Information on the SROA Executive Board Actions [Updated April 29, 2026]
Here is a quick recap of the “origins” documents that were among the most important sources I reviewed …”
From the “PLAN OF SUNRIVER,” signed June 20, 1968
SECTION 1 Definitions
1.15 “Semipublic recreational or service area” shall mean any area devoted to a service or recreational facility wh1ch is made available for use by the public as well as by residents of Sunriver as provided in Section 4.6 herein.
SECTION 4 Land Classifications and Uses within Sunriver
4.6 Semipublic recreational or service areas. Developer believes that it will be possible to make certain kinds of recreational and service facilities available to the residents of Sunriver on an economical basis only if the general public is allowed to use the facilities along with the residents of Sunriver on a fee basis. For example, it may be advantageous to residents of Sunriver to establish a marina. However, it may be possible to operate a marina on close to a self-supporting basis only if fees can be collected from the general public for use of the marina. Therefore, Developer may subject areas to the Plan of Sunriver which will constitute “semipublic recreational or service areas” if each of the following conditions is met:
(a) Provision must be made for the use of the facility by the residents of Sunriver and their guests in the manner permitted by the Sunriver Rules and Regulations.
(b) Fees charged residents of Sunriver and their guests for the use of the facility may be no higher than those charged members of the public for an equivalent use or service.
(c) Any net cash profits from the operation of the facility must be added to the maintenance fund.
SECTION 12 Miscellaneous Provisions
12.l Amendment and repeal.
(a) Unit owners owning 75 percent of the units may ; consent in writing to the amendment or repeal of a provision ‘or to the addition of a new provision; or
…
(d) At the meeting of the members at which the proposed amendment, provision for repeal or proposed additional provision is to be considered, the proposed amendment, provision for repeal or proposed additional provision shall be submitted to a vote of the members. The proposed amendment, provision for repeal or proposed additional provision shall be adopted upon receiving two thirds of the votes entitled to be cast by all of the members of the Association.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF Sunriver Properties, Inc. has caused this declaration setting forth the Plan of’ Sunriver to be executed this 20th day of June 1968.
SUNRIVER PROPERTIES, INC.
[Signed]
Donald V. McCallum, President
The following “Chorus of One” was published in the May 2026 issue of the Sunriver Scene:
Owners – Reclaim your golf course access!
By Paul Conte, 8 McKenzie Lane
Sunriver owners, who for many years enjoyed access to Sunriver’s two golf courses, have a promising opportunity to reverse Sunriver Resort’s exclusion of owners last year.
Legal documents produced in a Sunriver owner’s lawsuit against the Resort and the Sunriver Owners Association provide substantial evidence that the Resort has unlawfully interfered with owners’ golf course access that must be allowed under the terms of perpetual easements recorded with Deschutes County. (See Circuit Court Case No.: 25CV67889.)
The lawsuit further alleges that the SROA Board of Executives breached its fiduciary duty to SROA members by “Knowingly abdicating its duty to enforce the recorded deed restrictions and Consolidated Plan easements against Sunriver Resort’s April 2025 golf course privatization.”
If the Court decides in the plaintiff’s favor on these assertions, the Court would likely grant the plaintiff’s claim for relief, i.e., “Permanent injunction … prohibiting further exclusion of members from Golf Course … access in violation of recorded easements.”
Further, the Court would also likely issue the plaintiff’s requested “[p]ermanent injunction against SROA requiring SROA to take affirmative steps to enforce the recorded Golf Course and Marina easements against Sunriver Resort on behalf of the membership, and enjoining SROA from ratifying or accepting any further restriction on member access rights without a duly noticed 75%-member vote and independent legal review.”
No one can know for certain how the Court will rule. I can say only that, based on my experience with land use law and my “deep dive” into the numerous documents filed in support of the lawsuit, I believe that a) the intent of the founding legal documents for Sunriver was that owner access to the golf courses be guaranteed in perpetuity, b) there doesn’t appear to have been any vote by Sunriver owners to nullify that recorded guarantee, and c) the SROA Executive Board was obligated to at least pursue a defense of owners’ rights of access.
Instead, it appears the Board has unlawfully and irresponsibly decided behind closed doors to use SROA funds to defend their failure and, implicitly, to support the Resort’s actions against Sunriver owners.
In short, the Board has flouted statutory requirements to have a vote in an open Board meeting before retaining an attorney to represent the SROA. (See ORS 94.644(2)(c). As of publication deadline, the Board had not responded to my requests for comment.)
Visit SunriverNeighbors.org/lawsuit for further details and links to supporting legal documents.
Subsequently I received an email from the SROA’s attorney stating that the SROA did not “retain” the attorney; instead, the SROA’s insurance carrier retained the attorney to “represent” the SROA.
This reliance on semantics merely is a distinction without a difference. The SROA Executive Board would have had to vote to either initiate, or concur with the insurance company’s actions, to retain an outside attorney to defend the SROA Executive Board’s decision to not challenge Sunriver Resort’s privatization of the golf course. The fact remains that the SROA Executive Board appears to have violated ORS 94.644(2)(c), which is very clear:
“(c) A contract or an action considered in executive session is not effective unless the board, following the executive session, reconvenes in an open meeting and votes to approve the contract or action, which must be included in the minutes.“
What really matters is that a) The Board has chosen to side with the Resort against Sunriver owners’ interests, and b) By all appearances, the Board has tried to keep owners from understanding the whole lawsuit, including its potential impacts (the suit seeks over $7,000,000) and the key history and legal facts relevant to the case.
I won’t wade through all the details, but it boils down to the indisputable fact that in the early development periods of Sunriver, a legal “easement” was recorded that granted Sunriver owners perpetual rights to access the two golf courses and marina.
I have yet to see how the Resort responds to the lawsuit, but from studying the legal documents, I suspect they may claim that the land subject to the easement was “recategorized” in a much later document and that action
removed the marina and golf courses from the easement provisions.
I don’t pretend to know who is right on the legal merits, but in any case, the Board needs to come clean on its actions which on the face appear to be both improperly secretive and a betrayal of Sunriver owners.
What can you do?
Simple, submit your opinions to the Board, demanding they explain what’s going on and why they apparently made no attempt to protect Sunriver owners’ rights. Email the Board at: infosroa@srowners.org or use one of the alternative ways to let the Board know what you think:
Board of Directors | Sunriver Owners Association
[I will be uploading and/or posting links to some of the legal documents shortly. — PTC]
SUNRIVER NEIGHBORS 