Month: October 2026

Windermere Oaks residents heard brief and conflicting comments about the long‑running developer lawsuit during the October 15 board meeting.

Some Windermere Oaks Property Owner Association (WOPOA) board members described the case as “frivolous,” while others blamed prior boards or ACC members for causing it.

The actual court filings tell a much more serious—and much more consequential—story for the community. As background, read here.

With a summary judgment hearing set for November 13 and a bench trial scheduled for December 7, the lawsuit now enters a decisive phase. If the WOPOA loses, the financial consequences could be significant for residents, especially given the association’s current lack of reserve funds. It is unclear whether insurance will cover the loss, and it is interesting that the WOPOA is thinking about suing its former management company through their Errors & Omissions policy. Do they already know the writing on the wall doesn’t look good for Windermere Oaks?

What the lawsuit is actually about

The plaintiffs—Hunter Family Real Estate II and EM Joint Venture—are developers who have built multiple homes in Windermere Oaks, some beginning in 2016 when I first volunteered to serve on the WOPOA Board.

Around the neighborhood, this company is referred to as the Elder group because Chris Elder is the builder of many of the nice homes that have been built here over the last 10 years. Their lawsuit alleges that the 2021 WOPOA’s Architectural Control Committee (ACC) :

• Missed the 45‑day deadline to approve or deny building plans for three separate homes (330 Kendall, 415 Bedford, 132 Bedford).
• Issued denials after the deadline, even though the restrictive covenants say late responses result in automatic “deemed approval.”
• Refused to mark the plans “Accepted,” as the covenants require, and instead sent letters telling the builder:“You are not authorized to proceed.” “Do not go forward.” “Unapproved modifications must be removed immediately.”
• Threatened enforcement action if construction began.
• Denied one application because other Elder projects were not finished—a reason not found anywhere in the covenants.
• Never set a Chapter 209 appeal hearing, despite the builder’s written request.

The Elder plaintiffs argue these actions, back in 2021, caused months of delay, pushing construction and sales into a declining real‑estate market. Their expert disclosures estimate over $573,000 in damages, and earlier petitions sought over $1 million.

(For all the blame-gamers out there, please note that the community had replaced me in February 2020 by election, with Julie Neumann and others, so none of this lawsuit had anything to do with events and actions while I was on the Board.)

Who was on the ACC at the time?

According to the Fifth Amended Petition, the 2021 ACC consisted of:

• Mark Carpenter
• Paul Hischar
• Danny Flunker
• Micki Bertino

This is notable because Danny Flunker’s October 15 video shows criticism of Mark Carpenter for the lawsuit. Both Flunker and Carpenter served on the ACC during the period when the alleged covenant breaches occurred. That is part of the ongoing Con — the ConMan is never to blame for anything. Could this be the cause of ongoing and public acrimony between the two? Be sure to read my previous post about how the ConMan has been going after the Carpenters with his usual attacks.

What the HOA argues in its defense

In its Amended Traditional Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, the HOA claims:

• The ACC’s failure to act within 45 days resulted in automatic deemed approval, so the WOPOA did not breach the covenants.
• The developer should have simply proceeded with construction, despite WOPOA letters telling them not to. (As an aside, and contrary to what the WOPOA attorneys say, be sure to see the actual letters in Chris Elder’s deposition, available by download below. It’s pretty clear that that the WOPOA, through the management company was telling Elder they would require demolition of any construction. Elder rightly characterized that as ‘insane stuff.’ )
• The damages are “unforeseeable consequential damages” because the HOA could not have known the homes would sell years later at lower prices.

However, the plaintiffs’ response points out:

• The HOA explicitly told the builder not to proceed, warned of demolition, and refused to acknowledge deemed approval.
• The HOA never pleaded failure to mitigate, so it cannot argue the builder should have built anyway.
• The covenants allow any owner within Windermere Oaks, not just the POA, to sue for damages resulting from a breach—meaning that “deemed” approval is not the only remedy.
• The ACC denied plans on unauthorized grounds, which itself constitutes a breach of contract.

Be sure to read Chris Elder’s deposition testimony and see his exhibits about email communications with the WOPOA’s management company:

Why homeowners should pay attention

If the WOPOA loses in coming weeks, the consequences could include:

1. Damages and Prejudgment Interest

The plaintiffs seek hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages. Prejudgment interest in Texas can add tens of thousands more.

2. Attorney’s Fees

Both the restrictive covenants and Texas Property Code §5.006 allow the prevailing party to recover attorney’s fees. This case has been litigated since January 2022, meaning fees could be substantial.

3. HOA Financial Condition

Comments at the October 15 Board meeting show that WOPOA:

• Has no reserve funds, due to the $127,000 accounting error.
• Is operating month‑to‑month, sometimes needing loans to pay bills.
• Is raising assessments to rebuild reserves.

A judgment against the WOPOA could require:

• A special assessment,
• A loan,
• Or both.

We as homeowners will pay for all of it, one way or another, unless the POA’s insurance company does. I don’t know about that.

4. Insurance Uncertainty

The board mentioned possibly filing an E&O claim against the management company, but no outcome has been reported.

