The Big Canoe POA’s ill advised lawsuit against the Big Canoe Developer has captured a lot of community attention. It has also cracked open what may be the biggest, longest-buried can of worms in Big Canoe history. Our first article in this series provided links to several historical documents.
This article provides more. Much more important documents. Documents that have been hidden from community view for almost 50 years. Documents that the POA has, but won’t publicly share, acknowledge, or discuss. How do I know? Because I (david hopkins, property owner & publisher of FOBC) personally provided some of these documents to the POA (and the Developer) several years ago. Sources say that at the time it caused some panic inside the POA, and that for several weeks a lot of money was spent having their attorneys review them.
BACKGROUND
Years ago I purchased a stake in the Horsefarm down Steve Tate Rd across from the Ace Hardware. In researching deeds to try and find out what sort of water rights I might have, I stumbled across a 1973 Easement that related to the property. This led to finding two more supplemental 1973 and 1975 Easements. Then the real whopper – the 1977 Easement. These documents added real potential value to my stake in the property – and they caught the attention of some Land Developers, bringing quiet attention to those Easements from outside vulture-like Developers.
At the time I also shared those Easements with the Big Canoe POA, and the Big Canoe Developer. This is not new information to either of them. As mentioned, the POA’s response was to panic, and try and find a way to hide yet another thing from Property Owners.
The Developer, on the other hand, was smart enough to realize the implications, and realizing the cat was out of the bag – they quickly moved to purchase substantial swathes of the land most strongly impacted by these Easements. In doing so they were not only protecting their own interests – they were also protecting the Community Interests of Big Canoe, GA.
WHAT ARE THESE EASEMENTS?
These are old recorded documents that are part of the original legal and financial architecture surrounding Big Canoe’s early development. In the early 1970’s, Big Canoe was not the mature gated community it is today. It was a massive & expensive infrastructure development project involving roads, lakes, dams, utilities, financing, land sales, collateral, out-parcels, and future development plans.
The Big Canoe Developer controlled large land holdings. Some of that land became what we now think of as Big Canoe. Some was carved off, some was pledged, some was sold. And some of it appears to have retained certain recorded access rights. That is where the danger starts, because when a gated community grows out of a much larger original land package, old rights can survive in ways that later residents never understood.
These are the same documents that allowed Ken Rice to arm-twist the POA & Developer into Annexing Waterford decades ago – because the Waterford Property is one of those properties impacted by these Easements.
Let me paraphrase for emphasis how that conversation generally went about 25 years ago. Ken Rice told the POA,
“If you don’t work with me to allow me to Annex the property responsibly into Big Canoe, then I will build a Trailer Park, and I will give every one of my Trailer Park Tenants direct access into the Gates of Big Canoe. And there is Not a Damn Thing you can do to stop me!”
Are you starting to get the picture of how serious these access rights are? Ken Rice knew exactly what he had. And it isn’t just Waterford. The affected lands include the land between Hubbard & Afton Road, land across Steve Tate near Home Restaurant, the long (and beautiful) 80-acre tract just north of the Wildcat Neighborhood, and more.
The 1973 Easements cover an even larger swath of properties, including Potts Mountain, the Horse Farm across from the Ace Hardware, and the old Jurassic Parts Warehouse land behind the Chevron down on Hwy 53.
YES! These access rights do stretch all the way to Hwy 53 – because they involve ALL the original land owned by the Original Developer back in 1972. During the early developer bankruptcy proceedings of the 1980’s, much of that land was carved up and sold to stay financially afloat – but these Easements survived in perpetuity. That means FOREVER!
THE REAL ISSUE IS CONTROL
Let me be clear about what this article is, and what it is not. I am not claiming these documents automatically hand outside parcels free Big Canoe golf, pools, tennis, or full Amenity rights. That is not the point. The point is far more important than free golf.
The point is access. A gated community does not have to lose control of its golf course to have a major problem. It only has to lose control over its gates. If outside landowners, developers, contractors, tenants, invitees, guests, or buyers can make even a plausible legal claim to enter or cross Big Canoe roads based on old recorded documents, that matters. It matters to security. It matters to development. It matters to property values. It matters to the basic understanding people have when they buy into a controlled, gated mountain community. And make no mistake – these easements are as ironclad, binding, and enforceable as the Big Canoe Covenants themselves!
