Click here for the entire post

Summary:

After our dispute with Hideaway leadership escalated, we submitted a formal certified request for HOA records. The very next business day after the HOA received that request, a document signed by Board President Dewayne Cady was recorded with Smith County.

The filing raised serious questions because its language appears to give the Board president authority that we cannot reconcile with Hideaway’s bylaws. Article VIII requires Board authorization for Club documents, and Article XI establishes a formal process for amending the bylaws. We have not located the meeting notice, motion, vote, minutes, or other records showing how this document was approved.

General Manager Del Polikretis stated that the matter had been handled in a closed Board meeting months earlier. That raises an additional concern because Texas Property Code §209.0051 requires the adoption or amendment of a dedicatory instrument to be considered or voted on in a properly noticed open meeting.

We later confronted the entire Board about the filing during an open meeting. I was given about three minutes to speak and was repeatedly interrupted. I asked which Board members knew about the document. Not one person raised a hand. We provided the document, asked for an investigation, and requested that we be told the results.

To date, neither Chrissy nor I has been interviewed as part of the investigation we requested, and we have not received a written explanation of who was questioned, what records were reviewed, or what conclusions were reached.

Because of the timing, we believe the filing should also be examined as possible retaliation. Before it was recorded, we had challenged the $500 fine, questioned the appeal process, requested records, raised concerns about HOA authority, and begun speaking with other members about what we were experiencing.

The filing also matters because Texas Penal Code §37.10 addresses tampering with governmental records. Knowingly making or presenting a false governmental record can carry criminal penalties, including felony penalties in certain circumstances involving intent to defraud or harm.

TO BE CLEAR, we are not stating that Board President Dewayne Cady committed a felony. We believe the proper authorities should review the filing, its accuracy, the authority behind it, and the circumstances surrounding its recording.

Members deserve a simple answer: Who authorized this filing, where is the vote, and why was it recorded when it was?

---

Entire Post:

County Filing Raises Questions About Authority, Bylaws, and Retaliation

After our dispute with Hideaway leadership escalated, we submitted a formal certified request for HOA records.

The very next business day after the HOA received that request, a document signed by Board President Dewayne Cady was recorded with Smith County.

What we later found in that filing raised serious questions about who authorized it, whether the required Board process occurred, and whether one Board president was claiming authority that Hideaway’s bylaws do not give him.

We have repeatedly asked for answers.

We still do not have them.

Why the Timing Concerned Us

This filing did not occur in a vacuum.

By that point, our family had already:

• challenged the $500 charge tied to an Uber Eats driver;
• gone through an appeal hearing where most of our presentation was never heard;
• questioned the authority of HOA security;
• requested records concerning enforcement and governance;
• raised concerns about whether the HOA was following its bylaws; and
• begun talking with other members about what we were experiencing.

We then sent a formal certified records request.

The next business day after the HOA received it, the Cady document was recorded with Smith County.

The document itself had been signed earlier, and we want to make that distinction clear.

We are not claiming Dewayne signed the document after receiving our records request.

The concern is why a previously signed document was suddenly recorded immediately after our formal demand for records.

Because of the timing and everything that had happened beforehand, we believe the filing deserves examination as possible retaliation for our appeal, our questions about HOA authority, our records requests, and our decision to bring those concerns to the community.

Timing alone does not prove retaliation.

But it certainly raises a question that leadership should be willing to answer.

What Does the Filing Actually Do?

The recorded document is identified as a Certificate for Recordation of Dedicatory Instrument.

The language appears to establish or recognize authority that we cannot reconcile with Hideaway's existing bylaws.

Our concern is especially serious because the bylaws do not give the Board president unlimited authority to change the Club’s governing procedures.

Article VIII, Section One states that the President’s signature and the signature of at least one other officer are required on documents authorized by the Board.

It also states that the Board may specifically authorize an officer or the General Manager to execute instruments on behalf of the Club.

In other words, authority flows from the Board.

The bylaws do not appear to say that the president can independently create new governing authority simply by signing and recording a document.

The Bylaws Have a Formal Amendment Process

Hideaway’s bylaws also spell out how they can be changed.

Article XI states that most amendments require approval by 50 percent plus one of the members casting votes, with the proposed language made available to members in advance.

The Board has limited authority to amend bylaws dealing with Board committees or changes mandated by law, but even those amendments require a majority Board vote and advance publication of the proposed language.

That raises an obvious question:

If this county filing changes, overrides, supplements, or contradicts the bylaws, what process authorized it?

