The Fairfield Harbour lawsuit is a pending Craven County Superior Court case, Daniel Ritter v. Fairfield Harbour Property Owners Association, Inc. (No. 25CV001224-240), filed in February 2025 by residents of the New Bern, North Carolina gated community who are asking the court for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief over how the POA board has handled major spending and land decisions without a vote of the membership. As of a joint status report filed May 15, 2026, the case remains in discovery.1Docket Alarm. Daniel Ritter vs. Fairfield Harbour Property Owners Association Inc.
What the Lawsuit Is About
Fairfield Harbour is a 2,400-acre planned community of roughly 3,000 to 3,500 homes near New Bern, governed by the Fairfield Harbour Property Owners Association under North Carolina’s Planned Community Act. The dispute driving the litigation is not about a single decision but a pattern: residents contend the board has committed the community to major projects and property transactions without giving the membership a direct vote.
Two decisions have loomed largest.
The first is a $6.5 million clubhouse. The board financed a new 14,000-square-foot building through a Truist Bank loan at 6.6 percent interest over 15 years, describing it as space for the community’s 65-plus clubs and events along with offices for the board and staff. The board did not put the project to a community-wide vote. In January 2024 it said no vote was required because the clubhouse qualified as a “replacement amenity” and its cost would not exceed 15 percent of the annual budget. Two months later, board members compared their authority to elected legislators, telling residents: “Just like the model of our country’s government, you vote for your elected officials who vote in Congress to get things done.” Residents disputed the board’s claim that the project grew out of years of community surveys, called those surveys insufficient, and objected that the building was largely office space rather than the pool or gym they had asked for.2WCTI12. Fairfield Harbour Residents Protest for Voting Rights on New Clubhouse Project
The second is a plan to sell and develop part of a 385-acre parcel the POA purchased in 2016 for $2.75 million from MidSouth Golf, LLC. In November 2023, the board announced in a community newsletter that it would open bidding to convert the undeveloped portion into an age-restricted community. Board Chair Phil Hewett said this outcome had always been the plan: “The Board is now pursuing exactly what was forecast when the property was purchased—partial development of the 385-acre parcel.” Residents pushed back. Robert Felt asked the board to pause so members could review the proposal and cast a formal vote. Maury Thompson argued the sale was unnecessary and that the land had been acquired with the understanding it would remain open space.3WCTI12. Fairfield Harbour Community Divided Over POA Board’s Decision to Sell Undeveloped Land
The Ritter complaint pulls those grievances into a formal challenge to how the board interprets its own authority under Fairfield Harbour’s Declarations of Restrictions and the Planned Community Act.
Where the Case Stands
The docket has been active. The plaintiffs withdrew a motion for preliminary injunction in November 2025. In April 2026 they filed a Second Amended Complaint with exhibits, and the FHPOA responded with an answer and affirmative defenses. Several individual plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their claims during the case, including Susan Jones, Susan Spivak, David Glenn Brown, and David Kent Johnson. Daniel Ritter remains the lead plaintiff.1Docket Alarm. Daniel Ritter vs. Fairfield Harbour Property Owners Association Inc.
A court hearing was held on August 5, 2025, and recorded through the North Carolina court system’s video platform.4FH FACTS. FH Court Hearing Recording The case drew so much correspondence from Fairfield Harbour residents that the presiding judge issued an Order Prohibiting Ex Parte Communications on March 9, 2026. It was reassigned to Judge A. Graham Shirley on March 4, 2026. As of mid-May 2026 the parties were still in discovery.1Docket Alarm. Daniel Ritter vs. Fairfield Harbour Property Owners Association Inc.
What Led Residents to Sue
Before the case was filed, residents tried other tools. On May 13, 2024, a petition-triggered special meeting produced a close vote to remove board President Phil Hewett and Vice President John Rothengast without cause: 659 in favor, 621 against. The remaining directors declined to fill the vacancies because a general election was near, and appointed Gayle Albertini and Tina McLamb as interim president and vice president.5FH Beacon. Election Update Residents who had pushed for the removal said the reconstituted board continued to advance the clubhouse project over community objections.6New Bern Sun Journal. Fairfield Harbour Residents Protest $6.5 Million Clubhouse, Ask POA Board for Voting Rights
On July 23, 2024, dozens of residents staged a peaceful protest outside the FHPOA office. The board limited public attendance at that day’s meeting to 10 people, citing an “extremely long agenda” and two executive sessions covering “appointments, disciplinary actions, and confidential legal issues.” Residents who had signed up in advance reported being turned away at the door.6New Bern Sun Journal. Fairfield Harbour Residents Protest $6.5 Million Clubhouse, Ask POA Board for Voting Rights
An organized resident group, the Fairfield Action Council for Truth and Support (FACTS), has since served as a clearinghouse for documents tied to the lawsuit and to board elections.7FH FACTS. Fairfield Action Council for Truth and Support
The North Carolina Legal Backdrop
The core legal question in the Ritter case is one North Carolina has been wrestling with for years: how much can a POA board decide on its own, and where does it need member approval? Rick Su, a professor at the UNC School of Law, told a local television station in 2023 that North Carolina POAs are “fairly unregulated,” and that boards can largely act as they see fit under private governance, leaving residents “along for the ride.”3WCTI12. Fairfield Harbour Community Divided Over POA Board’s Decision to Sell Undeveloped Land
The state’s Planned Community Act (Chapter 47F) governs the FHPOA, and Fairfield Harbour has been to appellate court before. In 2011, in Fairfield Harbour Property Owners Association, Inc. v. Drez, the North Carolina Court of Appeals held that the POA could not use assessment funds to purchase recreational amenities because the authority was not explicitly granted in the declaration. The General Assembly responded with Session Law 2013-34, which clarified that planned communities may rely on powers in their declarations, bylaws, and articles of incorporation, and may fall back on the Nonprofit Corporation Act where the declaration is silent, so long as nothing conflicts with the Planned Community Act.8Ward and Smith. Writing Some Wrongs: General Assembly Amends Planned Community Act and Condominium Act
That 2013 change broadened board authority. It did not draw a clear line around the kind of decisions residents in Fairfield Harbour are now contesting, which is why the Ritter plaintiffs are asking a court to draw one.
What to Watch
The lawsuit is in discovery, so no ruling on the merits has issued. The next signals to watch are dispositive motions after discovery closes, any ruling on the operative Second Amended Complaint, and whether the plaintiffs revive the injunctive relief they sought before withdrawing that motion in November 2025. Until the court rules, the board’s authority to spend and sell without a membership vote remains intact under the interpretation the FHPOA has followed.