09/09/2026
This information is being provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to resolve this case on social media. We want the Court to review the issues and make its decision through the proper legal process.
Because this is active litigation, the office staff will not be able to answer questions or discuss the case. Any Association communications regarding this matter will come from the Board of Trustees as appropriate. We appreciate everyone respecting that the office staff should not be placed in the middle of ongoing litigation.
COMMUNITY LITIGATION UPDATE
Bent Tree Harbor Association believes our members should be informed about litigation currently pending against the Association and, specifically, the relief Kevin Lamley is asking the Court to grant.
The case is Kevin Lamley v. Bent Tree Harbor Association, Case No. 26BE-CC00044, pending in the Circuit Court of Benton County, Missouri.
Mr. Lamley has now filed motions seeking Summary Judgment and a Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Interim Governance Relief.
These are significant requests. Mr. Lamley is not simply asking the Court for an interpretation of one provision of the governing documents.
Among the relief he is asking the Court to consider is:
• INVALIDATING ASSOCIATION ELECTIONS AND TRUSTEE APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Lamley challenges past Association elections and appointments and is asking the Court to determine that certain trustees were not validly elected or appointed.
What this could mean for the community:
If granted, actions taken by the current Board could become the subject of additional challenges, and the individuals currently responsible for operating the Association could be removed or prevented from acting.
MISSOURI LAW REGARDING BOARD VACANCIES
Missouri nonprofit-corporation law also addresses the filling of a vacancy on a board of directors. Section 355.361, RSMo, provides, in relevant part:
“Unless the articles or bylaws provide otherwise … if a vacancy occurs on a board of directors … [t]he board of directors may fill the vacancy; or … [i]f the directors remaining in office constitute fewer than a quorum of the board, they may fill the vacancy by the affirmative vote of a majority of all the directors remaining in office.”
The Association’s position is that its actions concerning Board vacancies and appointments were authorized under its governing documents and applicable Missouri law. Mr. Lamley disputes that position. The Court—not Mr. Lamley or the Association—will ultimately decide the disputed legal issues.
• REMOVING OR DISABLING CURRENT TRUSTEES
Mr. Lamley is seeking relief that could remove current directors/trustees or prevent the existing Board from continuing to exercise its normal authority.
What this could mean for the community:
The Board currently responsible for the day-to-day operation of Bent Tree Harbor could lose some or all of its authority while this litigation is pending.
MISSOURI LAW REGARDING COURT REMOVAL OF TRUSTEES
Missouri law provides a specific standard for a court to remove a nonprofit-corporation director. Section 355.356, RSMo, provides that a court may remove a director in a proceeding commenced by the corporation, by members holding at least ten percent of the voting power of a class, or in limited circumstances by the Attorney General, only if the Court finds:
“(1) The director engaged in fraudulent or dishonest conduct, or gross abuse of authority or discretion, with respect to the I'm coming what's up? What's up what you doing corporation, or a final judgment has been entered finding that the director has violated a duty” under the applicable statutes; and
“(2) Removal is in the best interest of the corporation.”
The lawsuit was filed in Kevin Lamley’s individual name. The Association does not understand the filing to be an authorized action taken on behalf of the Bent Tree Harbor membership as a whole or by members holding the statutory voting power required to seek judicial removal of Trustees.
The statute authorizes a court to remove a Trustee only upon the required findings. It does not itself provide for the Court to select replacement community leadership. Mr. Lamley’s separate request for interim or substitute governance is requested relief that remains disputed and has not been granted by the Court.
• COURT-APPOINTED OR SUBSTITUTE GOVERNANCE
Mr. Lamley has requested relief involving substitute, provisional, or court-appointed directors rather than governance being left with the current Bent Tree Harbor Board.
What this could mean for the community:
Individuals who were not selected through Bent Tree Harbor’s normal election or appointment process could potentially be placed in positions of authority over Association affairs if the Court granted that relief.
• A COURT-ORDERED NEW ELECTION
Mr. Lamley is asking the Court to require Bent Tree Harbor to conduct another election.
What this could mean for the community:
The Association could be required to conduct a new election before the underlying disputes concerning the previous elections and quorum calculations have been finally resolved.
A court-ordered election would also create additional Association expenses. Costs associated with preparing notices and ballots, printing, postage, conducting the vote, counting ballots, and any necessary professional or legal assistance would be paid from Association funds.
Association funds come from the revenue paid by Bent Tree Harbor property owners. Therefore, the cost of a forced or court-ordered election would be borne by the community.
• RESTRICTIONS ON ASSOCIATION SPENDING
Mr. Lamley’s request for injunctive relief raises concerns about the Board spending Association funds and asks the Court to restrict certain expenditures while the case is pending.
What this could mean for the community:
Restrictions on the Board’s spending authority could affect the Association’s ability to pay bills and address necessary Association expenses.
Bent Tree Harbor has continuing financial obligations, including insurance, utilities, maintenance, emergency work, professional services, wastewater operations, common-property expenses and other normal operating costs.
• RESTRICTIONS ON CONTRACTS
Mr. Lamley’s filing identifies the Board’s ability to enter into contracts as an activity he is asking the Court to restrict.
