help support our on-going efforts.  In part due to their contributions, current PBNA members will automatically renew for 2024 for no cost.  Consistent with current policy, new members will pay a $125 fee for the household.

Please feel free to forward this newsletter to other PB property owners.  Also, please let us know if you have further questions; you can reach us by email at pbna2020@gmail.com.

PBNA Volunteers