A county filing should not become a shortcut around the amendment procedures members and directors are required to follow.

Del Later Said It Was Done in a Closed Board Meeting

General Manager Del Polikretis gave us another important piece of information. We have a recording in which Del stated that this matter had been handled in a closed Board meeting months earlier but was never filed.

If that statement is accurate, it raises an additional problem.

Texas Property Code §209.0051 specifically identifies the adoption or amendment of a dedicatory instrument as a matter that a property owners' association Board may not consider or vote on outside a properly noticed open meeting.

That makes the distinction between an open meeting and a closed session critical.

If the filing was an adoption or amendment of a dedicatory instrument, and the decision was actually made in a closed meeting as Del stated, we believe the HOA needs to explain how that complied with Texas law.

If Del's statement was inaccurate, the Board should identify the open meeting where the matter was actually considered and approved.

Either way, there should be records.

We Confronted the Entire Board

After discovering the filing, I raised it directly at an open Board meeting.

I was given approximately three minutes to speak and was repeatedly interrupted.

During that time, I confronted the entire Board about the county filing and asked which directors knew about it.

Not one Board member raised a hand.

That does not prove that every director was unaware of the document.

But it was significant.

A document had been filed publicly in the name of the HOA and appeared to affect the organization's governing authority, yet when the Board was directly asked who knew about it, no director indicated that they did.

I then provided the document to the Board so members could see what I was talking about.

That raised an even more basic question:

If the Board authorized this filing, why did no one acknowledge knowing about it when directly asked?

We Asked for an Investigation

At that meeting, Chrissy and I also asked the Board to investigate what happened.

We asked that the issue be reviewed and that we be notified of the results.

Since then, neither of us has been interviewed by anyone conducting the investigation we requested.

No one has asked us:

• when we found the filing;
• what records we reviewed;
• what provisions we believe conflict with the bylaws;
• what Del later told us about the closed meeting;
• what evidence we possess;
• or why we believe the timing may be retaliatory.

We have also not received a written report explaining what was investigated, who was interviewed, what records were reviewed, or what conclusion was reached.

If a meaningful investigation took place, we do not know what it consisted of.

Where Is the Approval Trail?

If the Board properly approved this document, the evidence should be straightforward.

There should be some combination of:

• a meeting notice;
• an agenda;
• an open Board meeting;
• a motion;
• a second;
• discussion;
• a recorded vote;
• minutes;
• authorization for Dewayne to sign;
• and records explaining why the document was filed.

We have looked for that approval trail.

We have not found it.

Instead, the information we have raises more questions:

The document was signed earlier.

It was recorded immediately after our certified records request.

Del later said it had been handled in a closed meeting.

When I asked the entire Board who knew about the filing, no one raised a hand.

We asked for an investigation.

We have never been interviewed as part of that requested investigation.

Those facts do not tell us exactly what happened.

They tell us why the underlying records matter.

Texas Law Requires an Open Meeting for Dedicatory-Instrument Changes

Texas Property Code §209.0051 restricts what an HOA Board may decide outside an open meeting.

One of the specifically listed subjects is:

the adoption or amendment of a dedicatory instrument.

That is especially relevant here because the county filing itself is titled as a certificate concerning a dedicatory instrument.

If the Board adopted or amended such an instrument, members should be able to identify the properly noticed open meeting where that action occurred.

A statement that the matter was handled in a closed Board meeting does not resolve the question.

It makes the question more important.

The Signature Requirements Also Matter

Hideaway's bylaws state in Article VIII, Section One:

“The President’s signature and that of at least one (1) other officer shall be required on all documents authorized by the Board of Directors…”

The bylaws then allow the Board to authorize other officers or the General Manager to execute documents on the Club’s behalf.

That means we want to see:

• What Board action authorized this document?
• Who else approved it?
• Why does the filing appear under Dewayne’s authority?
• Where is the second officer's signature if Article VIII applies?

There may be an explanation.

But members should not have to guess what it is.

A County Filing Does Not Automatically Change the Bylaws

Recording a document with Smith County makes it part of the public record.

That does not automatically prove that the person who signed it had authority to adopt the underlying policy.

Nor does recording a document automatically erase conflicting requirements in existing bylaws.

The important questions remain:

• Was it properly authorized?
• Was the proper meeting held?
• Was a vote taken?
• Were members given required notice?
• Did the filing conflict with existing bylaws?