What this could mean for the community:
Depending upon the wording of any order entered by the Court, the Association’s ability to hire contractors, authorize repairs, purchase needed materials, arrange services or enter other agreements necessary to operate Bent Tree Harbor could be affected.
• RESTRICTIONS INVOLVING ASSOCIATION PROPERTY
The requested relief also raises the issue of Association asset or property transactions and seeks judicial restrictions over Board actions during the litigation.
What this could mean for the community:
The Board’s ability to make decisions involving Association-owned property or assets could potentially be restricted until the litigation is resolved or the Court grants further authority.
• RESTRICTIONS ON LEVYING ASSESSMENTS
Mr. Lamley’s emergency-relief arguments identify the Board’s ability to levy assessments as one of the actions about which he seeks court intervention.
What this could mean for the community:
A restriction affecting assessments could directly affect the Association’s ability to collect the revenue necessary to operate and maintain Bent Tree Harbor.
• RESTRICTIONS ON ENFORCING ASSOCIATION POLICIES
His filing also identifies enforcement of Association policies as an activity of the Board that he seeks to place under court restriction.
What this could mean for the community:
Depending upon any order entered, enforcement of Association rules, policies and other governing requirements could potentially be affected.
• RESTRICTIONS ON APPOINTING TRUSTEES
Mr. Lamley’s requested relief also challenges the Board’s authority concerning trustee appointments.
What this could mean for the community:
If a vacancy occurred, the Association’s normal ability to fill that vacancy under its governing documents could potentially be restricted.
• RESTRICTIONS ON HOLDING ELECTIONS
His emergency-relief request also identifies the Board’s ability to conduct elections.
What this could mean for the community:
Future Association elections or the Board’s authority to administer those elections could potentially become subject to court supervision or restriction.
• CHANGING HOW BENT TREE HARBOR DETERMINES VOTING POWER AND QUORUM
A central issue in Mr. Lamley’s litigation concerns how Bent Tree Harbor determines voting power and quorum.
Bent Tree Harbor’s governing documents provide voting rights based upon lot ownership. An eligible owner is entitled to one vote for each eligible lot owned, and the quorum provisions refer to members representing eligible votes.
The Association disputes Mr. Lamley’s interpretation and will defend its interpretation of the governing documents through the court process.
THE FINANCIAL IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY
There is also a direct financial impact from this litigation.
Mr. Lamley is representing himself in this lawsuit. The Association, however, has retained legal counsel to defend Bent Tree Harbor, respond to the motions being filed, protect the Association’s legal position, and represent the interests of the Association in court.
Those attorney fees and litigation expenses are paid from Association funds.
Association funds come from the revenue paid by Bent Tree Harbor property owners and are the same funds used for the operation and maintenance of the community.
That means money spent defending this lawsuit is money that cannot be used for other Association needs such as roads, maintenance, utilities, insurance, wastewater operations, repairs, common property, equipment and other community expenses.
As additional pleadings, motions, hearings or other litigation activity occur, additional attorney time may be required and additional legal expenses may be incurred.
The Association did not choose to initiate this litigation. It must nevertheless respond to the claims and defend itself when a plaintiff asks a court to remove or restrict its governing Board, invalidate Association actions, restrict its operations and alter the way the Association is governed.
The legal cost of that defense is ultimately borne by the Association and therefore affects the membership financially.
THE ASSOCIATION’S POSITION
Kevin Lamley is the individual plaintiff who filed this lawsuit.
It is the Association’s position that Mr. Lamley’s individual litigation positions and the relief he is asking the Court to impose should not be characterized as representing the wishes or position of the Bent Tree Harbor membership as a whole.
Mr. Lamley has the right to pursue his claims through the court. Likewise, Bent Tree Harbor Association has both the right and the responsibility to defend the Association, its governing structure, its ability to continue operating, and the interests of its membership against the relief being requested.
The Association is asking the Court to deny the relief requested by Mr. Lamley.
IMPORTANT DISTINCTION
Everything described above is RELIEF REQUESTED BY MR. LAMLEY.
These requests are not findings by the Court.
They are not a determination that the Board acted improperly.
They are not a determination that an election was invalid.
They are not a determination that trustees should be removed.
They are not a determination that Bent Tree Harbor should be placed under court-appointed governance.
Unless and until the Court enters an order granting particular relief, these matters remain allegations and disputed legal positions in pending litigation.
MEMBERS MAY REVIEW THE COURT FILINGS THEMSELVES
Members who would like to review the actual court filings do not have to rely upon the Association’s summary or anyone else’s interpretation of the case.
The case is a public court proceeding and can be searched through Missouri Case.net.
Search for:
Kevin Lamley v. Bent Tree Harbor Association
Case No. 26BE-CC00044
Members are encouraged to review the actual filings if they want to understand precisely what has been requested of the Court.
Because this is active litigation, the Association will not attempt to try the case through Facebook, social media or community rumor. We will, however, continue to provide factual information to the membership when significant developments occur.
Bent Tree Harbor Association
Board of Trustees
September 9,2026
