The Fairfield Harbour lawsuit is Daniel Ritter v. Fairfield Harbour Property Owners Association, Inc., Case No. 25CV001224-240, filed in Craven County Superior Court in February 2025 by residents of the gated New Bern community against their Property Owners Association. The plaintiffs are asking the court for a declaratory judgment on the board’s governance practices, and as of a Joint Status Report filed May 15, 2026, the case remains pending and is in discovery.1Docket Alarm. Daniel Ritter vs. Fairfield Harbour Property Owners Association Inc.
What the Lawsuit Asks the Court to Decide
Ritter and the other plaintiffs originally sought both a declaratory judgment and a preliminary injunction tied to the Fairfield Harbour Property Owners Association’s governance practices. The injunction request was withdrawn in November 2025, leaving the declaratory-judgment claims as the live piece of the case. The plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint with exhibits in April 2026, and the FHPOA answered with affirmative defenses.1Docket Alarm. Daniel Ritter vs. Fairfield Harbour Property Owners Association Inc.
The underlying question the plaintiffs want answered is how much authority the elected board can exercise over major financial and land-use decisions without putting those decisions to a direct membership vote. Fairfield Harbour is a roughly 2,400-acre community of 3,000 to 3,500 homes governed by the FHPOA, a nonprofit subject to the North Carolina Planned Community Act (Chapter 47F), with each section controlled by its own Declarations of Restrictions. The board has taken the position that it can act under those documents on its own authority for a range of significant decisions. The lawsuit tests that position.
The Board Decisions That Led to the Suit
Two board decisions in particular preceded the litigation and shape its substance.
The $6.5 Million Clubhouse
The board authorized construction of a new 14,000-square-foot clubhouse financed by a $6.5 million loan from Truist Bank at 6.6 percent interest over 15 years. It did not put the project to a community-wide vote. In January 2024 the board said no vote was required because the clubhouse was a “replacement amenity” whose cost would not exceed 15 percent of the annual budget. In March, the board compared its model to representative government: “Just like the model of our country’s government, you vote for your elected officials who vote in Congress to get things done.”2WCTI12. Fairfield Harbour Residents Protest for Voting Rights on New Clubhouse Project
Residents disputed that framing. Some called the surveys the board cited “insufficient,” and others objected that the building was mostly office space and lacked amenities, such as a pool or gym, that they actually wanted. On July 23, 2024, dozens of residents protested outside the FHPOA office. The board capped public attendance at that day’s meeting at 10 people, citing a long agenda and two executive sessions on “appointments, disciplinary actions, and confidential legal issues,” and residents who had signed up to attend reported being turned away.3New Bern Sun Journal. Fairfield Harbour Residents Protest $6.5 Million Clubhouse, Ask POA Board for Voting Rights
The 385-Acre Land Sale
In November 2023, the board announced in a community newsletter that it planned to sell and develop part of a 385-acre parcel the POA had bought from MidSouth Golf, LLC in 2016 for $2.75 million. The parcel contains two golf courses, two marinas, tennis courts, pools, and clubhouses. The board opened a bidding process to turn the undeveloped portion into an age-restricted community. Board Chair Phil Hewett said, “The Board is now pursuing exactly what was forecast when the property was purchased—partial development of the 385-acre parcel.”4WCTI12. Fairfield Harbour Community Divided Over POA Board’s Decision to Sell Undeveloped Land
Residents split sharply. Robert Felt asked the board to pause so members could review the proposal and vote. Maury Thompson argued the sale was unnecessary and that the land had been acquired on the understanding it would remain open space.4WCTI12. Fairfield Harbour Community Divided Over POA Board’s Decision to Sell Undeveloped Land
The Removal Vote Before the Lawsuit
Before filing suit, residents tried an internal remedy. On May 13, 2024, at a special meeting triggered by a petition, the membership voted to remove President Phil Hewett and Vice President John Rothengast from the board, 659 to 621. The removal was carried out “without cause” under the POA’s governing documents. The remaining directors declined to fill the vacancies because a general election was approaching, and Gayle Albertini and Tina McLamb were appointed interim president and vice president.5FH Beacon. Election Update
The leadership change did not settle the underlying dispute. Residents who pushed for the removal said the remaining board kept advancing the clubhouse and other initiatives over community objections, and the Ritter complaint followed in February 2025.3New Bern Sun Journal. Fairfield Harbour Residents Protest $6.5 Million Clubhouse, Ask POA Board for Voting Rights
Where the Case Stands
The docket shows a case drawing intense community attention. Between January and March 2026, the court received numerous letters from Fairfield Harbour residents about the litigation. On March 9, 2026, the presiding judge issued an Order Prohibiting Ex Parte Communications. The case was reassigned to Judge A. Graham Shirley on March 4, 2026.1Docket Alarm. Daniel Ritter vs. Fairfield Harbour Property Owners Association Inc.
Several individual plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their claims as the case has progressed, including Susan Jones, Susan Spivak, David Glenn Brown, and David Kent Johnson. A hearing was held on August 5, 2025, and recorded through the North Carolina court system’s video platform.6FH FACTS. FH Court Hearing Recording As of May 2026, the parties remain in discovery with no trial date reflected in the available docket entries.1Docket Alarm. Daniel Ritter vs. Fairfield Harbour Property Owners Association Inc.
The North Carolina Legal Backdrop
North Carolina law gives POA boards substantial room to act. Rick Su, a professor at the UNC School of Law, told WCTI12 in 2023 that North Carolina POAs are “fairly unregulated” and that boards can largely act as they see fit under the structure of private governance, leaving residents “along for the ride.”4WCTI12. Fairfield Harbour Community Divided Over POA Board’s Decision to Sell Undeveloped Land
That default was reinforced by Session Law 2013-34, which the General Assembly passed after the 2011 unpublished decision in Fairfield Harbour Property Owners Association, Inc. v. Drez. In Drez, the North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled the POA could not use assessment funds to buy recreational amenities because that authority was not “explicitly authorized in the declaration.” The 2013 statute clarified that planned communities derive authority from their declarations, bylaws, and articles of incorporation, and that an HOA may rely on those documents to act so long as the action is not inconsistent with the Planned Community Act. Where a declaration is silent, the HOA may fall back on the Nonprofit Corporation Act if its articles incorporate those provisions.7Ward and Smith. Writing Some Wrongs: General Assembly Amends Planned Community Act and Condominium Act
The 2013 fix broadened board authority but left open the question the Ritter plaintiffs are pressing: how far that authority extends over multi-million-dollar borrowing and land sales when the governing documents do not clearly require a membership vote.
Organized Resident Opposition
Much of the public record around the lawsuit has been assembled by a resident group called the Fairfield Action Council for Truth and Support, known as FACTS. Through its website at fhfacts.org, the group describes its mission as “sharing irrefutable facts in Fairfield Harbour” and acts as a clearinghouse for documents tied to the Ritter case, POA board elections, and community development issues.8FH FACTS. Fairfield Action Council for Truth and Support FACTS has also tracked a residential building boom that began in late 2023, a land deal involving the Gondolier Peninsula in May 2024, and the disposition of the Shoreline clubhouse.9FH FACTS. FH FACTS Archives
With the case still in discovery, no court has yet ruled on the central governance question. Whatever Judge Shirley eventually decides will shape not only Fairfield Harbour but the practical limits of board authority in other North Carolina planned communities operating under the same statutory framework.