Who controls the Retreats? Model under pressure

Lawsuits at Water’s Edge, Sunset Bluff testing HOA control, rental restrictions, finances behind Hayes’ communities

12:00 p.m. Aug. 9, 2026

Editor’s note: This story is based on interviews with developer Chip Hayes, property owner Tim Burrow, and a Sunset Bluff homeowner; court filings in the pending cases; two settlement agreements signed July 10; a text message reviewed by the Observer; a Sunset Bluff rental-management agreement submitted to Ghertner in May 2026; and corporate records. The Observer granted the Sunset Bluff homeowner anonymity because speaking publicly could harm efforts to sell the property. Allegations in the lawsuits remain disputed and have not been decided by a court.

DUANE CROSS
MCO Publisher•Editor

The Retreat business was built to keep nearly everything connected.

Chip Hayes’ companies bought scenic land, divided it into small lots, installed roads and utilities, built shared spaces, sold the lots, and managed many of the finished homes as short-term rentals through Retreat Vacations LLC, the Tennessee company Hayes operates.

Owners could use their homes, rent them, or do both.

The governing documents also allowed the developer to control each homeowners association for a set period. That gave Hayes authority over construction standards, common areas, association business, and outside rental managers while the communities were being built.

That model took shape first at The Retreat at Deer Lick Falls. Water’s Edge and Sunset Bluff followed.

Now, all three are caught in disputes over HOA control, unfinished amenities, financial records, property taxes, construction rules, and short-term rentals.

Hayes sees one thread running through the trouble.

He believes former business partners, competing rental managers, homeowners challenging his control, and others have chipped away at the company from different directions. Each lawsuit rattles buyers. Each lost rental drains income that could maintain the communities or finish what remains.

“I should have folded up and walked away a long time ago,” Hayes said. “Anybody else would have. But I don’t want to leave the customers damaged in this. This is something that I love and believe in.”

Tim Burrow supports that view.

Burrow owns three lots and has two homes under construction at Water’s Edge. He formerly served as Hayes’ attorney and still offers occasional advice, although he is not an attorney of record in the pending cases.

“I have never in my life seen a man work so hard to try to overcome so many obstacles,” Burrow said. “If people would just let him do his work, he will survive.”

When trust breaks

Hayes says developer control protected each Retreat community while it was being built.

Homeowners challenging him see it differently.

They say Hayes held control too long, restricted their rental choices, left promised work unfinished, and failed to provide enough information about association finances.

That disagreement sits at the heart of nearly every dispute.

When the developer and owners trusted one another, the model moved.

When that trust broke, everything else went with it.

The builder dispute spills over

Hayes traces much of the trouble to Michael Weidenhamer, a builder he fired in 2022.

Hayes said his company still owed Weidenhamer about $130,000 when the relationship ended. An arbitrator later awarded Weidenhamer roughly $100,000.

The ruling did not end the dispute. Weidenhamer is among the 42 plaintiffs suing Hayes and his companies at Water’s Edge.

The Observer reviewed a text message Weidenhamer sent Hayes as the conflict continued. It said:

“take me off your no biuld list and I won't meet with the board from your other project that seems to want some insight on how you do things. I have never done anything wrong to you but I can and will tell the truth. we are currently preparing another lawsuit against you and you will loss this won as well.”

The message links Weidenhamer’s place on Hayes’ no-build list to whether he would meet with another project’s board.

It does not identify the board, establish whether a meeting occurred, or prove that he organized homeowners or directed another association.

It does show Weidenhamer discussing another project’s board and telling Hayes that another lawsuit was being prepared.

Weidenhamer said the text was sent about a year ago and has nothing to do with the litigation now underway. He also said he has no involvement in what is happening in Lynchburg.

He questioned why Hayes provided the screenshot to the Observer and rejected Hayes’ broader characterization of his role in the disputes.

“My opinion would be that it is being used to twist a narrative as well as his effort to try to deflect blame on others,” Weidenhamer said.