People pay to live in Big Canoe because it is controlled, private, managed, and protected. Not perfect – obviously – but controlled. If the POA cannot clearly explain who has legal access rights through those gates, then the POA has a serious governance problem. If it can explain it but refuses to, then it has an even bigger transparency problem.
To put the strength of these documents in context: at the time they were drafted, the Original Developer was in financial difficulty. The Financiers (Grantees) to these transactions – led by 1st National Bank of Atlanta – wanted the value of their collateral as high as they could get it, and they weren’t using bucketshop attorneys. I can assure you they drafted ironclad Easement documents. These run with the land. They are enforceable today. They will be enforceable 100 years from now. Pretending they don’t exist, or worse – lying to the property owners about their existence – is dumb, and possibly illegal, for our POA Board to attempt.
THE 1973 DOCUMENTS MAY MATTER MOST
The 1977 Easement gets a lot of attention because it is tied to Waterford and later development history – but the 1973 access documents may be the bigger issue. Where 1977 grants Access rights to the Owners & Assignees of the affected lands, 1973 extended and strengthened those access rights to Owners, Assignees AND “their lessees, tenants and invitees”.
So let’s put that into perspective with some examples.
(1) If Potts Mountain ever developed to allow public access to hiking, camping, etc., they could sell “Day Passes” into and through the Big Canoe gates as part of a Package deal. (2) If apartment complexes were developed down by Hwy 53, their tenants could access the gates anytime they wanted. (3) The Dollar General could sell “Guest Tour Packages of Big Canoe” – a guest pass to drive through the gates of Big Canoe. (4) Any local Realtor owning property in the affected area could allow “guests, as potential buyers” to access the gates and drive through Big Canoe, exploring unescorted. (5) If the Developer wants built a mini-Amicalola Lodge on the mountaintop of the 80 acres just north of Wildcat, their guests could have access through the gates. All of this without being Assessment-Paying “POA Members” of the community.
Now combine that access with the 1988 Declarations – Article IV, Section 5: “..the Association shall not have the right to prohibit or unreasonably interfere with the entry of members of the general public to the Currently Covenanted Property if said persons are entering for the purpose of using the facilities of any inns or restaurants..” and you basically have anyone already inside the gates using the Clubhouse, and then an enforcement nightmare of how to keep them out of the hiking trails, parks, and other common areas. You basically lose control. And there is NOTHING that can be done legally to change this situation – and my understanding is that the POA Attorney has made this crystal clear to the POA Board!!!
THE HUBBARD ROAD EXAMPLE
Recently everyone was talking about a property for sale off Hubbard Road, well outside the gates. It is 1785 Hubbard Rd, and here is an excerpt from the listing (now under contract):
The owner of this home can enjoy the Big Canoe golf club, fitness center, boating, fishing, hiking trails… all while living on private acreage.
Now – I am not going to overstate that listing. It does not by itself prove legal amenity rights, and I am not claiming it does. But it proves something important: the market confusion already exists. People outside the gates are already connecting outside land to Big Canoe benefits in their marketing. Old documents, perceived access, real estate value, and Big Canoe’s controlled-gate identity are already colliding in the marketplace. And make no mistake – there are land sections in the 1977 Easement that have Amenity & Golf access rights – so it gets confusing.
And even if a given claim is wrong, the POA still has to deal with it. Who corrects the listing? Who explains the legal position? Who tells Property Owners whether the claim has any basis? DON’T TAKE MY WORD – ASK THE POA HOW THIS IS BEING HANDLED. There must be a good explanation, right?
THE DEVELOPER’S ROLE
Here is where some people are not going to like what I have to say. My observation is that the Big Canoe Developer (the current team) may have done the community a favor by acquiring and controlling some of the affected outside tracts. Anyone who really knows me and my history with the Developer knows I never imagined that phrase would come out of my mouth. 😀 But facts are facts.