If insurance does not cover the lawsuit, the WOPOA—and therefore homeowners—bear the full cost. Again, it is unknown whether the WOPOA’s Directors and Officers insurance covers that. So far they have been handling the attorney costs, which surely have run to $200-300,000 already.

Upcoming Court Dates

• November 13, 2026 – Hearing on WOPOA’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
• December 7, 2026 – Bench Trial scheduled if the case is not resolved at summary judgment

These dates will determine whether the case ends quickly or proceeds to a full trial.

Comments and Lessons Learned

Despite Mark Carpenter charactizing the lawsuit as “frivolous,” it is not.

Elder’s financial backers have made a detailed claim that the ACC and WOPOA violated the restrictive covenants, issued late and improper denials, and blocked construction—actions that could expose the HOA to significant financial liability.

With the association already struggling financially, the outcome of the November 13 hearing and the December 7 trial could directly affect every homeowner’s wallet.

Finally, as a side note, when I was on the Board in 2018 and 2019, the ConMan applied to be on the Architectural Control Committee. I rejected his offer.

Having already witnessed his disastrous attempt to remove a gangplank to the marinas in 2016, to leverage his negotiations over architectural control over them, knew better. In fact, I rejected his offer to serve on any committee in the community.

If only the 2020 Board, the one which the ConMan and others installed through proxy voting, had not installed him then. The ConMan should never be trusted to properly execute any position of power in this community.

A recent post on Nextdoor targeted me, Joe Gimenez, for my volunteer 4-year stint as president of the Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corporation. The author was none other than the neighborhood ConMan trolling me for raising concerns about WOWSC ongoing unwillingness to hold board meetings. His post, which included mockery and personal attacks, claimed that because the company has been sold, any discussion about governance is irrelevant.

But the facts — and the tone — tell a different story.

The post opens with derision (“IT’S OVER. THE COMPANY IS SOLD.”) and quickly shifts into personal blame and gaslighting, asserting that I “left the current board with almost $800,000 in legal debt” and that I “blew” his opportunity to lead.

These statements are presented as absolute truths, despite the complex history of WOWSC’s finances, litigation, and regulatory oversight. The rhetorical style relies heavily on certainty, mockery, and sweeping declarations — communication patterns often associated with narcissistic framing.

But the mockery fails to mention that just a few months after I was replaced by election, the WOWSC gained a $679,000 insurance payment, and continuing insurance coverage for the lawsuits that had been waged by him and his buddies. (That win in federal court against the insurance company was the result of 2.5 years of litigation that I had pursued for the corporation. And all the legal fees we paid to win that judgment were paid by the insurance company as well. Compare that to the $70,000 won by the plaintiffs who the ConMan supported in the land sale case, at cost of about $500,000 to them and $500,000 to the corporation.)

But moreover, the legal expenses he cites would never have been incurred if he and his ConSpouse had not waged lawfare against WOWSC through their neighborhood buddies, their marks who paid for their legal pursuits. And that is not my opinion. I have the emails to prove that connection, from years of litigation and discovery. May be a future post.

More importantly for this neighborhood, the ConMan’s post never addresses the underlying issue: WOWSC has gone 139 days without holding a board meeting, the longest documented gap in its history. That fact remains relevant regardless of the pending sale, because the board is still responsible for operations, compliance, and transparency until the transaction is fully complete.

My previous post simply pointed out that while the Windermere Oaks POA has been criticized for placing public comment at the end of its meetings, at least the WOPOA is holding meetings at all. WOWSC is not.

The ConMan’s post is the usual “Look over here, not over there” con. His Nextdoor post attempts to redirect attention away from the WOWSC governance lapse by focusing on personal attacks. But community oversight doesn’t end when a sale is pending. Members still deserve transparency, accountability, and adherence to basic organizational responsibilities.

Whether one supported or opposed the sale, the facts remain: WOWSC is still obligated to meet, report, and operate responsibly until the transaction is complete.

Online mockery doesn’t change that.

The ConMan and his spouse, the WOWSC Board President, should post the Contract of Sale, if it has been sold. Again, where’s our money?

And also, you would think that the ConMan, as the person who placed more than a hundred Public Information Acts to the WOWSC during the four years when I was president (2019-2023), would be all for the transparency I am requesting of the WOWSC. But no. That’s part of the ongoing con. “Transparency is required for thee but not for me,” sayeth the Con.

As of today, Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corporation has gone 139 days without holding a board meeting. That is one‑third of an entire year with no agenda, no minutes, no public discussion, and no opportunity for members to ask questions about the sale to Central States Water Resources (CSWR).

This is not normal. This is not routine. And according to WOWSC’s own meeting‑minutes archive, this is unprecedented. In all years where minutes were properly kept, the gaps between meetings were:

• 30–60 days in most years
• 70–90 days occasionally
• Rarely above 100 days
• Never as long as 139 days

The current lapse is therefore the longest documented period without a meeting in WOWSC’s recorded history. How is that for Transparency from the current Board?

What are you hiding?

