Raised Voices, Security Called, and Our Appeal Stopped Before We Finished Presenting Evidence

Click here for Entire Post

Summary:

In November 2025, our family appeared before the Hideaway Board to challenge the $500 fine placed on our account after an Uber Eats driver was accused of speeding. We had prepared a roughly 30-slide presentation using HOA rules, the traffic fine schedule, body-camera footage, Texas law, photographs, and other supporting information. We expected a fair opportunity to present our concerns and have the Board seriously consider whether the issues deserved further review.

Before the hearing, however, the HOA did not provide the evidence packet required under Texas Property Code §209.007 at least 10 days in advance, and no automatic postponement occurred. Separate requests for information about the radar or speed-detection equipment, the identity and licensing of the guard who operated it, training records, certifications, and the authority for using that equipment also went unanswered.

The hearing itself raised even more concerns. Texas law says the association should present its case first, but instead President Dewayne Cady told us, “You have the floor.” We had also brought a laptop and two monitors after being told beforehand that we could use them, but Cady would not allow us to use that setup. We also understood Kim Caldwell to say that we could not use the HOA’s projector.

Only a few minutes into the presentation, President Dewayne Cady told us to hurry up and said words to the effect that he did not have time for this. The hearing became increasingly confrontational. Board member voices were raised, comments felt mocking and dismissive, and at one point I had to tell President Dewayne Cady to stop yelling at my wife.

When state and federal law were raised, President Dewayne Cady said words to the effect of, “Someone call the guards to remove them.” Security was called, and the hearing ended before most of the presentation was heard.

Afterward, I emailed the complete presentation to the Board and General Manager so they had the full evidence before reaching a final decision. The fine was later upheld, but many of the central questions remained unanswered.

We left the hearing feeling insulted, unheard, dismissed, and as though our concerns did not matter. Based on how the process unfolded, it felt as if the decision had already been made before we entered the room and before our evidence was ever fully heard.

Entire Post:
Raised Voices, Security Called, and Our Appeal Stopped Before We Finished Presenting Evidence

In November 2025, our family went before the Hideaway Board to challenge the $500 fine placed on our account after an Uber Eats driver was accused of speeding.

A roughly 30-slide presentation had been prepared using the HOA's Rules and Regulations, traffic fine schedule, body-camera footage, Texas law, photographs, and other documents related to the dispute.

The expectation was simple:

A fair opportunity to present the evidence, ask questions, and have the Board seriously consider whether the issues being raised deserved further investigation.

We didn't expect the Board to automatically agree with us. But the hearing was supposed to provide a meaningful opportunity to challenge the decision.

Instead, we left the hearing feeling insulted, unheard, dismissed, and treated as though our concerns did not matter. From the way the hearing was handled, it felt as if the decision had already been made before we even entered the room, and that nothing we presented was going to change the outcome. What was supposed to be an appeal felt to us like a process where the result had already been decided before our evidence was ever heard.

The Required Evidence Packet Never Arrived

Texas Property Code §209.007 requires an association to provide an owner with an evidence packet no later than 10 days before the hearing.

That packet must contain the documents, photographs, and communications the association intends to introduce.

If the HOA fails to provide the packet on time, the law says the owner is entitled to an automatic 15-day postponement.

Texas Property Code §209.007

No evidence packet was provided 10 days before our hearing, and no automatic postponement occurred.

A homeowner should not have to walk into a hearing without knowing what evidence the HOA intends to use against them.

Our Requests for Evidence Also Went Unanswered

Separate from the required evidence packet, information had been requested about the traffic stop itself.

The entire violation depended on the allegation that the Uber Eats driver was traveling 48 MPH in a 25 MPH zone.

That made the source of that exact speed important.

Among the information requested were:

The radar or speed-detection equipment used
The make and model of the equipment
Maintenance or calibration records
Identification of the security employee who operated it
The employee's licensing information
Training records
Certifications related to radar or speed enforcement
Records showing how the equipment was used
The authority allowing private security to use the reading to issue a monetary speeding citation

Not one of those requests was answered before the hearing.

So the appeal proceeded without the evidence packet required by Texas law and without answers to the separate evidence requests concerning the central allegation behind the ticket.

The HOA Was Supposed to Present Its Case First

Texas Property Code §209.007 also establishes the order of the hearing.

It says a Board member or the association's representative shall first present the association's case against the owner.

Afterward, the owner is entitled to present information and issues relevant to the dispute.

That did not happen.

There was no presentation explaining:

What rule our family supposedly violated
Why an Uber Eats driver was considered our responsibility
How the $500 fine was determined
Who approved the amount
What evidence established the driver's speed
What authority allowed security to conduct the stop

Instead, Board President Dewayne Cady simply told us: “You have the floor.”

That placed the homeowner in the strange position of having to defend against a case the HOA had not first presented.

Problems Started Before the Presentation Even Began

Our Presentation Setup Was Blocked

The presentation had been designed so Board members could clearly see the documents, rules, photographs, and other evidence being discussed.

We brought a laptop and two monitors specifically for that purpose. Before the hearing, another Board member had told us that we could use the setup.

Once the hearing began, however, President Dewayne Cady told us that we could not use the laptop and monitors we had brought. We also understood Kim Caldwell to say that we could not use the HOA's projector.

