Sunset Bluff homeowners file $5M counterclaim
Whiskey Creek developer faces suit: disputed HOA control, unpaid taxes, unfinished amenities, contested rental income
2:15 p.m. July 14, 2026
DUANE CROSS
MCO Publisher•Editor
The legal fight over The Retreat at Sunset Bluff has expanded far beyond who controls the homeowners association.
It now extends to unfinished amenities, disputed rental income, unpaid property taxes, missing financial records, and the question of whether developer Claude William “Chip” Hayes should be held personally responsible.
Dozens of Sunset Bluff lot owners filed an answer and eight-count counterclaim Friday, July 10, in Grundy County Chancery Court against The Retreat at Sunset Bluff LLC, Retreat Vacations LLC, and Hayes. The homeowners are defendants in a lawsuit originally brought by the developer-controlled companies and The Retreat at Sunset Bluff Homeowners’ Association.
The lot owners are asking the court to dismiss the original lawsuit, recognize the board they elected in March, compel turnover of association records and funds, and award compensatory damages of up to $5 million. They also seek punitive damages, possible treble damages under state law, attorneys’ fees, and interest.
Hayes is also the developer behind The Retreat at Whiskey Creek in Moore County.
The counterclaim gives the Sunset Bluff homeowners’ side of the dispute. Its allegations have not been decided by the court, and the filing does not include responses from Hayes or the companies to the new claims.
Another $5 million dispute
The Sunset Bluff counterclaim comes less than two weeks after another group of homeowners filed a separate $5 million lawsuit against Hayes and his companies.
More than 40 homeowners at The Retreat at Water’s Edge on Fiery Gizzard Lake filed that case June 29 in Grundy County Chancery Court. They allege property taxes on common areas went unpaid from 2022 through 2024, placing the property at risk of a tax sale. They also accuse the developer-controlled association of failing to provide adequate financial records, entering into transactions that benefited the developer at residents' expense, and using invalid land extensions to prolong the developer's control.
The Water’s Edge homeowners want the court to force a turnover of the association and hold Hayes personally liable. Those claims also remain allegations and have not been decided.
Although the cases involve separate developments, both raise questions about HOA control, financial transparency, common-property taxes, and whether Hayes may be held personally responsible for actions carried out through his companies.
A fight over who took control
The Sunset Bluff case centers on what happened after the developer’s period of control ended.
The homeowners say The Retreat at Sunset Bluff LLC was administratively dissolved by the Tennessee Secretary of State on Aug. 11, 2025. Despite that dissolution, the company recorded a new set of covenants and restrictions Sept. 18, 2025.
The owners argue a dissolved company could continue only long enough to wind up its business — not rewrite the rules governing an active subdivision. They contend the September document was invalid when it was recorded.
Both sides appear to agree that the developer-control period ended no later than Nov. 12, 2025. The owners say authority over the association then passed to its members, including the power to elect directors and amend the governing documents.
More than 10% of the owners called for a special meeting. Ghertner & Company, the property manager, sent meeting notices beginning March 6.
The meeting was held March 18 at the Monteagle Community Center, with owners also allowed to participate by Zoom or proxy. The attached agenda called for a vote on amended covenants and the election of a new board.
According to the counterclaim, the amendment passed with more than the required 67% vote, and the homeowners elected a new board.
Hours before the meeting, however, the developer and affiliated companies filed the lawsuit challenging the owners’ actions.
The owners now want the court to declare their meeting, amendment, and board election valid. They also argue the association should not be used as a plaintiff against the members who are entitled to govern it.
Amenities promised but not delivered
The counterclaim reaches well beyond the boardroom.
The owners say Sunset Bluff was marketed as a luxury tiny-home community with bluff-side views, wooded hiking trails, playgrounds, pavilions, fire pits, and a saltwater swimming pool.
Marketing material attached to the filing lists a saltwater pool as “coming soon.” A separate amenities timeline estimated that a pavilion and swing set would be completed by March 1, 2024, followed by a pool on April 1, 2024.
The homeowners allege that the pool was never built, the trails were not completed, the roads were improperly installed, and the septic and drainage systems were inadequate.
They say they relied on recorded documents, advertising, and sales representations when they bought their lots and invested money in homes and improvements.
The filing accuses the developer and Hayes of intentional and negligent misrepresentation, fraud in the inducement, breach of the subdivision’s governing documents, and violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.
The owners claim that the problems caused diminished property values, loss of use, higher expenses, and ongoing uncertainty about the community’s future.
Who has the right to collect rental money?
The attached financial records raise another question: Who has the legal right to collect the money owed to Retreat Vacations?
The homeowners allege Hayes and his companies created arrangements that required or strongly pushed property owners to use affiliated companies for tiny-home construction and rental management. They claim those arrangements limited competition and made it harder for owners to choose other providers.
That allegation forms the basis of a claim under Tennessee’s antitrust and trade practices law.
Under a future-receipts agreement attached to the filing, Samson MCA LLC agreed to purchase $140,800 in Retreat Vacations’ future business receipts for $110,000.
The agreement called for estimated weekly remittances of $2,707.69 and included a personal guaranty signed by Hayes.
A June 25 lien notice claimed Retreat Vacations still owed Samson $80,960.09. It directed anyone holding money for Retreat Vacations to send the funds to Samson instead and warned that paying Retreat Vacations after receiving notice could expose the payer to liability twice for the same money.
The homeowners say those notices create uncertainty about rental income and other receivables associated with the subdivision. They are asking for a full accounting of rental proceeds, commissions, management fees, liens, payment demands, and any other competing claims.
Common property and unpaid taxes
The Sunset Bluff counterclaim also alleges property taxes were not paid on common areas controlled by the developer – a claim similar to one raised in the Water’s Edge lawsuit.
The Sunset Bluff homeowners say the delinquency became serious enough that some common property was scheduled for a tax sale. They claim the owners, working with the property management company, paid the delinquent taxes to keep the property from being lost.
Tax records attached to the filing show no payments listed for 2023, 2024, or 2025 on two properties identified as belonging to The Retreat at Sunset Bluff.
The owners are seeking reimbursement for taxes they say they paid, along with expenses incurred to protect the subdivision’s common property.
Attempt to hold Hayes personally liable
Like the homeowners at Water’s Edge, the Sunset Bluff owners are not limiting their claims to Hayes’ companies.
They ask the court to “pierce the corporate veil” and hold Hayes personally responsible. That legal remedy allows a court, in limited circumstances, to look past an LLC and impose liability on the person controlling it.
The counterclaim alleges Hayes dominated The Retreat at Sunset Bluff, Retreat Vacations, and related companies; personally directed subdivision governance and financial decisions; and used the companies as extensions of himself.
It further alleges he allowed companies to be dissolved while taxes and other obligations remained unresolved.
Among other relief, the homeowners want Hayes and the companies ordered to turn over bank accounts, contracts, rental-management agreements, tax records, member information, lien notices, and association funds.
The court must now sort through two sharply different accounts of the Sunset Bluff transition. The original plaintiffs contend the homeowners’ meeting and changes were improper. The lot owners say the developer’s authority had expired and they took lawful steps to reclaim their association.
The new filing places Sunset Bluff alongside Water’s Edge in separate legal disputes involving developments tied to Hayes and his companies. In both cases, homeowners are seeking control of their communities, access to financial records, and compensation for what they allege went wrong.