HOA2 Serves Notice to HOA1, RUA is not Working, Divorce Possible
The board of HOA2 has voted to serve HOA1 board notice that it is contemplating executing the option to no longer operate under the shared facilities agreement (RUA) between HOA1 and HOA2.
The vote was unanimous.
The HOA2 board gave the HOA1 BOD until December 31, 2026 to have a modified agreement. If not, then HOA2 will begin planning for no RUA agreement in 2029, which is the end date of the original RUA.
HOA2 was exercising its option under the RUA signed in September of 2021.
The HOA2 board members expressed several issues that they believe need to be addressed before a new agreement (if any) can be signed:
HOA2 homeowners have complained that for “capacity limited” amenities such as Pickleball, Fitness Center classes, meeting rooms, golf tee times and restaurant reservations, residents in the same HOA as the location of the physical amenity should be given priority.
Also, HOA2 pointed out that HOA2 has more amenities, and ergo HOA1 should pay for access. Fully 2/3 of houses are HOA2 and most participants in both HOA amenities are HOA2. Notably, 40% of pickleball players were HOA1 residents.
The fact that this action was taken, puts a large question mark on anyone considering purchasing a home in SaddleBrooke. Realtors are obligated to disclose potential material changes to the HOA.
SBINSIDER got reaction from several attendees who expressed concern about the effect on home values if the HOA’s could not agree to a way to share the amenities. Also, the dispute does not recognize the fact the SaddleBrooke as a development is one physical location not two, and impossible to separate. However, the solution of going to a single HOA was also not amenable to current HOA1 residents as they see HOA2 as having poorly managed their separation from Robson and current debt levels as being negative factors. One HOA1 resident bluntly said “This happened because they are broke and want our money to fix their problems.”
Lots more to come, welcome to 2026.
Housing values will tank if this happens. Doesn’t HOA2 remember using HOA1 facilities for MANY YEARS while their amenities were being built? This is so shortsighted.
Not only that, they cannot support their restaurants now! Someone is not thinking clearly! Plus your hanging this on pickleball players? Wow!
This is a terrible small minded move by HOA2 board. We are one community and should be allowed all amenities without priority or charges. I agree with Jen that this is very shortsighted and I’m very disappointed that our HOA2 board felt it necessary. This can only cause hard feelings and division. We need to be a united community without restrictions or barriers based on HOA of residence. Personally I live in HOA2 but use HOA1 facilities regularly for meeting space and particularly food and beverage which is so much better at HOA1.
This was a real possibility that was discussed by the now defunct United SaddleBrooke. Seems the prediction might come to fruition unless aggressive negotiations start now. The negotiations should have started years ago. Too little, too late. Partnership agreements like the RUA seem to end badly as this one might.
One may reasonably assume that the HOA-1 Board of Directors has extended every professional courtesy to their counterparts in HOA-2 over and over again on this matter and many others. As a result it may perhaps be time to let HOA-2 enjoy the fruit of their labors and let the RUA die for their lack of cooperation/thnx/kwz
Without a Reciprocal Agreement the complexion of SaddleBrooke will become unrecognizable. SaddleBrooke will be a broken community.
This decision to blow everything up does not make any sense to me. A professional independent study needs to access the good, bad and ugly and presented simultaneously to both HOA’s with recommendations. We need hard data and not just talk to understand this situation and if there is or is not real problems.
Here is one definition of Extortion: In law, extortion is the crime of obtaining money, property, services, or an official act from someone by using threats, force, or coercion, rather than direct theft, to instill fear or compel compliance, often involving threats of harm, revealing secrets, or abuse of power. It’s essentially using intimidation to make someone give up something valuable, with blackmail being a common type focused on reputational threats, and it’s generally a serious felony.
Taking a more positive approach, perhaps say an opportunity to renew vows/commitment to a more equitable future based on a proportional sharing of expenses and fairness. No need for a divorce we have a year to solve this and should be able to do it in six to nine months.