That left us trying to present roughly 30 slides of detailed material without the equipment we had prepared for and had previously been told we could use.

To us, that did more than make the presentation inconvenient. It made it significantly harder for the Board to follow the documents and evidence while we explained them, and it added to the feeling that the process was not being conducted in a way that gave our side a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

The presentation nevertheless began.

Within only a few minutes, the interruptions started.

“Hurry Up!”

Board President Dewayne Cady told us to hurry up and said words to the effect that he did not have time for this.

He also said the information being presented had nothing to do with the ticket.

But the subjects being discussed included the very reasons the fine was being challenged:

The HOA rules governing service providers
The process used to place the fine on our account
The authority of private security
The evidence supporting the alleged speed
Questions involving radar
Texas law governing HOA enforcement and hearings

Those issues were not separate from the appeal.

They were the appeal.

Yet only about three to four minutes were available before the presentation became increasingly confrontational.

Raised Voices and Mocking Comments

The atmosphere continued to deteriorate.

President Dewayne Cady and then-Vice President Kim Caldwell raised their voices during the exchange.

At one point, while I was speaking with another Board member, the yelling toward Chrissy became enough that I stopped and said: “Stop yelling at my wife.”

President Dewayne Cady responded: “I was talking to her, not you.”

Other comments during the meeting felt mocking and dismissive of the information being presented.

This was supposed to be the opportunity provided to challenge an HOA enforcement decision.

Instead, much of the limited time was being spent dealing with interruptions, raised voices, and demands to move faster.

What Texas Law Actually Says About Presenting Evidence

Texas Property Code §209.007 does not specifically say that a homeowner must be permitted to speak “without interruption.”

It does, however, say the owner is entitled to present information and issues relevant to the appeal or dispute.

There is an obvious difference between reasonable meeting management and repeatedly interrupting someone, demanding that the presentation be hurried, dismissing the information as irrelevant, and preventing most of the prepared evidence from ever being presented.

Approximately 30 slides had been prepared.

Only a small portion was reached.

The Board never saw most of the presentation during the hearing.

State and Federal Law Were Raised — Then Security Was Called

The presentation eventually reached questions involving state and federal law.

The purpose was to explain that the dispute had become larger than whether a delivery driver had been accused of speeding.

Questions had developed involving:

HOA notice requirements
Hearing procedures
Private-security authority
The collection and disclosure of personal information
The authority for the fine
The procedures used to place it on our account

While those issues were being raised, Dewayne Cady said words to the effect of: “Someone call the guards…”

Security was called by the GM, Del Polikretis.

That is when the opportunity to present the evidence ended.

Most of the presentation was never heard.

The Full Presentation Was Sent to Leadership Afterward

Being removed from the hearing did not prevent the Board from receiving the evidence.

Afterward, I emailed the entire presentation to the Board and included General Manager Del Polikretis.

The full set of slides, documents, questions, and arguments was therefore available for leadership to review before reaching its final decision.

That point matters.

Even though most of the presentation could not be shown during the hearing, the information itself was later provided directly to the people responsible for reviewing the appeal.

The Decision Left the Main Questions Unanswered

The HOA ultimately upheld the $500 fine.

But the written response did not resolve the central questions raised during the appeal.

Among them:

What rule made our family responsible for an independent Uber Eats driver?
Why was the fine transferred to our account before the driver's payment deadline expired?
Where did the $500 amount come from?
Was the matter referred to the Board as the fine schedule appeared to require?
What evidence established the driver's exact speed?
Was radar used?
Who operated the equipment?
What training or certification did that person have?
What authority permitted private HOA security to conduct the traffic stop?
Why wasn't the required evidence packet provided?
Why didn't the HOA present its case first?
Why was the presentation stopped before most of the evidence could be shown?

The written decision also referred to the matter as a parking violation, even though the dispute involved an alleged speeding violation.

Those questions remained unanswered despite the complete presentation later being provided to the Board and General Manager.

This Is Why the Hearing Process Matters

This story is larger than whether a Board agrees or disagrees with one member's appeal.

A hearing can be fair and still result in a decision against the homeowner.

The concern is the process.

Texas law requires the HOA to provide its evidence beforehand.
Texas law says the association presents its case first.
Texas law says the homeowner is entitled to present information and issues relevant to the dispute.

Those protections matter because the hearing may be a homeowner's only meaningful opportunity to challenge an enforcement decision before the Board.

That opportunity should mean something.

Any Hideaway member who someday finds a fine, suspension, restriction, or other enforcement action imposed against them should be able to expect a process where the evidence is disclosed, both sides are heard, and relevant information is seriously considered.

Members can review what happened here and decide for themselves whether that standard was met.

Sources and Supporting Documents

Texas Property Code §209.007 — Hearing Before Board; Alternative Dispute Resolution — Texas law requires the association to provide its evidence packet no later than 10 days before the hearing. If it does not, the owner is entitled to an automatic 15-day postponement. The statute also states that the association presents its case first and that the owner is entitled to present information and issues relevant to the dispute.

Texas Property Code Chapter 209 — Official Texas Statutes

Texas Property Code §209.006 — Notice Before Enforcement Action — This section addresses written notice before certain HOA enforcement actions and the information required in that notice.