Hayes said the first major HOA split came at Deer Lick, where owners challenged whether later phases were properly added and whether those additions extended developer control.

Similar arguments later surfaced at Water’s Edge and Sunset Bluff.

The homeowners tell the story from the other side.

Their court filings raise questions about unfinished amenities, unpaid common-property taxes, financial records, rental restrictions, and who has the right to govern.

What Hayes calls a campaign to take his business, the owners describe as an effort to take charge of their own property.

Sunset Bluff tests who governs

The Sunset Bluff case is not simply homeowners suing a developer.

The Retreat at Sunset Bluff Homeowners Association, Retreat Vacations LLC, and The Retreat at Sunset Bluff LLC filed the original lawsuit against more than 40 lot owners.

The owners answered, filed counterclaims against the companies, and brought Hayes into the case as a third-party defendant.

Now, both sides claim the right to speak for the HOA.

The original declaration allowed developer control to continue for five years after the first lot was sold to a non-developer owner, or until three-fourths of the lots were sold, unless the developer ended control sooner.

The two sides appear to agree that control ended no later than Nov. 12, 2025. The Retreat at Sunset Bluff LLC was administratively dissolved Aug. 11, 2025. The company recorded a new declaration Sept. 18.

The owners argue that a dissolved company could wind down its affairs but could not rewrite the rules of an active subdivision. They also contend the new declaration could not remain in force after developer control ended unless the homeowners approved it.

Hayes’ companies dispute that reading.

After control ended, more than 10% of the owners called for a special meeting.

The March 18, 2026, meeting allowed owners to participate in person, by Zoom, or by proxy. The owners say a quorum was present, the proposed amendment received the required two-thirds support, and a homeowner board was elected.

They allege Hayes’ companies filed suit hours before the meeting.

The owners now want the court to validate the vote, recognize their board, and stop the former leadership from using the HOA as a plaintiff against its own members.

The amendment did more than replace a board.

It ended any remaining developer powers and changed Sunset Bluff’s rental rules. Under the owners’ version, a homeowner could manage a short-term rental alone or hire any qualified company – not only Retreat Vacations LLC or a manager approved by the developer.

If the amendment stands, Hayes’ rental company loses its preferred position inside Sunset Bluff.

If it falls, the earlier restrictions may remain.

Promises meet the balance sheet

The Sunset Bluff owners point to marketing materials, timelines, and tax records to support their claims.

A brochure promoted bluff-side views, hiking trails, pavilions, firepits, a playground, and a saltwater pool marked “coming soon.”

A separate schedule estimated the pool would be finished by April 1, 2024.

The owners say the pool was never built, trails remained unfinished, roads were not properly installed, and septic and drainage systems were inadequate. They also say access to amenities at Water’s Edge and Deer Lick was promoted but not fully delivered.

For one Sunset Bluff homeowner, the problems began before closing.

The Observer agreed not to identify the owner because speaking publicly could harm efforts to sell the property.

The owner said he warned the construction team after the footers were poured that his home faced the wrong direction. He said he later received photographs indicating the problem had been corrected, but the pictures showed the neighboring lot.

When he returned about two months later, he said, the home was nearly finished – and still faced the wrong way. “My house got built backward, if you can believe that’s possible,” the owner said.

He said dimensions inside the home also differed from the plans, including a bedroom that lost about a foot of space, and negotiated concessions before closing.

The owner also said he began paying about $95 a month in HOA dues after his lot was cleared, while construction stretched nearly two years. “I’m still sitting here in an unfinished development five years later,” he said.

Hayes acknowledged the house was built facing the wrong direction.

He said the mistake came during a period of rapid growth when the company sold 47 houses in about two months during COVID. Hayes said he had contracted with a builder to complete the homes, but when the contractor could not keep pace, Hayes formed his own construction company to finish the work.

“Effectively, you’re drinking from a fire hose as a new contractor,” Hayes admitted.