If old access rights exist around Big Canoe, the identity of whoever controls the affected land matters a lot. Would Property Owners rather have those lands controlled by the current Developer, who at least has an ongoing relationship with the community? Or by an outside production builder, an apartment developer, a hostile speculator, or some vulture fund looking for leverage? Can you imagine a Pulte Homes, or one of the big strip developers over by Hwy 400, deciding they wanted to develop one of these tracts and weaponize the access rights that come with it?
The responsible strategy is to identify the risk, quietly control the risk, negotiate where needed, and keep dangerous outside interests from weaponizing the old documents. From what I can see, the Developer has been doing some version of exactly that.
THE LAWSUIT PROBLEM
Meanwhile, our stupid, Stupid, STUPID POA BOARD has decided the better path forward is to totally piss off the Developer in an extremely public legal fight they have basically zero chance of winning.
Here is the problem with litigation: it changes everything. Litigation forces documents into the open. It creates discovery, sworn positions, public attention, and legal arguments that reach far beyond the narrow issue the POA thought it was fighting about. That is the problem with opening a can of worms – you do not get to decide which worms crawl out.
The POA may have thought it was filing a lawsuit about one access road, one Developer dispute, one Waterford issue. What it may have actually done is invite Property Owners to ask a much bigger question: what has the POA known for years about old access rights around Big Canoe, and why has it never publicly explained them? My sources tell me:
(a) the POA knows it can’t win – but is proceeding solely to try and save face with a small but angry and uninformed band of Waterford Residents.
NOTE: this is NOT a valid reason to file litigation using Property Owner funds, just to save face and kick the can to a future Board.
(b) the Developer is finally losing patience with the POA, after having tried and tried and tried to work with the POA.
WHAT THE POA SHOULD HAVE DONE
The POA should have handled this like adults. It should have built a complete internal map of every outside parcel that may carry any recorded access, road, or easement claim involving Big Canoe. It should have prepared a plain-English summary for Property Owners explaining what access rights are real, what are disputed, what were resolved, and what remain uncertain.
It should have explained the Waterford history honestly, the Developer relationship honestly, and the legal risks honestly – before filing. It should have explained what settlement options were considered, what the expected cost would be, and whether this lawsuit could expose other access issues.
Instead, Property Owners got the usual mushroom treatment. Kept in the dark. Fed manure. Asked to pay the bills. That is not governance. That is arrogance.
THE CAN OF WORMS IS NOW OPEN
So here is where we are. The strongest issue is not whether some outside parcel gets free Big Canoe golf. The stronger issue is that Big Canoe appears to have a serious, under-discussed, poorly disclosed access-rights problem involving old recorded documents and outside lands.
The POA has known enough to owe Property Owners a real explanation. The Developer may have been protecting the community by controlling affected lands before more hostile outside interests could get them. And the POA’s lawsuit may have exposed the entire subject in a way the Board did not fully understand.
Big Canoe’s greatest vulnerability is not whether somebody can play free golf. It is whether the POA can maintain control of the gates, the roads, and the access points that make Big Canoe what it is. The POA thought it was suing the Developer. It may have sued its way into a title-history examination of Big Canoe itself. And now that the can of worms is open, it is not getting closed again.
Luckily the Big Canoe Developer has bought up and protected most of the affected tracts of land. So how about we stop pissing them off with frivolous lawsuits!?!?!
Below are links to the Easements. Exhibit C in 1977, and Exhibit A in 1973, will be difficult for average lay people to interpret, as they are in Metes and Bounds (text) terminology – and not visible Plats, but most of the major parcels have been identified in the article.
1973 Permanent Access Easement – 12 Page PDF
1973 1st Supplement to Permanent Access Easement – 3 Page PDF
1975 2nd Supplement to Permanent Access Easement – 19 Page PDF
1977 Easement Agreement – 15 Page PDF
1977 Easement Agreement (Exhibits A, B, C, D) – 44 Page PDF
PPS… this article was so long that I will wait till the next one to release the information regarding those behind the ill intentioned, misinformation spreading PreserveBigCanoe.com website.
NOTE: Those anonymous (for now) authors should probably read the actual legal documents before playing wannabe-attorneys regarding the rights to cut that roadway in across from the Meadows. You are just making a mockery of the legal process, and fools of yourselves. Just saying 😀
Peace,
— david, Property Owner, FOBC Editor / June 3 2026
Be the first to comment