Fairfield Glade, the retirement and resort community near Crossville, Tennessee, has generated lawsuits and legal disputes for more than forty years, and in March 2026 the Tennessee Attorney General opened a formal investigation into the Fairfield Glade Community Club over alleged violations of the state’s Nonprofit Corporation Act. The current inquiry sits on top of a long record of litigation between property owners, the club’s board, and the community’s developer, going back to a 1983 Tennessee Court of Appeals ruling that still shapes how the club operates.
The 2026 Tennessee Attorney General Investigation
Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti’s office opened its inquiry after receiving multiple complaints from residents. On March 31, 2026, the office sent the club a written demand for records, including the names of directors and officers, the club’s charter and bylaws, and tax returns and financial statements for the previous three fiscal years. The club had until April 30, 2026, to comply.1WATE. State Attorney General Looking Into Complaints About Fairfield Glade Community Club
The Attorney General’s authority comes from Tennessee’s oversight role over nonprofit corporations and their assets. The Fairfield Glade Community Club is a substantial nonprofit: ProPublica’s Nonprofit Explorer shows the club reported $27.2 million in revenue and $54.8 million in net assets for 2024.2Yahoo News. State Attorney General Looking Into Complaints About Fairfield Glade Community Club
The club has not publicly responded to the demand or spoken to reporters about the substance of the complaints. According to 3B Media News, the board hired outside counsel, withdrew proposed bylaw revisions, and suspended its practice of giving governance updates to members on the advice of its attorneys. Board President Greg Jones told members the board would not answer questions on contested subjects until the scope of the inquiry became clearer.33B Media News. Tennessee Attorney General Launches Broad Inquiry Into Fairfield Glade Governance
What Residents Complained About
The complaints that reached the Attorney General’s office grew out of a 2025 fight over a proposed amendment to the community’s Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions. The amendment would have given the community’s declarant, Tom Anderson (operating as FGH Land TN), the power to directly bill owners of undeveloped “C lots” south of Peavine Road for the cost of roads and water lines built after January 1, 2025.4Yahoo News. FGCC Membership Vote Amending Covenants
The board backed the amendment unanimously, arguing that roughly 8,000 undeveloped lots might otherwise never be built out and that only the declarant has authority under the governing documents to carry out development. Opponents argued the existing covenants already made the declarant the “sole judge” of when and where to install infrastructure, so adding a billing power meant a blank check with no financial oversight.5Crossville Chronicle. Update: FGCC President on Rejected C&R Vote: The People Have Spoken
The vote was rescheduled once, and the second round of ballots went out with a letter from the board that misstated which lot owners would be affected, using “or” where the operative language was “and.” The board did not correct the link to the letter on electronic ballots during the voting window. Members rejected the amendment 3,341 to 662, or roughly 16.5% support against a 75% threshold. In the board election that followed, Isaac Zuercher, a local homebuilder who had led the opposition and publicly floated litigation over the covenants, defeated incumbent treasurer Bruce Horn 3,891 to 2,874.5Crossville Chronicle. Update: FGCC President on Rejected C&R Vote: The People Have Spoken
Beyond the covenant vote, residents raised several specific concerns with the Attorney General’s office: a December 2024 land agreement between the club and declarant Tom Anderson, a revised sewer availability policy, the standing of a board member who had allegedly resigned but continued to serve, the process for appointing board committees, and allegations that the board withheld information it had previously agreed to share. Former committee members made some of these complaints publicly, describing a broader pattern of declarant control over a nominally member-governed community.33B Media News. Tennessee Attorney General Launches Broad Inquiry Into Fairfield Glade Governance
Hannewald v. Fairfield Communities (1983)
The current fights echo the community’s foundational lawsuit. In Hannewald v. Fairfield Communities, Inc., more than 80 property owners sued the original developer in a derivative action on behalf of the community club. They alleged that the developer-controlled board had relieved the developer of its obligation to pay membership dues on unsold lots, failed to collect dues from delinquent buyers, and improperly split operating costs between the developer and the club.6Justia. Hannewald v. Fairfield Communities, Inc., 651 S.W.2d 222
The Tennessee Court of Appeals held in 1983 that the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions required the developer to pay dues on all platted lots, not just those in its “sales inventory.” But the court applied the doctrines of laches and equitable estoppel, enforcing the obligation only going forward from December 1981, because the property owners had waited too long to act while the developer made substantial contributions to the community in reliance on the older arrangement. The opinion also confirmed that members of a Tennessee nonprofit corporation have standing to bring derivative suits when the board fails to act, a principle that still matters for anyone weighing litigation against the current board. The club was ordered to pay $156,912.79 in attorney’s fees to the property owners’ lawyers and $50,000 to its own attorney.6Justia. Hannewald v. Fairfield Communities, Inc., 651 S.W.2d 222
Tolbert v. Fairfield Glade Community Club (2023)
In 2023, Chris Tolbert, appearing pro se, filed an Americans with Disabilities Act claim against the club in Cumberland County Circuit Court. The club removed the case to U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, where it went to Chief Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr. The club filed its answer on August 14, 2023, Tolbert voluntarily dismissed the next day, and the court closed the file on August 16, 2023.7CourtListener. Tolbert v. Fairfield Glade Community Club
Berdnik v. Fairfield Glade Community Club (2017)
Patrice Berdnik, a club employee, alleged she suffered a back injury at one of the club’s snack bars in September 2016. The club denied the claim, arguing the condition was pre-existing. Tennessee’s Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the denial of temporary disability benefits and medical expenses, finding Berdnik had not shown that her workplace contributed more than 50% to her condition. The board did refer the club to the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Penalty Unit, finding the employer had failed to provide the required panel of physicians after learning of the injury.8Tennessee.gov. Berdnik v. Fairfield Glade Community Club, Appeals Board Opinion
The Club Wyndham Timeshare Closure
A separate legal matter runs parallel to the community club’s disputes. Club Wyndham Fairfield Glade is one of seven Wyndham timeshare resorts that voted to cease operations by December 31, 2025. The resort association is pursuing a property sale and has filed complaints against all members to secure legal authority to complete the transaction. Wyndham said maintenance fees would not be charged for 2026, and that owners could either swap their deeded interest for Club Wyndham Access points or decline the swap and take net proceeds from the sale.9Club Wyndham. Your Resort Portfolio Refresh This closure is legally separate from the Fairfield Glade Community Club, though the two entities share geography and history. Wyndham owned roughly 1,200 of the community’s undeveloped lots as of late 2024.4Yahoo News. FGCC Membership Vote Amending Covenants
Where Things Stand
As of mid-2026, the Attorney General’s investigation is open, and no enforcement actions or findings have been publicly announced. The club has retained outside counsel and paused public governance communications while responding to the state’s document demands. Whether the inquiry produces formal enforcement, mandatory reforms, or nothing at all is not yet known. For a community whose property owners have been suing over governance since the early 1980s, the recurring tension between members, the board, and the declarant is not new.