Hayes said the project manager was notified by the property owner that the house was being built backward but confused it with the neighboring house and allowed construction to continue.

“When I became aware of it, I acknowledged the error with the homeowner and discounted the build substantially,” Hayes said. “We also did significant additions at cost for the homeowner.”

Hayes said his company ultimately lost money on the house while trying to make the situation right.

“We made a mistake and did what we could to make it right,” he said, adding that he believes the homeowner ultimately received “an amazing investment.”

Unfinished work, financial pressure

Hayes said legal bills and other expenses consumed money that could have finished the amenities. He also argues that owners may no longer want a pool once they see the cost of insuring and maintaining it.

The Sunset Bluff owners further allege that taxes on two common-area properties went unpaid for 2023, 2024, and 2025. Their counterclaim says the properties were headed toward a court-ordered tax sale before owners worked with the property-management company to pay the back taxes.

Hayes said the outside association-management company was responsible and corrected the problem after it was discovered.

The filing also brought the financing behind Hayes’ Retreat Vacations LLC into view.

An attached agreement showed the company received $110,000 in exchange for $140,800 in future business receipts. A June notice claimed $80,960.09 remained due and directed anyone holding money owed to the company to send it to the financing company.

The owners say the notice created competing claims over management fees, rental proceeds, and other money tied to Sunset Bluff.

Hayes said the transaction covered only his company’s management fees – not HOA dues, homeowner funds, or rental income owed to owners.

Two settlements signed July 10 placed Hayes and his companies under repayment plans.

Retreat Vacations LLC, the company operated by Hayes, acknowledged that it owed Samson MCA $80,960.09, which Samson agreed to settle for $70,000.

Retreat Construction acknowledged $323,500.15 in purchased receivables and fees, with Samson agreeing to accept $205,000.

Both agreements describe the original transactions as purchases of future receivables, not loans.

The agreements do not tie HOA dues or homeowner rental proceeds to the debt. They do place two Hayes-controlled companies under substantial repayment plans as Hayes tries to preserve the rental business, finish the developments, and defend multiple lawsuits.

The Sunset Bluff owners’ eight-count counterclaim seeks up to $5 million, possible enhanced damages, attorneys’ fees, and control of association property and records.

Hayes and the companies deny that the owners are entitled to that relief.

Water’s Edge raises the same questions

The Water’s Edge lawsuit gathers many of the same disputes into one 67-page filing.

Forty-two lot owners filed the complaint June 29 in Grundy County Chancery Court against The Retreat at Water’s Edge LLC, Hayes, Retreat Vacations LLC, and Oakstone Land and Capital.

The owners sued individually and on behalf of others they describe as similarly situated. The filing does not establish a certified class action.

The complaint describes Water’s Edge as a 202-lot development spread across five phases. Again, the central question is when developer control ended.

The original 2019 declaration tied control to several possible events. The homeowners contend it ended no later than three years after the first lot was sold to a non-developer owner, or when 75% of the original lots had been conveyed, whichever came first.

A 2021 filing added Phases 2, 3, and 4 and purported to extend that control. Phase 5 followed in 2024.

The owners allege the added properties were not contiguous with the original development and could not lawfully extend Hayes’ authority.

Hayes disagrees. He said the phases form one connected development and warned that removing them could leave scores of owners outside the community they believed they had joined.

“They bought it to be part of Water’s Edge,” he said.

The rules extend beyond the HOA

The Water’s Edge complaint also challenges a July 2022 amendment governing construction and short-term rentals.

The amendment required homes to be site-built or selected from models approved through Hayes.

It also allowed owners to manage their own rentals. If they hired someone else, however, the amendment directed them to Retreat Vacations LLC.

The homeowners allege those rules restricted competition for construction and rental-management services.

Hayes sees them as part of the bargain buyers accepted. He said the construction controls protected quality and design. He said the rental program supported advertising, bookings, maintenance, laundry, staffing, and guest service.

