Dear Neighbors,

We want to provide a transparent and factual update about our ongoing legal matter with the Shelby Hills Subdivision Association. Many residents have asked for clarification on how this started, where it stands today, and what it means for the community.

Why We Are Sharing This Update Now: We were mostly silent during the ongoing cases, due to what we thought was mutual respect, but that silence unfortunately created an information void that allowed rumors and misinformation to spread unchecked. The board often stated this could not be discussed because it was “ongoing.” This is not accurate—there is no legal restriction preventing discussion of public court matters. Ironically, several board members have discussed this case and shared opinions outside of meetings. We will no longer remain silent. Going forward, we will provide quarterly or biannual factual updates so all residents can stay informed. We encourage everyone to fact-check for themselves and review the redacted public evidence and court filings available at shelbyhillsdispute.com

How It All Started: The HOA first sued us in 2022–2023 after we placed a self-contained portable exercise spa on our property. Before doing so, we consulted multiple legal professionals who confirmed that under the current deed restrictions, this type of portable spa was not prohibited. Our intention was never to challenge the HOA, but to enjoy a lawful, self contained spa similar to others throughout Shelby Township and Shelby Hills HOA. Despite this, the board chose litigation—at an estimated cost to the association of $50,000–$80,000 or more — which has never been fully disclosed, resulting in consistent denials to us and other neighbors seeking review of the accounting books.

The Core Issue: Imagine being told by every expert—manufacturer, pool and spa store (including Beninati Pool & Spa), Shelby Township (issued a spa permit), your insurance company, and national standards (ISPSC and ANSI)—that what you own is a self-contained portable spa, the same classification as any above-ground hot tub already found in Shelby Hills. Then one group, your HOA board, insists that all of them are wrong and that your spa is an “above-ground pool.” The declaration does not grant the Board the right to redefine a product. Even Beninati Pool & Spa, which sold us the spa, testified under oath “we do not sell aboveground pools.” and they felt the original lawsuit opened against us by the HOA was unfounded. Not to mention this is clear selective enforcement by the board. We were chosen to be the first to require approval for a spa, while all neighbors with spas before us were not.

Common-Sense Solutions Ignored: We question the logic of spending $50,000 or more to sue one homeowner instead of paying $10,000 or less to update/modernize the deed restriction (written by the builder) for everyone’s benefit. A simple update could have clarified spa size limitations, placement, or screening—addressing any concerns and preventing this entire dispute. We believe the board severely neglected its fiduciary responsibility due to its actions and neglect in never updating the original deed restriction inherited from the builder.

Misinformation, Fear, and Division: We are disappointed by the amount of gossip and divisive rhetoric circulating in our community. As Judge Edward Servitto Jr. wisely advised both sides in chambers: “This is a neighborhood, not a war zone.” Many residents have expressed fear of retaliation or selective enforcement if they speak out or question the board. That should concern everyone. Constructive dialogue should never feel unsafe. We hope the board will take this to heart—or step aside to allow new leadership that can bring authentic openness, empathy, efficiency, and professionalism to the community.

Clarifying the Latest Court Decision: The most recent Opinion and Order by Judge Anthony Servitto (the son of the original judge) did not determine what our spa actually is. Instead, it stated that only in-ground pools do not require prior approval. This means the Board lost authority it believed it had over in-ground pools. Yet, the board continues to claim in its updates that in-ground pools require approval, contradicting the court’s decision. Rather than seeking clarification, the board mocked our motion for clarity/additional findings and appeared satisfied simply because it could say they “won.” We have appealed the matter to the Michigan Court of Appeals to ensure a clear and final interpretation of what our spa is—consistent with how all governing authorities and codes define it. It is also important to clarify that even though the board repeatedly sought monetary sanctions against us and claimed our efforts were frivolous, the court denied sanctions at every turn and recognized our right to pursue this matter in good faith.