Those questions must be answered by the governing documents and the approval records—not simply by the fact that something was recorded.

False Governmental Records Can Have Serious Criminal Consequences

The accuracy of an official filing also matters because Texas Penal Code §37.10 addresses tampering with a governmental record.

Texas law prohibits certain conduct involving records a person knows are false, including knowingly making a false entry or presenting or using a record known to be false.

The criminal classification depends on the specific conduct and circumstances. Some violations are misdemeanors, while conduct involving an intent to defraud or harm another can rise to a state jail felony. Other types of governmental records can carry even more serious penalties.

TO BE CLEAR, we are not stating at this point that Board President Dewayne Cady committed a felony.

No court has made that determination, and proving a criminal offense would require evidence establishing each element of the law, including whether any information was false, whether the person involved knew it was false, and whether the required intent existed.

However, because this document was filed in the official county records and raises serious questions about authority, approval, and its consistency with Hideaway’s bylaws, we believe the appropriate authorities should review the matter and determine whether further investigation is warranted.

If information was knowingly placed into an official governmental record that was false or misleading, Texas law can treat that conduct very seriously.

That is another reason we believe the filing, the authority behind it, and the circumstances surrounding its recording should be fully investigated rather than ignored.

Why We Believe Retaliation Needs to Be Examined

Our belief that retaliation may be involved comes from the sequence of events.

• We challenged the fine.
• We challenged the appeal process.
• We began questioning whether the HOA was following its own governing documents.
• We asked for records.
• We brought those concerns to other members.

Then, immediately after the HOA received our certified records request, this previously signed document was recorded with the county.

We cannot prove from timing alone why that happened.

But when the filing appears to address governance and authority at the same time members are challenging that authority, it deserves scrutiny.

The simplest way for the Board to remove that concern is transparency.

Show the records.

What We Want Answered

Members deserve straightforward answers:

• Who drafted the document?
• Who requested that it be recorded?
• Why was it recorded when it was?
• What Board meeting authorized it?
• Was that meeting open or closed?
• If it was closed, how did that comply with §209.0051?
• What motion was made?
• Who seconded it?
• How did each director vote?
• Why did no Board member indicate knowledge of the filing when I directly asked them?
• What authority allowed Dewayne Cady to execute the document?
• Why does its language appear to conflict with existing bylaws?
• Was Article XI's amendment procedure considered?
• Was Article VIII's signature requirement followed?
• Was the filing connected in any way to our pending records request?
• Did the Board conduct the investigation we requested?
• Who conducted that investigation?
• Who was interviewed?
• What documents were reviewed?
• What conclusion was reached?
• Why have Chrissy and I never been interviewed as part of that investigation?
• Does the Board still consider the filed document valid?

Those questions do not require speculation.

They require records and answers.

Members Should Not Have to Guess How Their HOA Is Governed

Members are expected to follow Hideaway's governing documents.

The same standard should apply to leadership.

• If the Board followed every required procedure, the records should prove it.
• If Dewayne had authority to file the document, show the source of that authority.
• If the matter was properly handled in an open meeting, identify the meeting.
• If Del was mistaken when he said it occurred in a closed session, correct the record.
• If an investigation was conducted after our complaint, show what was investigated and what was concluded.

This should not be complicated.

A government-filed document affecting HOA governance should have a clear, traceable approval history.

Until Hideaway provides that history, the filing raises serious questions about authority, compliance with the bylaws, transparency, and possible retaliation.

Sources and Supporting Documents

Smith County Official Public Records — Certificate for Recordation of Dedicatory Instrument — Search Hide-A-Way Lake Club, Inc. and Instrument No. 202501033776 to review the county filing discussed in this article.

Smith County Official Public Records Search

Hide-A-Way Lake Club Bylaws — Article VIII, Section One addresses authorization and signatures on Club documents. Article X governs records and reports. Article XI establishes the procedures for amendment of the bylaws.

Hide-A-Way Lake Club Public Documents

Texas Property Code §209.0051 — Open Board Meetings — Texas law specifically requires the adoption or amendment of a dedicatory instrument to be considered or voted on in a properly noticed open Board meeting.

Texas Property Code Chapter 209

Texas Penal Code §37.10 — Tampering With Governmental Record — Texas law addresses knowingly false governmental records and provides criminal penalties that vary depending on the conduct, record, and intent involved. Conduct committed with intent to defraud or harm may constitute a state jail felony.

Texas Penal Code Chapter 37