The complaint also alleges that parts of the community were never delivered as marketed, including a pool, trails, docks, playgrounds, roads, and other shared spaces.

The owners say taxes on common property in Phases 1 and 5 went unpaid for 2022, 2023, and 2024 and that some property was scheduled for a tax sale March 17, 2026.

According to the complaint, homeowners worked with the property-management company and paid the delinquent taxes one day before the sale.

They also say repeated requests for financial statements, invoices, and association records did not produce a full accounting.

Hayes disputes that records were withheld. He said information was made available and that the outside management company, not Retreat Vacations LLC, collected and spent the association’s money.

The owners also ask the court to hold Hayes personally responsible, alleging that he controlled the companies and blurred their separate roles.

Whether Hayes can be held personally liable is among the issues the plaintiffs would have to establish in court.

The nine-count complaint seeks up to $5 million, along with possible punitive and treble damages, attorneys’ fees, a financial accounting, and the turnover of records, funds, and association control.

Rental control becomes the hinge

The sharpest dispute across the communities may be over short-term rentals.

Hayes’ Retreat Vacations LLC charges a 25% management fee. Hayes said that money pays for more than servicing individual cabins. It funds the machinery behind the destinations — advertising, bookings, maintenance, laundry, staffing, and guest support.

Competing managers Second Nature Stays and South Cumberland Getaways now handle dozens of properties inside the Retreat communities, Hayes said, including many of the rental properties at Water’s Edge.

Second Nature Stays is operated by Brianna Weidenhamer Bryant, the daughter of Michael and Greta Weidenhamer, who are among the 42 plaintiffs suing Hayes and his companies at Water’s Edge.

Joe Gray owns South Cumberland Getaways.

Hayes estimates his company lost more than $285,000 in management fees over two years. The Observer has not independently verified that figure.

Hayes said his company once managed nearly 70 properties. That number has fallen into the upper 40s.

“They’re pilfering and bleeding me,” he said.

The homeowners challenging Hayes see the same rules as a fence built around his rental company.

That divide cuts to the heart of the lawsuits. Hayes says the rental program helps support the broader communities. Owners challenging him argue they should be free to choose who manages property they own.

A familiar name, a separate company

A document submitted at Sunset Bluff adds another layer to the rental dispute.

A rental-management agreement between a Sunset Bluff property owner and a company identified as “Retreat Vacations, LLC, a Florida limited liability Company” was submitted by the homeowner to Ghertner, the community’s association-management company, in May 2026.

Joe Gray signed the agreement for the company as its president. It is separate from Retreat Vacations LLC, which Hayes operates in Tennessee. The document expressly identifies Gray’s company as a Florida limited liability company.

Gray formed a separate Florida company under the name Retreat Vacations LLC on Jan. 17, 2025. Florida corporate records identify the business as Document No. L25000026707.

The timing places the agreement within the same dispute over who may manage rentals at Sunset Bluff.

Whether that agreement was permitted under the governing documents is part of the same unresolved dispute now before the court: which governing documents control Sunset Bluff and, with them, who homeowners may hire to manage their rentals.

The agreement does not resolve that question.

It does show that at least one homeowner entered into a rental-management agreement with a separate company bearing the Retreat Vacations name while the parties were disputing whether owners could hire outside managers.

The Observer reached out to Gray for comment. If he responds, this article will be updated to include his response.

Hayes believes the lawsuits and rental disputes may now be doing more damage than an unfinished pool or walking trail.

“The lot owners go, ‘Well, I heard there’s a lawsuit,’” he said. “That can’t help.”

The courts will ultimately decide who controls Water’s Edge and Sunset Bluff, which covenants remain valid, whether owners may hire outside rental managers, whether association money was properly handled, and whether anyone is owed damages.

Those rulings could determine whether the business model behind the Retreat communities can survive.

In Moore County, Hayes faces a more basic question: whether his fourth can be finished at all.