Why This Silence Matters Now More Than Ever

SpicewoodNews.com has already documented how Aqua Texas customers are experiencing:

• 50% higher bills despite lower usage
• Wastewater charges for water that never entered the sewer
• Rate tiers jumping 66% to 92% in a single year
• Neighborhoods filing protests with the Public Utility Commission

These are real consequences of the private sectors’ takeover of public sector utilities, backed as they are by private‑equity concerns far removed from Windermere Oaks.

CSWR uses the same model: Acquire → consolidate → impose regional rates → extract revenue.

Windermere Oaks members deserve to know whether CSWR will follow the same pattern. But without board meetings, they cannot ask — and the board cannot be required to answer.

Questions That Should Have Been Addressed Months Ago

A board meeting is where members should have been able to ask:

• Will wastewater bills resemble the $400–$800 Aqua Texas bills seen statewide?
• What protections will members once local control is gone?
• Why was the sale conducted without a contract, valuation, or fair‑value analysis?
• Why did the board stop meeting immediately after the sale process began?
• When will WO members get their promised equity buy in checks?

These questions are fundamental. The board’s silence is not.

Windermere Oaks Deserves Better

A board meeting will not undo the sale. But it will force accountability.

It will require the board to explain what happened, why it happened, and what comes next. It will give members a chance to ask questions that should have been answered months ago. It will restore at least a fraction of the transparency that disappeared the moment the sale process began.

139 days is long enough. Windermere Oaks deserves a board that meets, answers questions, and respects the people it serves.

Hey Windermere Oaks neighbors, if you want a clear picture of what life looks like after selling your water system to a private‑equity‑owned utility, you don’t have to imagine it. You can read it—straight from Texans across the state who are already living under the same model now headed our way with Central States Water Resources (CSWR).

Look at the pain and suffering which people are filing in PUC Docket 58124. These are real Aqua Texas customers describing real financial pain, real service failures, and real consequences of surrendering local control.

And remember: Aqua Texas is the very company Patti Flunker once said she “would love to get out to the community” in February 2020. Five years later, she did not get Aqua Texas but she did get CSWR, a company that will use the same private‑equity consolidation model, the same statewide rate strategy, and the same cost‑shifting practices. Just wait.

This is the future Windermere Oaks just voted itself into. (Unless we take corrective action …)

What Texans Are Telling the PUC Right Now

1. Houston (Heron Lakes Townhomes) – “We’re charged sewer fees for water that never enters the sewer.”

A 26‑year Aqua Texas customer explains that every gallon used outdoors—lawns, plants, trees—gets billed as sewer. Fixed‑income residents are watching bills rise for services they never receive.

2. Rosharon – “We were billed $816.81 in one month… for watering new grass.”

A couple documented how installing two pallets of St. Augustine required heavy irrigation. Aqua Texas billed every gallon as sewer, plus regional pass‑through charges, even though the water never entered the wastewater system. They also describe brown, debris‑filled water, repeated boil notices, and Aqua employees admitting they “don’t know what to do” with the treatment system.

3. Eagle Mountain Lake – “My monthly bill was $1,213.94.”

A Resort customer reports four‑figure bills, rancid water they cannot drink, and a rate design that punishes higher usage with skyrocketing volumetric charges. They plead for system‑specific cost data because Aqua Texas’s statewide consolidation hides true local costs.

4. Bullard – “Our rates doubled. Two people in the home. September bill: $610.13.”

A family with modest usage saw their bills jump from ~$170 to over $600. They describe the increases as “excessive and unfair,” especially for households with pools or seasonal irrigation.

5. Cypress (Spring West System) – “Bills increased 80%–112% at higher usage levels.”

A resident analyzed 453 billing statements and showed that Aqua Texas’s interim rates hammer customers with steep tiered charges and sewer billing on 100% of metered water, with no winter averaging. Their data shows fixed charges rising dramatically for 1‑inch meters and volumetric charges doubling at common usage levels.

Why This Matters for Windermere Oaks

Windermere Oaks is now on track to experience the same statewide cost‑shifting these Texans are documenting:

• Local costs will no longer matter. CSWR will roll WOWSC into a statewide portfolio, just like Aqua Texas did. Your bill will reflect corporate overhead, executive salaries, legal fees, and infrastructure in other towns—not Windermere Oaks.
• Seasonal usage will trigger massive spikes. Aqua Texas customers report $600, $800, even $1,200 monthly bills. CSWR’s model is the same: consolidate systems, impose statewide rates, and extract blood from you revenue.
• Service quality does not improve. Rosharon residents describe brown water, debris, boil notices, and employees who admit they cannot operate the system. Eagle Mountain Lake residents describe rancid water they cannot drink.
• Once you sell, you cannot undo it. Communities across Texas now regret selling. They are begging the PUC for relief. They would buy their systems back if they could.

Windermere Oaks just crossed the same line.

This Post Is the First in a Series

Spicewood News will continue publishing real filings from Texans living under private‑equity water companies. Windermere Oaks residents deserve to see—plainly and directly—what happens when a community gives up local control and becomes part of a statewide revenue machine for PE Masters.

Your future water bills will not reflect Windermere Oaks. They will reflect CSWR’s statewide strategy.

And the filings from Aqua Texas customers show exactly what that looks like.