Clarifying Misuse of the Oakland Hills v. Seibert Case: We have also heard the board repeatedly reference an unpublished Michigan Court of Appeals decision, Oakland Hills v. Seibert, issued on September 25, 2024, to justify its position. However, this decision was released after both the HOA’s lawsuit against us and our subsequent lawsuit against the HOA— meaning it could not have informed or justified the board’s earlier enforcement actions. Furthermore, as an unpublished opinion, it carries no binding authority under Michigan law (MCR 7.215(C)(1)). Even if cited, such decisions are merely persuasive and cannot override the plain language of our subdivision’s deed restrictions or contradict recognized national definitions under the International Swimming Pool and Spa Code (ISPSC) and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Importantly, Seibert addressed a large detached side-yard deck with stairs built around a spa. Emails between that HOA’s board members, disclosed in discovery, revealed that a resolution might have been achieved by removing the deck structure. The layout, circumstances, and deed language were entirely different. Any attempt to stretch that unrelated case to fit our situation misrepresents both the facts and the law.

Concerns About Governance and Transparency: The board created a litigation committee without notifying homeowners. The committee consists of a single member (Lisa Hall) closely related to a sitting board member. We encourage residents to verify this information and determine whether this arrangement represents fair and transparent governance.

Moving Forward: We want to be clear that we are not and have never been anti-HOA. We value a well-run association with fair, modern, and clear rules that protect everyone’s interests and responsible enjoyment of their property. As such, I am and will continue to run for the board. I welcome your vote and support. I am advocating for:

• Updated, clearly-written deed restrictions that reflect today’s realities.
• Transparent processes for modification requests, including a defined timeline for responses and appeals.
• Equal enforcement so all homeowners are treated fairly.
• Open communication and respect for every member’s right to be heard through healthy dialogue and good-faith debate.
• A renewed focus on positive, family-friendly community events, similar to those hosted in Regency Hills.

As neighbors, we all understand how busy life can be. However, if the board fails to update our original and outdated 30+ year old original deed restriction, it risks further confusion, litigation, and expense. Per the deed, “these covenants and restrictions may be changed, modified, or amended in whole or in part by an instrument executed by not less than two-thirds (2/3) of the owners of the lots in the subdivision.

Thus, through petition and a two-thirds majority, homeowners can initiate updates on their own. Shelby Hills is not held hostage by the Board—we simply hope it will choose humility, common sense, and care for each neighbor by leading this effort collaboratively. While we acknowledge the numerous benefits of an HOA, issues involving exterior changes, “harmony, character, and conformance,” and outdated rules are highly subjective.

Stay Informed and Engaged: We strongly encourage attendance of the October 16, 2025 annual meeting at the Township Offices Board Room starting at 6:15pm. Recent requests for transparency and accessibility have also been denied. For example, our simple request for microphones and speakers at the annual meeting—so members could hear and be heard—was rejected, even when we offered to provide a PA system at no cost. Likewise, questions about whether meetings will follow deed restriction required parliamentary procedures, such as Robert’s Rules of Order, have gone unanswered. Not only are these justified and the latter enforced by our deed restriction, but the silence from the board speaks volumes. We are unsure why they prefer to limit or avoid discourse on matters they deem unimportant or irrelevant, citing their “authority.” Any questions or discourse regarding their “authority” seem to be taken as a personal affront. We sincerely hope this meeting will be different, but we will seek and pursue accountability during and after the meeting.

Review the Evidence: For homeowners who wish to review publicly available legal filings and evidence, we’ve created a dedicated community resource at shelbyhillsdispute.com – All links to document repositories posted there have been redacted to protect the name and phone number of homeowners while still allowing residents to review verified facts, court orders, briefs, filings, supporting evidence, and all email communications. The site is regularly updated and provides opportunities for respectful, factual dialogue among neighbors who care about fairness, consistency, and transparency in Shelby Hills.

Closing: We remain hopeful that through this appeal and continued community engagement, Shelby Hills can move toward fairness, clarity, and stronger neighborhood unity. Thank you to all who have offered understanding and support as we work to ensure our community’s rules are applied consistently and transparently.

Sincerely,
Michael & Ashley Kraut
Shelby Hills Subdivision Residents